Speaker Faustino Dy III has denied that there are budget insertions in the ongoing bicameral conference committee (Bicam) deliberations on the 2026 budget of the Department of Public Works and Highways, calling the allegations "inaccurate and misleading.” His statement comes after the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) revealed that Dy and House Appropriations Committee Chairman Mikaela Suansing had the highest insertions made in the 2026 House general appropriations bill from the proposal made by DPWH Secretary Vince Dizon. According to the PCIJ, Dy has made P2.68 billion in insertions in the budget, while Suansing has P1.773 billion in insertions. Dy said that the PCIJ report suggesting that lawmakers were secretly adding funds or provisions during the Bicam deliberations were "false" and misrepresented how the national budget is finalized. He added that all items in the House version of the budget underwent the proper process and were approved by members of the House even before the Bicam deliberations began “All the contents of our budget bill--including the provisions, funds, and programs--went through the right process. This was approved by the entire House of Representatives in the third reading, and before the Bicam deliberations began, was already passed," Dy said. He said that the role of the Bicam is limited to reconciling the versions passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives and not to introduce new items or provisions that were not previously approved. Dy underscored that there was nothing irregular or concealed in the House's handling of the budget, emphasizing that the process was conducted openly and within the bounds of law. Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, Deputy Majority Leader and Lanao del Sur Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong reiterated that all adjustments in the House version of the general appropriations bill were properly accounted for during the livestreamed deliberations of the Appropriations committee, including funding adjustments. He said the House budget bill represented “the collective wisdom of the House.” He also denied claims that there are moves to oust Dy and Majority Leader Sandro Marcos over the "insertions" that have derailed the deliberations, after Sen. Panfilo Lacson said there were rumors that a House coup was in the offing as some lawmakers wanted their insertions maintained. "There is no indication that there is a challenge to the current House leadership, and our support and trust to the current leadership of the House of Representatives. As far as we are concerned, there is no truth to the rumor that there is a challenge to the leadership of Speaker Bojie Dy," Adiong said. Simpler budget Meanwhile, Senate President Vicente Sotto III on Wednesday dismissed concerns over the limited time President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. may have to review and sign the proposed 2026 general appropriations bill, saying the measure is far less complex than previous budgets that took months to scrutinize. The concern was raised in light of the 2019 national budget, the last instance when the government operated under a reenacted budget following prolonged delays in approval and signing. Congress ratified the final version of the 2019 General Appropriations Act (GAA) on Feb. 8, but then-President Rodrigo Duterte signed it into law only after nearly two months, citing the need for careful review amid allegations of last-minute insertions and lump-sum appropriations. Against this backdrop, Senate leaders were asked whether it would be realistic for President Marcos to thoroughly study and sign the 2026 GAB within a week, should it be transmitted to Malacañang as early as next week. Sotto said the comparison was misplaced. “This is a much simpler GAA,” he said. “Education and health, plus agriculture, are the priorities. There are no insertions. DPWH is minimized.” He said the proposed 2026 budget bears little resemblance to the controversial 2018 spending measure that eventually led to the reenactment of the 2019 budget, describing the earlier version as “riddled with insertions and lump sums.” The 2019 reenacted budget marked a rare and disruptive moment in Philippine fiscal history, forcing government agencies to operate under the previous year’s funding levels and delaying infrastructure projects, personnel hiring, and social services. Duterte eventually signed the measure with a strong attestation clause and multiple line-item vetoes, underscoring executive concerns over congressional amendments. Sotto’s remarks signal lawmakers’ determination to avoid a repeat of that episode, projecting confidence that the 2026 budget bill is streamlined, transparent, and aligned with the Marcos administration’s priorities, conditions that could allow for swift presidential action. Whether Marcos will sign the budget within days of receiving it remains to be seen, but Senate leaders appear intent on assuring the public that the circumstances that led to the 2019 delay no longer exist. DPWH funds unsettled Sen. Sherwin Gatchalian acknowledged, meanwhile, that the Senate and the House of Representatives remain deadlocked over allocations for the DPWH, particularly the proposed restoration of P45 billion for infrastructure projects and a new P8 billion list of farm-to-market roads. Gatchalian, who chairs the Senate panel in the bicameral conference committee (Bicam), said lawmakers would first study the feasibility of restoring the P45 billion that had been cut from the DPWH budget. As of now, no decision has been made on the revised adjustment factors submitted by the DPWH for new infrastructure projects. “The adjustment factor and the Construction Materials Price Data (CMPD) they submitted are now closer to reality,” Gatchalian said, adding that he still needs to review the figures and apply them to specific projects. He said that he and Senator Francis Pangilinan are reviewing the new list of farm-to-market roads under the proposed P8 billion allocation. Gatchalian said the Department of Agriculture requested that the items on the list be replaced with alternative projects, without any change in the total cost. Gatchalian on Wednesday asked the House to temporarily set aside deliberations on the DPWH proposed 2026 budget, citing the need for updated and more detailed construction cost data to guide lawmakers’ review. During joint budget discussions, Gatchalian appealed to the House panel to first take up the budgets of other government agencies and reschedule the DPWH hearing to Thursday, Dec. 18, to allow sufficient time for legislators to examine the latest Construction Materials Price Data (CMPD). The CMPD serves as a critical benchmark in determining infrastructure project costs and budget adjustments. Lawmakers closely scrutinize the data because of its direct impact on public spending levels, cost escalation, and the overall integrity of government infrastructure programs. Lacson: No ‘Senate pork’ Amid the ongoing budget talks, Senate President Pro Tempore Panfilo Lacson on Wednesday rejected allegations that the Senate inserted a P17.9-billion pork barrel allocation into the proposed 2026 budget. Lacson said claims made by ACT Teachers party-list Rep. Antonio Tinio of alleged “Senate pork” were either a case of “trabahong tamad” (lazy work) or a deliberate attempt to mislead the public and destabilize the Senate. “The so-called ‘Senate pork’ referred to by Rep. Tinio is actually realignments to increase the subsistence allowance of uniformed personnel from the Philippine National Police, the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology, the Bureau of Fire Protection, and the Philippine Coast Guard,” Lacson said. He added that Tinio was “either too lazy to do his research, or malevolently destabilizing the Senate to take the heat off the House of Representatives.” Tinio earlier alleged that the Senate version of the 2026 GAB contained a P17.9-billion “LGU pork” fund and that benefits for rank-and-file government employees had been cut to finance discretionary allocations for local government units. Lacson categorically denied the claim, explaining in a DZBB radio interview that the funds were realigned from the Miscellaneous Personnel Benefits Fund and redirected solely to augment the subsistence allowances of uniformed personnel, not to legislator-controlled projects. “I want to clarify that what Tinio said was wrong,” Lacson said. “The amount was realigned from the Miscellaneous Personnel Benefits Fund but went to the additional subsistence allowance of uniformed personnel.”