UP’s budget stagnates: what does it mean for higher ed and the pandemic?
By Fil Andrew E. Bagano
The University of the Philippines should prepare to tighten its belt with its 19.6 billion pesos NEP proposed budget for 2021 [1]. Out of this fund, 15.5 billion will be used to continue existing programs, activities, and projects (P/A/Ps) [2], leaving around 4 billion for new initiatives. With the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) current estimates of 2.5% inflation for 2020 [3], this budget is even smaller than UP’s 18.69 billion for this year [4].
Such a lack of funds will affect the UP System’s ability to accommodate its students, faculty, and staff in terms of logistics and salary, respectively. And while alumni-driven private initiatives, such as donation drives and the recent laptop donation scheme, may somewhat help, they are band-aid solutions that can only be solved by adequate funding. Without enough funding, UP cannot spend enough to teach and reach out to its students, much less adequately compensate its professors and frontliners in Diliman and Philippine General Hospital.
Are there potential government-led solutions to this problem? The unlikely hero may be Bayanihan to Recover as One Act (Bayanihan 2), the government’s socio-economic recovery act. The bill, which carries a total of 165.5 billion pesos, provides additional priority funding to the PGH’s operational budget, which will likely help UP’s budget for this and next year. [5]
But while the law has noble aims, the public should remain wary. After all, as an emergency law, Bayanihan 2 provides less strict conditions for procurement and distribution. For example, the law funds a round of subsidies for locally stranded individuals and low-income households. This is a successor of the Social Amelioration Program (SAP) of the Bayanihan to Heal as One Act (Bayanihan 1): the same SAP alleged of uneven implementation, unfair selection processes, and political patronage. As the same institutions will implement this program, it pays to be vigilant.
Another way is to ask for more funding from Congress. This is a feasible route, as evidenced by how it augmented more than 3 billion pesos from the original 15.4 billion proposals [6]. Still, with no clear end to the pandemic, budget committees may be less eager to raise it. More likely, appropriations will be (aptly) refocused to health, like the 7.6 billion pesos realigned from SUCs this year. [7]
Funding issues are not peculiar to UP, nor is it important only to higher education. State colleges and universities’ (SUCs) funds have always been connected to politics, but with the pandemic, it has broadened into a complex social issue. The current COVID-19 situation unmasks Philippine’s lacking efforts to fund and train its medical professionals. Case in point: If even UP-PGH, as one of the country’s premier medical institutions, cannot train enough doctors to provide to its community, how much more for other institutions? Even brain drain cannot account for this: we simply do not invest enough in our medical capacity.
Of course, this is not a problem current budget managers can fully prioritize right now. But as more humans travel and as more cases are being reported, it is essential for public health and policy to keep up with both. After all, we cannot always rely on public relations to salvage our international reputation.
[1] https://www.dbm.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/NEP2021/SUCS/A/A8.pdf
[3] https://mb.com.ph/2020/05/06/bsp-sees-2-5-average-inflation-in-2021/
[4] https://www.dbm.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/GAA/GAA2020/VolumeI/SUCS/A.pdf
[5] https://rappler.com/nation/senate-ratifies-bayanihan-2-bill-billions-fund-pandemic-response
[6] https://www.dbm.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/NEP2020/SUCS/A/A8.pdf
[7] https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1276303/infra-education-budgets-get-big-cuts
