ZAMBOANGA CITY (MindaNews/ 16 December)–Zamboanga del Norte 3rd District solon, Congressional Representative Adrian Michael “Ian” Amatong clarified that the P9,238,515,000 figure represents a DPWH-computed budget ceiling for the district, not an amount allocated to or controlled by the legislator.

“This was made clear by the Philippine Center of Investigative Journalism (PCIJ), and this should not be read by the people as the amount that personally went to the congressman,” Amatong said.

On November 29, 2025, the PCIJ released an infographic that showed the congressmen that had “allocables” in the years of 2023 to 2025. The infographic showed Amatong on the 7th rank, with an allocable of  P3,069,505,000 for every year on the average, or for a total of P9,238,515,000 as total allocable for the 3 years.

Amatong’s concerns are rooted in the fact that he represents one of the poorest districts in the Philippines, where 53.1% of residents live in poverty and public trust remains essential to effective governance, he said. “Every day is a struggle to bring in even the most basic support. Such is the very reason I guard my integrity with everything I have: because in a place where people have so little, trust in their leaders is one of the few things that they hold onto,” the representative told MindaNews in a phone interview via Messenger.

“Since the publication of the article titled, “Allocables’ are the new pork” by Guinevere Latoza, I have been on the receiving end of attacks from people who now use the PCIJ article to malign me. I do not have the machinery to counter the impression created by national publications. This is why I am consenting to this interview because I believe in accountability, fairness, and the importance of responsible investigative journalism,” he lamented.

Amatong pointed out excerpts in the article by writer Latoza and said these should be made clear and clarified to the people.

Amatong took issue with portions of the article that characterized allocables as a “new form of pork.”

He reacted that describing allocables as “discretionary” and “politically motivated” merely repeats the language of an advocacy coalition, but Latoza does not independently demonstrate how these funds actually operate or who wields discretion over them. No factual basis is shown to prove that lawmakers have control over these ceilings. Without establishing legislative discretion or authority, this argument cannot stand.

The article also said, “Former DPWH undersecretary Maria Catalina Cabral explained that it is the ‘ceiling budget’ that each engineering office gets and is based on a ‘parametric formula’ that her chief, former secretary Manuel Bonoan, instructed her to make.”

The Zamboanga del Norte solon said a ceiling budget is not an allocation, as the article mentioned. It is merely the maximum amount an engineering district may plan within. This parametric formula is created entirely by the DPWH, which means lawmakers neither design, influence, nor even see the computation, he said. “To suggest, even indirectly, that these theoretical ceilings reflect political discretion on the part of legislators is misleading and logically untenable,” he said.

He stressed, “If the genuine objective is to understand how power is exercised in the national budget, then would it not be more appropriate to rank legislators based on actual allocations? How can a ceiling that remains entirely theoretical be even presented as a yardstick for political power?”

Latoza further wrote, “Although the Supreme Court has declared pork barrel unconstitutional, there is automatic DPWH “pork” for district congressmen called ‘allocable.’” and “Allocables are the current form of pork barrel but with a difference: The total amounts are determined by the executive… and are itemized and decided on before the budget is enacted.

”

Amatong said that, “The author calls allocables ‘the new pork,’ yet the very distinctions she herself cites are exactly what make them not pork in the Philippine context. If the executive determines the total amounts, then lawmakers have no post-enactment discretion over these ceilings. This matters because post-enactment authority is the defining trait that rendered the old pork unconstitutional.” He then cited a Supreme Court decision in Belgica v. Ochoa (G.R. No. 208566), “its post-enactment features dilute congressional oversight and violate Section 14, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, thus impairing public accountability.”

Amatong emphasized, “Allocables grant no such authority. This should have been the immediate context provided in the article and even the headline. Lazota’s article also acknowledges that allocables are identified before the budget is enacted, which means they undergo the regular, lawful budget process, just like every other line item. They are therefore scrutinized within the same legislative process that governs the entire national budget.”

On the framing of pork, Amatong remarked that author Latoza cites that “the Supreme Court has declared pork barrel as unconstitutional”—which pertains specifically to the corruption-linked PDAF and CDF, not to “pork barrel” in the broad or neutral sense the author now claims to have intended.”

Amatong then cited the Society of Professional Journalists warning journalists to “take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify.” He further quoted the Reuters Handbook as it cautions that “stories must not be written to arrive at a pre-shaped conclusion. Yet the article placed legislators’ names—including mine—beside a large sum of money and the word “pork,” a term historically and culturally tied to corruption. What outcome did the author realistically expect from such framing?”

He then stressed, “If the article truly did not intend to imply wrongdoing, why were our names featured in the infographic at all—especially when the supposed “allocables” in our district are merely DPWH’s own internal computation?”

He then ended by lamenting that “by deliberately choosing this framing, the piece appears to have worked backward from a desired conclusion and arranged its elements to support that narrative. The author cannot rely on a single paragraph explaining the distinctions between allocables and pork when the overall framing of the article creates an impression of misconduct that the evidence simply does not support.” (Frencie L. Carreon, MindaNews)