DSWD chief clarifies that AKAP is not pork barrel

The Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) firmly rejected allegations that the P26 billion allocated for the Ayuda para sa Kapos ang Kita Program (AKAP) constitutes a form of pork barrel funding.

In an interview with Teleradyo Serbisyo on Friday, DSWD Secretary Rex Gatchalian clarified that these funds are managed exclusively by the department and are not distributed by lawmakers.

“The entire amount of P26 billion will be implemented solely by the DSWD. It is not for politicians or public servants. This cannot be called a pork barrel or funding for anyone else. This is the funding of the DSWD,” he said.

“The AKAP program is designed to extend its reach to individuals in need, particularly in remote areas, by facilitating access through our offices and offsite payout locations. Rather than requiring beneficiaries to travel to us, we proactively go to them. Assistance is allocated based on assessed need, distinguishing it from the 4Ps program, which provides regular support aimed at lifting individuals out of poverty,” Gatchalian explained.

Controversy surrounding the program intensified when Senator Imee Marcos claimed that the funding was an unexpected addition to the budget and not a priority for the administration led by President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.

Marcos argued that the allocation for AKAP should be removed from the proposed 2025 budget, questioning its necessity given other government priorities.

“All programs are subject to evaluation by social workers. Merely receiving a request from politicians does not guarantee that assistance will be provided. The decision regarding who receives aid and the amount allocated is ultimately determined by the social worker,” Gatchalian clarified.

Gatchalian refuted the assertion of Vice President Sara Duterte that some politicians will be exploiting the AKAP program for electoral gain, suggesting that they use it to “buy” votes.

He emphasized that social workers oversee the distribution of aid and ensure that no political influence affects who receives assistance.

“A politician’s credibility could be compromised if they promise assistance, only for the social worker to indicate that the individual is not on the list of prioritized needs; in such cases, we cannot provide support,” he said.  

Gatchalian confirmed that politicians would not be present during aid distribution events to prevent any perception of impropriety.

“All social services are prohibited during the campaign period, although requests for exemptions may be submitted to the Commission. This prohibition will take effect 45 days prior to the start of the elections,” he reminded.