DURING A BRIEFING held by the Development Budget Coordination Committee (DBCC) on the proposed 2025 National Expenditure Program at the Senate Committee of Finance last August 13, Arsenio Balisican, Secretary of the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), deemed those expending less than Php64 pesos a day as “food poor.”
Asked by Senator Nancy Binay on the food-poverty threshold, Balisican responded that, “As of 2023, a monthly food threshold for a family of five is Php9,581” which would account for a “Php64 budget per person.”
The presented number was a stark increase from 2021 where the ‘food poor’ threshold stood at Php55 per person. But since then, it has been adjusted for inflation.
Expounding on the rationale behind the incremental adjustments, Balisican said that the inflation-based modification was set for them “to monitor whether or not the government’s poverty-related policies have been effective.”
Following the senate briefing, the measly food-poverty threshold set by NEDA drew flak from numerous labor groups and organizations. Renato Reyes, President of the Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (BAYAN), challenged NEDA officials to “try living on Php64 per day for food for a year, before coming up with conclusions that such an amount does not make a person food poor.”
Reyes further stated that the evaluation made by the NEDA Chief was “evidence” of the Marcos Administration’s “detachment from the actual reality faced by poverty-stricken Filipinos who struggle to work for decent meals.”
He also asserted that the given train of thought in computing the threshold “fuels anti-poor motives.” “This is the kind of thinking that keeps wages low and covers up poverty in the country. Redefining poverty will not make it go away.”
Further reverberating Reyes’ sentiments were the Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP). Its Chairman, Danilo Ramos, stressed that a budget of Php64 per day is “barely sufficient” to provide for the food needs of a daily wage worker.
Then, Sonny Matula, Chairperson of the labor coalition Nagkaisa, exclaimed that NEDA’s assertion could “prove a risk to the lives of Filipinos.” “Despite millions of pesos allotted to collect data, we are given outdated figures that do not reflect the current situation,” he stressed.
Adding on, Fisher group Pamalakaya stated that the low threshold introduced by the government “allows them to justify the implementation of low wages.”
Providing their incites on the Php64 food-poor threshold, IBON Foundation, also contends that it “really grossly underestimates” the poverty threshold within the country.
For IBON, there is a need to set a realistic threshold, expressing that “a realistic poverty benchmark is essential to monitor the effectiveness of government programs and policies to develop the country. On the other hand, unrealistic poverty and subsistence thresholds are powerful devices to hide their ineffectiveness.”
In their calculation, the food-poverty threshold should have come out to “more or less than Php90.” This was based on a re-computation of the Family Living Wage estimated from 2008, adjusted for inflation and factoring in other influences behind family expenses.
Additionally, Sonny Africa, executive director of IBON, advised NEDA’s board to consider including non-food needs and additional expenses–transportation, education, rent, and the like–into the calculations to derive a more realistic poverty statistic. He said, “Definitely… even the poverty threshold will be much more beyond Php91.”
Agreeing to a needed revisit on the computation of the food-poverty threshold during the senate hearing, Balisacan asserts that, “I think it’s due for revisit of that poverty threshold natin kasi medyo matagal na rin, more than a decade na ‘yon since it was set…the changes in the economy warrant a revisit already of the threshold.”
Regardless, the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) supported the threshold, providing a catalog of foods that fit within a Php64 budget.