Cebu City approves P14.6B 2025 budget

The Cebu City Government’s P14.6 billion annual budget for 2025 was approved on Friday, December 25, with significant cuts to four programs, each reduced to only P1, and two allocations reduced to zero.

The approved budget also reflects a nearly P3.3 billion cut from Mayor Raymond Alvin Garcia’s proposed P17.9 billion, seven councilors opposed the cut.

The mayor now has limited time to review the approved budget and can veto certain provisions if he finds them unsatisfactory.

Interim Vice Mayor Nestor Archival presided over the December 27, 2024 “hybrid” special session in the absence of Vice Mayor Donaldo Hontiveros. Some councilors attended in person in the meeting room, while others joined via an online Zoom conference.

With eight votes in favor and seven against, the council approved the budget for 2025. Funding sources include 17.3 billion lei from the general fund and 1.9 billion lei from special accounts.

The City Council allocated 2.5 billion lei for personal services, 10.7 billion lei for maintenance and other operating expenses (MOOE) and 1.5 billion lei for capital expenditures, all charged to the General Fund. The budget also includes 1.6 billion lei, which covers
subsidies to the Special Accounts.

The budget includes an allocation of 605 million lei for PS, 634 million lei for MOOE and 720 million lei for capital investments in special accounts.

Budget cuts

According to the amended budget, the committee on budget and finance reduced the climate change adaptation and mitigation allocation within the Office of the Mayor from P100 million to P1. The graduation grant was also reduced from P13.5 million to P1, and the city’s education initiative livelihood program was reduced from P1 million to P1.

The council further reduced the allocation of R100 million for economic recovery grant to P1 and reduced miscellaneous expenditure on free education from R555 million to R100 million.

The council also realigned 8 million lei to the scholarship program, increasing its allocation from 331 million lei to 340 million lei.

The budget allocation for the construction of the new legislative building, originally set at 100 million lei, was reduced to zero.

The budget for the 911 emergency call management system was cut by about 13 million lei, leaving it 12 million lei short of the original allocation of 25 million lei. Meanwhile, the 250 million lei budget for the digital traffic light system (Phase 3) was reduced to P0.

The council also realigned the budgets for the operational expenses of the Cebu City Medical Center (CCMC), Guba Community Hospital and the Cebu City Health Department.

An allocation of 160 million lei out of 100 million lei for the purchase of medicines and drugs; 49 million lei out of 40 million lei for dental, medical and laboratory services; and P10 million out of P5 million for the dialysis center in CCMC.

Meanwhile, the budget also includes increased allocations for key health services: 160 million lei, up from 100 million lei, for the purchase of medicines and drugs; 49 million lei, up from 40 million lei, for dental, medical and laboratory services; and P10 million, up from P5 million, for the dialysis center in CCMC.

Discussion

In a committee report submitted to the council on December 18, Councilor Noel Wenceslao, chairman of the Committee on Budget and Finance, recommended several amendments, particularly in relation to items of expenditure.

Wenceslao explained that the deductions were reasonable given the previous year’s budget utilization rate, cash flow and funding sources.

Councilor James Anthony Cuenco asked the Sangguniang Panlungsod secretariat on when the committee report was submitted and if it included Annex C. He claimed that Annex C was not attached to the report.

The SP Secretariat replied that Annex C was supposedly attached to the report.

Appendix C contains the breakdown of amendments made by the budget and finance committee, which Cuenco said were not included in the body.

Wenceslao proposed removing Annex C, stating that it should be included during the final deliberation.

Cuenco, however, stressed that he was a member of the committee but was not informed of the final deliberation of the committee’s report.

Councilor Jocelyn Pesquera explained that several budget hearings were initiated, but only a few council members attended. She added that in the past it was customary to put items on the agenda as long as three members approved them.

She added that in another committee she was not even informed about the report or asked to sign, but she never complained.

Cuenco argued that this practice is not a valid reason, stating that committee deliberation must be led by a majority of committee members, and pointed out that he was able to attend the budget hearing.

He added that several priority programs and projects in Garcia’s proposed budget were significantly reduced, the most affected being the beneficiaries of these programs.

Councilor Rey Gealon criticized significant budget cuts to youth development and livelihood programs.

Pesquera defended the cuts, arguing that payments were no longer needed under the livelihood programs because the city was no longer dealing with the Covid-19 pandemic or the aftermath of Typhoon Odette.

She added that in Congress, dole-outs have faced intense scrutiny, citing complaints from most taxpayers about the prioritization of such programs.

Pesquera said it can be used for crucial infrastructure projects such as concreting and road repairs.

On the other hand, Councilor Joy Augustus Young pointed out that through years of experience, there was no hard data on the effectiveness of dole-outs.

He added that the practice is also questionable, especially in an election year, as it could be prone to abuse.

Young said he can be realigned to scholarship programs. He noted that the proposed budget for dole-outs had already topped £1 billion, covering the elderly, disabled and lone parents.

Councilor Phillip Zafra said the City Government has passed several ordinances aimed at supporting the poor, including measures for food security and the “Botika sa Barangay” program.

He also emphasized that no budget allocation was made for the total number of orphans, who need priority funding.

Garganera appealed to the budget committee not to reduce the budget allocation due to the low retention rate of CCMC Rapid Response Team staff and nurses due to low salaries.

The archive acknowledged the benefits of handouts, but stressed that they should only be provided if the city has sufficient funds. He added that dole-outs can be politicized and may not benefit everyone.

Wenceslao claimed that as of December 2024, the city’s revenues had not reached 10 billion lei for the year. However, he mentioned that with the implementation of the amnesty initiative, revenues could increase to 12 billion lei.

During the voting process, the majority of the board approved the committee’s report. Sangguniang Kabataan Federation President Rhea Mae Jakosalem cast the final vote after Gealon criticized her for being “careless” during the special session.

Budget ordinance

Wenceslao proposed the approval of the proposed budget ordinance.

During the discussion, Cuenco highlighted several budget cuts, including cuts to the 911 response program. He pointed out that the food security program’s budget was cut from 10 million lei to 2.5 million lei. He also noted significant budget cuts for road concreting and similar infrastructure projects.

Zafra added that the food security program is allocated within the Department of Agriculture.

Wenceslao explained that the reduction was based on the allocation of 2.5 million pounds from the 2024 budget, which he noted had not been used.

Councilor Renato Osmeña Jr. clarified that the program is not part of the programs identified under the Urban Poor Welfare Division.

Source of funding

The source of funding for the budget remains uncertain, as the city’s actual revenues have not reached the required threshold. In the last two years, the city collected less than 10 billion lei annually, far from the approved budgets of 50 billion lei in 2023 and 25 billion lei in 2024.

Pesquera added that the city treasurer’s divided attention and lack of focus on revenue collection could lead to a budget shortfall for assigned projects and programs.

Labella urged the council to withhold the budget allocation for the 911 command center, explaining that it operates on a subscription basis. However, Counselor Pastor Alcover Jr. argued that the system is inefficient because calls will be routed to Manila.

Labella countered, saying that with a direct subscription, the system can now be used in Cebu City, allowing local callers to connect directly to the 911 center.

De los Santos suggested that if the current budget allocation is insufficient, the promoter could propose an additional budget next year.

Present

Meanwhile, at the start of the special session, Cuenco decided to remove the term “hybrid” from the session description. He argued that the approval of the 2025 budget is an important law, which requires the physical presence of the majority of council members during the voting process.

However, Pesquera opposed Cuenco’s motion, arguing that some members had important issues to deal with outside Cebu City, which prevented them from physically attending. She pointed out that the “hybrid” was particularly stipulated on the agenda.

Cuenco replied that the majority of the council attended in person, therefore it must be recognized.

Councilwoman Mary Ann de los Santos questioned whether the “hybrid” configuration was allowed under house rules. In response, Gealon explained that online conferencing as part of a hybrid special session is permitted, but only when deemed necessary.

Gealon argued, however, that this court did not warrant such an arrangement because there were no extraordinary circumstances preventing members from physically attending the special session.

De los Santos countered, arguing that the hybrid configuration was already included and agreed on the agenda. After this, Pesquera decided to block Cuenco’s motion, citing fairness to those who participated online and followed the house rules presented in the agenda.

“It’s embarrassing to kick our colleague out of the session who participated online,” Pesquera said.

Garganera claimed that Cuenco and Councilor Edgardo Labella II had just recently arrived from Manila to catch up with the special session while some members were enjoying their vacation.

However, Zafra defended Jakosalem, who was participating online, saying he was on official business and not on vacation.

During the house split, an initial vote resulted in a tie, with seven aldermen voting for and seven against Cuenco’s motion. However, after a recount, the final result was eight votes to seven, defeating Cuenco’s motion.

Gealon, in his demonstration, said he had a family matter to deal with during the holidays but returned to the city to attend the special session, but acknowledged that the majority decided on Cuenco’s motion.

Young argued that the motion placed the blame on Jakosalem and suggested that her inability to physically attend the special session made her less of a council member.

Jakosalem defended himself, pointing out that he was on official business related to SK activities. She added that she was just following the agenda, which included the hybrid special session. / EHP