The recent launching of the P20 per kilo rice program in the Visayas, specifically in Region 7, is being touted by the administration as the fulfillment of a campaign promise by President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. During the 2022 elections, the President vowed to bring down rice prices to P20 per kilo — a promise that captured the imagination of many Filipinos, especially the poor and marginalized who continue to struggle with the high cost of living.
On the surface, the program seems like a dream finally realized. Government officials are proudly claiming that the President is delivering on his word. However, when one digs deeper, a host of serious questions and troubling observations emerge — questions that cannot simply be ignored if we are to genuinely protect the integrity of government programs from political maneuvering.
First and foremost, why Visayas? Why Region 7, where, according to the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) 2023 data, the poverty incidence among families stands at 12.3%? This is significantly lower than the poverty rates in many Mindanao regions — BARMM at 23.5%, Zamboanga Peninsula at 24.2%, Northern Mindanao at 18.4%, and CARAGA at 14.9%. Clearly, based on these statistics alone, Mindanao’s regions are grappling with deeper and more severe poverty than Region 7. If the P20 rice program aims to prioritize those who need it the most, the logical move would have been to launch it first in the poorest areas of Mindanao, not in a relatively more economically stable Region 7.
The administration cannot simply brush aside this glaring inconsistency. The government’s own data expose the mismatch between the location of the program launch and the supposed objective of helping the poorest of the poor. This begs the question: is this really about helping those in need, or is it about political convenience?
Adding fuel to the fire is the timing of the rollout. The P20 rice program is being implemented right in the thick of the campaign period for the May 12 elections. Conveniently, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) granted an exemption to allow the program despite the election ban on government projects. Vice President Sara Duterte herself publicly questioned the timing, suggesting that perhaps the administration is attempting to shore up support in the Visayas, where the vote for the administration’s senatorial and local slates may not be as solid as they had hoped.
Indeed, the optics are damning. No matter how noble the intention may be — and let us be clear, making rice affordable to the masses is an urgent and worthy cause — the choice of location and timing paints a different, darker picture. It reeks of political opportunism, where government resources and programs meant for genuine development are wielded instead as tools for electoral gain.
This is not just about fulfilling a promise. This is about integrity in governance. If the administration truly wanted to make a bold and selfless statement, it should have prioritized the most impoverished areas, even if those areas may not necessarily deliver political dividends. It should have rolled out the P20 rice program in BARMM, in Zamboanga Peninsula, in CARAGA — regions that are often neglected and yet bear the heaviest burden of poverty.
Moreover, if the program were truly independent of politics, it should have been launched outside the election season, free from any suspicion of influencing voters.
Filipinos deserve better than patronizing gestures cloaked as “promises fulfilled.” They deserve programs that are genuinely inclusive, genuinely prioritized based on need, and genuinely shielded from the dirty hands of politics.
The P20 rice program, in principle, is a step in the right direction. But its implementation has been marred by questionable choices that betray a deeper problem: that even the best of intentions can be weaponized for political gain if vigilance is lost.
We call on the government to explain — candidly, transparently, and without political doublespeak — why Region 7 was chosen over the poorer Mindanao regions. We call on the government to expand the program swiftly and fairly to the areas where the need is most urgent. We call on the electorate to remain critical, not easily swayed by spectacles and promises that glitter during election seasons but may turn hollow afterward.
In the end, governance must be about true service, not about winning votes. Anything less is a betrayal not just of promises, but of the very people those promises were meant to uplift.