| Photo by Frank Lloyd de la Cruz on Unsplash
According to the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) report published in December 2023, “the first semester 2023 poverty incidence among the population or the proportion of poor Filipinos whose per capita income is not sufficient to meet their basic food and non-food needs was estimated at 22.4 percent or 25.24 million Filipinos. On average, a family of five will need at least PhP13,797 per month to meet their minimum basic food and non-food needs in the first semester of 2023.
On the other hand, subsistence incidence among Filipinos, or the proportion of Filipinos whose income is not enough to buy even the basic food needs, was registered at 8.7 percent or about 9.79 million Filipinos in the first semester of 2023. On average, the monthly food threshold for a family of five in the same period was estimated at PhP 9,550. Further, among families, in the First Semester of 2023, poverty incidence was estimated at 16.4 percent, which was equivalent to 4.51 million poor families. Meanwhile, the subsistence incidence among families has been recorded at 5.9 percent or about 1.62 million food-poor families in the first semester of 2023.”
This 2023 PSA report is not exactly glowing. In addition, the DSWD has been authorized to enroll up to 4.4 million in the 4Ps program under the 2023 National General Appropriations Act (GAA), which excludes those families from the count of families living below the poverty line based on total eligibility benefits.
There are 10-12 million overseas Filipinos, including about 2 million contract workers (OFWs). The families they support back in the Philippines live ‘la vida loca’ and definitely not below the poverty line. They are part of the mall crowds filling up theaters, arenas, shopping outlets, dining places, etc. Some even live in condominiums in BGC or other developments, happily receiving ‘padala’ monthly. Depending on family size, these dependent family members currently number around 30-40 million Filipinos.
All told, around 70 million Filipinos are, in one way or another, ‘poor’ or otherwise poor without support from elsewhere. Nearly 2 million work in the government. It becomes evident that almost 80% of Filipinos get by without the government.
“Hence, we have the political leadership that we have, one that is bought and paid for. The more severe the poverty, the more malleable the voter – brilliant, elegant, simple, brutal, but effective. Why alleviate poverty when one can wield it as a weapon?”
Yet, the Philippine national budget keeps growing by leaps and bounds. The most high-profile, high-budget infrastructure projects are financed through public-private partnerships where the government spends exactly zero and collects a revenue share. The NAIA modernization program recently bid out where the government stands to collect nearly P900B over 25 years from its 83% revenue share.
The National Tax Allocation (NTA), formerly called the Internal Revenue Allocation (IRA), as mandated under the Local Government Code, continues to use an arcane formula where tax allocations are primarily based on population. That said, it becomes clear why informal settlers (formerly known as squatters) are openly tolerated, particularly when the national population census is taken. The higher the population, the greater the tax revenue share. So, if Pedro decides to migrate to the city from the countryside, the funding goes with him, thus leaving his hometown destitute without realizing what he has just done.
Had Pedro stayed put, tax allotments for his hometown would have remained the same or increased if he had children in his hometown. Currently, as the tax allotments are calculated, the cities, by definition, are more affluent; hence, the declaration of a city gets more funding than the poorer municipalities in the more rural areas, thereby perpetuating the cycle of poverty. It is time to modify the old math and base tax allocations on the local GDP – the lower the incomes of local municipalities, the greater their share of the allocation should be. It alleviates internal diaspora and fosters rural development.
Then there’s the unwillingness of rural politicians to allocate more funding for local livelihood projects on the pretext that such projects are doomed to failure, not because of the beneficiaries but because the funding is never up to the scale required for viability.
The most sinister interpretation leads a full circle to poverty being used as a weapon of control. Imagine a prosperous population being bribed by-election candidates, simply a formula that will not work. With poverty, on the other hand, some kilos of rice and canned sardines plus a smattering of cash, the electorate becomes susceptible to manipulation of the worst kind. Hence, we have the political leadership that we have, one that is bought and paid for. The more severe the poverty, the more malleable the voter – brilliant, elegant, simple, brutal, but effective. Why alleviate poverty when one can wield it as a weapon?
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Dr. Crispin Fernandez advocates for overseas Filipinos, public health, transformative political change, and patriotic economics. He is also a community organizer, leader, and freelance writer.
