The Bicameral Conference Committee hearings on the 2026 national budget was touted as "historic" because it was opened to the public for the first time through livestreaming.

But reading between the lines of comments from House minority members Akbayan Party-list Rep. Chel Diokno and Mamamayang Liberal (ML) Party-list Rep. Leila de Lima, there appear to be some misgivings on how the budget process was conducted.

"The bicam has concluded, and the Senate and House leadership are now finalizing the amounts and provisions for the 2026 budget," Diokno said Thursday after the bicam announced that it had successfully consolidated the differing provisions of the P6.793-trillion General Appropriations Bill (GAB).

"Since this stage of the process is happening away from public view, we urge both panels to fully disclose what adjustments are being made, and who proposed and approved them," Diokno said.

This was after both the House of Representatives and Senate panels to the bicam repeatedly highlighted how transparent the budget process was this year.

"We reiterate our call for greater transparency and meaningful public participation—especially in light of the increases in certain budget items, which raise serious concerns about the risk of corruption, pork, and patronage," said Diokno.

"Sa ganitong paraan, masisiguro natin na ang pera ng bayan ay tunay na ginagamit para sa kapakanan ng taumbayan (In this way, we can ensure that the people’s money is truly being used for the welfare of the citizens),"he said.

For her part, De Lima mentioned out loud the criticism of some that not everything during marathon bicam hearings were for public consumption.

She did so in the context of her disapproval of the bicam's decision to increase the allocation for Unprogrammed Appropriations (UA) in the 2026 outlay.

"Ang dami na ngang red flag dahil nagamit sa maanomalyang flood control projects, maituturing na ngang unconstitutional, aba’y tinaasan pa ng bicam ang budget ng [UA]. Anyare?" De Lima asked.

(There are already so many red flags because it was used for anomalous flood control projects, it can even be considered unconstitutional, yet the bicam still increased the budget of [UA]. What happened?)

"Just like the muted side discussions and long suspensions, we are dismayed and alarmed by the increased budget for UA in the Bicam," said the former senator.

"We firmly believe this is unconstitutional, consistent with the view expressed by Supreme Court Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando in his concurring and dissenting opinion in the case involving the ₱60-billion PhilHealth fund transfer to the National Treasury. Without a definite and identifiable revenue stream, Congress cannot constitutionally authorize such appropriations," she noted.