Senator Ping Lacson drew a sharp line in the budget debate, likening kickback-driven “allocables” to attempted robbery—a comparison meant to underscore how public funds can be coerced or siphoned before they ever serve their purpose.

Lacson explained that “allocables” become problematic when they are structured not for service delivery but to guarantee kickbacks. In such cases, he said, the act resembles an attempt to take public money through pressure, manipulation, or pre-arranged cuts—regardless of whether the scheme ultimately succeeds.

The senator’s remarks come amid heightened scrutiny of budget practices, where discretionary items and project insertions can create openings for abuse. Lacson stressed that transparency and documentation are the only antidotes: clear project lists, traceable approvals, and consequences when standards are breached.

Importantly, the statement framed the issue as systemic rather than personal. The danger, he warned, is normalizing practices that treat the national budget as negotiable spoils instead of a public trust. Stopping such attempts early—before money moves—protects both institutions and citizens.

As deliberations continue, the message is blunt but procedural: budgets should fund services, not schemes.

Quiet takeaway: When money is cornered for kickbacks, the crime begins—even if the cash hasn’t left the vault.