MOST Filipinos oppose the decreased budget for education, agriculture, and the public health sector, based on the national survey of WR Numero Philippine Public Opinion Monitor.
The survey tackled the position of Filipinos about the approved national budget for 2025. It was conducted from February 10 to 18, 2025 through face-to-face interviews with a national sample of 1,814 Filipinos ages 18 and older.
Around 58 percent of Filipinos believed that reducing the budget for education, especially the Department of Education (DepEd), Commission on Higher Education (Ched), Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (Tesda), and other education-related units contradicts the mandate – to prioritize the education sector. However, around 23 percent disagreed and 19 percent said they were unsure.
In terms of agriculture, about 56 percent of Filipinos believed that reducing the budget would increase the prices of food and further push farmers and fisherfolk to poverty, while about 27 percent disagreed and 18 percent is uncertain.
Also, around 53 percent believe that the reduced budget of the Department of Health (DOH) and the removal of government subsidies for PhilHealth may hinder access of the public to healthcare. About 31 percent opposed this notion and 17 percent said that they were unsure.
Meanwhile, Filipinos were divided on whether the budget signed by President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. only advances the interest of some politicians rather than the Filipinos. Around 39 percent agreed with the statement, 27 percent expressed disagreement, and 35 percent said that they were uncertain.
At a regional level, 51 percent of Filipinos from Metro Manila believed that the budget reflects the priorities of politicians rather than the public, while most of the respondents from Mindanao and Luzon share the same sentiments with 41 percent and 37 percent respectively. On the other hand, in Visayas, the people are divided with 33 percent who agree and 31 percent who disagree.
Across income classes, it was revealed that the majority of Filipinos in class ABC or 53 percent agree that the national budget benefits politicians more than the general public, those in class D and E hold the same sentiments with 38 percent.
Around 51 percent of Filipinos also believed that the large budget of the Ayuda para sa Kapos (Akap) program might be used as a tool by politicians to push for their self-interest, especially during the campaign season for the upcoming election.
Dabawenyos sentiments
Rin Carbonilla, animal welfare volunteer and advocate of coexistence with wildlife, told SunStar Davao that she, too, is dismayed and frustrated over the reduced budget in the education, agriculture, and health sectors, citing that these three sustain the nation. She said that if this continues, the Philippines would not be able to escape poverty.
“Mas gitagaan pa ug bili ang big projects like expansion and tourism when dapat ang mga Pinoy ang unahon, ang mga tawo mismo (The big projects like expansion and tourism are given more value when it should be the Filipinos who should be prioritized, the people themselves),” she said.
Carbonilla added that aside from prioritizing these three sectors, the government should pour efforts into spreading awareness on responsible pet ownership, and fund projects to curb stray populations such as spay and neutering. She stressed that there is also a need to strengthen laws on animal abuse crimes since the number of animal cruelty acts is increasing.
Reyland Alfeche, a worker residing in Sandawa, Davao City, said that the reduction of the budget for these sectors is concerning since this has a direct impact on the national development and health of Filipinos. He highlighted how all three sectors play a critical role in the lives of Filipinos.
“It is important that the government review its priorities so that these sectors are properly supported,” he said.
“A balanced national budget should fulfill current requirements as well as pave the way for long-term developments,” he added.
Alfeche then stressed that the government should prioritize these three sectors since funding for education creates an innovative and competitive nation, funding on healthcare ensures a productive workforce, and funding for agriculture enhances food security and economic resilience.
The survey had a margin of error of two percent and a confidence level of 95 percent. The respondents were then asked to voice their agreement or disagreement on the key issues of the national budget. RGP
