Electrocuted

 

                                               (image: youtube.com / GMA News)

Unhon daw pagpa-miyembro sa 4Ps.

There are circulating claims on social media suggesting that the recent increase in electricity bills is due to a government share allegedly allocated for beneficiaries of the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps). Some posts have even taken a satirical turn, implying that middle-income households might now consider qualifying for the program themselves.

There is no evidence supporting this claim, as 4Ps is funded through the national budget and not through electricity billing. However, electricity bills do include a regulated lifeline rate subsidy system overseen by the Energy Regulatory Commission, where low-income households receive discounted rates that are partly supported through cross-subsidies within the power pricing structure. This is a social protection mechanism for basic electricity access, not a deduction for cash transfer programs.

Concerns have nevertheless emerged among taxpayers regarding rising deductions from income amid inflation and increasing costs of basic goods. This has fueled perceptions that government subsidies are expanding, sometimes framed in public discourse as “dole-out” programs. For many in the middle class, this adds to financial strain and raises questions about fairness in the distribution of fiscal burdens.

Such sentiments, while understandable given current economic pressures, can also risk reinforce negative perceptions toward beneficiaries of social assistance programs. At the same time, they highlight a governance challenge: the need to balance social protection with fiscal sustainability in a way that does not deepen social divides.

This concern is well documented in public policy literature. Stiglitz (2012) notes that when economic arrangements are perceived as uneven in distributing costs and benefits, trust in institutions can erode and social tension may increase.

Citizens are therefore called to uphold equity and consider the broader public good. In turn, public leaders must ensure that social programs are transparent, well-targeted, and aligned with taxpayers’ contributions, thereby maintaining both fairness and public trust.

Ultimately, good governance is not measured by how it separates burden and benefit, but by how it integrates them justly, so that no sector feels overlooked, and every contribution is recognized within a shared pursuit of fairness and social cohesion.