By Pexcel John Bacon
THE government should tighten beneficiary selection rules, improve spending transparency and limit politicians’ discretion in distributing cash assistance to prevent social welfare programs from reinforcing political patronage, political analysts said.
“The solution is not to reduce social assistance but to strengthen the institutions responsible for delivering it,” Ederson DT. Tapia, a political science professor at the University of Makati, said in a Facebook Messenger chat. “We should be expanding social protection while reducing the opportunities for political discretion and interference.”
Mr. Tapia said beneficiaries should be selected using transparent, verifiable and consistently applied eligibility criteria rather than political endorsements or personal referrals. Assistance should also be delivered through professional administrative channels, preferably through secure direct payments and accessible grievance mechanisms.
He called for consistent enforcement of restrictions on politicians’ involvement in aid distribution, including outside election periods, to prevent public assistance from being used to cultivate political support.
The government should disclose how public funds are allocated and spent while protecting beneficiaries’ privacy and dignity, he said.
“Citizens should be able to determine where public resources go, under what criteria they are distributed, and whether intended beneficiaries actually receive them,” he said.
The recommendations come amid scrutiny of changes to social assistance funding in the House of Representatives’ version of the proposed P7.2-trillion 2027 national budget.
The House increased funding for the Assistance to Individuals in Crisis Situations to P58.1 billion from the P33.3 billion proposed under the national expenditure program. The Medical Assistance to Indigent and Financially Incapacitated Patients program received P48.2 billion, while the Tulong Panghanapbuhay sa Ating Disadvantaged/Displaced Workers program was allocated P19 billion.
Mr. Tapia said social welfare is a government responsibility, not a personal favor from elected officials. Presenting taxpayer-funded assistance as a politician’s personal contribution can make beneficiaries feel indebted to those involved in its distribution.
“The relationship shifts from one of citizenship and public accountability to one of personal obligation and political indebtedness,” he said.
Mr. Tapia warned that personalizing aid could weaken democratic accountability by shifting attention from government performance to individual politicians’ ability to provide immediate assistance.
“Instead of asking whether public institutions are performing effectively, we begin asking which politician can help us,” he said.
He said administrative safeguards alone would not eliminate political patronage, which thrives when public institutions are weak, social protection is fragmented and access to assistance depends heavily on discretion.
“We cannot expect to dismantle political patronage simply by prohibiting politicians from appearing in distribution ceremonies,” he said, adding that reforms should address the conditions that allow political intermediaries to claim personal credit for public services.
Dennis C. Coronacion, chairman of the University of Santo Tomas Department of Political Science, said institutional safeguards have helped limit political patronage in some social welfare programs, particularly the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program.
The program uses data-driven beneficiary targeting through the Listahanan system managed by the Department of Social Welfare and Development, limiting local politicians’ control over who gets enrolled or removed, he said.
“This shifts the constituent mindset from viewing aid as a personal favor from a local politician to an institutionalized support provided by the state,” Mr. Coronacion said.
Mr. Coronacion cited research conducted by his thesis students last year. Data from a local government unit in Metro Manila challenged their initial assumption that government subsidies were being used by local politicians to build patronage.
However, some local officials continue to use social welfare programs to build political support despite safeguards in beneficiary selection, he said.
Local officials can still act as facilitators or gatekeepers of information about assistance programs even when enrollment processes are automated.
Some politicians also display their names, faces or slogans on distribution banners, payout venues and relief packs to claim credit for government assistance, a practice commonly known in the Philippines as “epal,” he added.