“The administration and the DSWD in particular should just ignore the critics and continue the program”
The Church teaches us about the preferential option for the poor, and our Constitution emphasizes the importance of social justice and the State’s responsibility to care for and improve the conditions of poor and marginalized Filipinos.
Critics of the Ayuda para sa Kapos ang Kita Program (AKAP) seem to have forgotten these basic Christian and social principles.
Blinded by partisanship, they ignore the facts and insist on promoting disinformation about a program that serves as a social and economic equalizer.
Let’s look beyond the generalizations, ad hominem statements, and memes, and study the program closely.
What is AKAP? It is a financial assistance program for minimum wage workers and low-income earners who have been hit hardest by increases in the prices of basic goods.
“The original intention of the AKAP program is to protect the minimum wage earners and near-poor Filipinos from the effects of inflation that erode their buying power,” according to Secretary Rex Gatchalian of the Department of Social Welfare and Development.
The program has been in existence for a year now. A total of P26.7 billion was allocated for AKAP in the 2024 national budget, specifically the budget of the DSWD, the program’s implementing agency.
From January to December 2024, the program has benefited almost five million Filipinos. That’s five million Filipinos whose lives have been transformed and their economic conditions alleviated by this pro-poor program.
Luckily, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. saw the beauty and importance of this social amelioration program.
Recognizing AKAP’s legitimacy, the President kept it in the 2025 budget he signed Monday. Ignoring calls to veto the program, President Marcos instead called for more stringent rules and guidelines and more coordination between DSWD, DOLE, and NEDA in its implementation.
However, critics of the program and the Marcos administration seem to disregard the impact on these five million lives when their goal is to sow disinformation and create distrust.
One example is the claim made by former Supreme Court Justice Antonio Carpio that barangay officials exercise discretion, if not the prerogative, in identifying the beneficiaries of the AKAP program.
This implies the program is a selective political tool. Carpio also likened it to “pork barrel,” congressional funding prerogatives which have been declared unconstitutional and ordered abolished by the Supreme Court.
Carpio’s allegations prompted Secretary Gatchalian to immediately issue a statement debunking the claims.
Gatchalian emphasized that as the agency in charge of the program, the processing of applications for AKAP, as well as determining how much the applicant will receive as financial aid, is the sole responsibility of DSWD social workers.
The program is not selective, as Carpio had claimed. It is open to all qualified beneficiaries, and field offices of the DSWD accept all applicants “whether they are walk-in clients or were referred to by local government unit officials.”
The same condition applies to applicants referred by legislators. They can refer, but the final decision is made by DSWD social workers based on strict eligibility rules stated in the program guidelines.
The Secretary was emphatic in saying “nowhere in the AKAP guidelines are barangay officials empowered to make the list of beneficiaries who will receive the cash assistance from the agency.”
It is also incorrect to label the program as “resembling pork barrel,” as Carpio has done.
Again, we quote Secretary Gatchalian: “With due respect to the former Supreme Court Justice, AKAP is not pork barrel since any good Samaritan can refer potential beneficiaries and the barangay has nothing to do with AKAP based on our existing guidelines.”
Administration critics are fond of saying the Marcos administration is not doing enough to help the poor.
But when the administration implements an alleviation program like AKAP, the same critics will either say the program is not enough or will only foster dependency. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
The administration and the DSWD in particular should just ignore the critics and continue the program.
It is good that disinformation is confronted head-on, but the mandate of the DSWD is to help the poor and the disenfranchised, not the critics who are economically well-off.
In this, the agency is living up to its mandate.
(Email: ernhil@yahoo.com)
