When President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. called for a special session of Congress on June 17, the first under his administration, he listed eight measures that he hoped the legislative would “urgently” consider, including the proposed institutionalization of the Assistance to Individuals in Crisis Situations (AICS) program.

The House and the Senate have already passed their own versions, but absent a ratified report that reconciles the clashing provisions of both documents, the measure could not be sent to the President’s desk for his signature.

The special session gave Congress an opportunity to push the bill out of the legislative mill, in time for the President’s State of the Nation Address in end-July, but the day ended with no AICS bill finalized.

Worse, Senator Erwin Tulfo raised the impasse on the plenary floor, and, in side interviews with reporters, accused the House of holding the bill hostage due to its opposition to the Senate version’s “anti-epal” provision. His House counterpart has since disputed this narrative.

What is this proposal about?

The Department of Social Welfare and Development formalized the implementation of AICS in 2014 through a memorandum circular, but it became more visible beginning 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, when the health emergency “resulted in an increase in the number of people looking for assistance from the DSWD.”

When the Marcos administration took office in 2022, the DSWD budget for “Protective Program for Individuals and Families in Especially Difficult Circumstances” — under which funding for AICS is sourced — was at P40.08 billion. By 2026, budget allocation for it has surged to P63.9 billion.

Critics have flagged the supposed exploitation by politicians of AICS to further entrench themselves in power. Nonetheless, as a pet bill of the administration, both chambers of Congress have moved forward to pass their own versions of the measure.

House social services chairperson Cheeno Almario, Tulfo’s counterpart in the lower chamber, articulated the importance for them of having a law on AICS.

“Instead of us going through the motions of trying to put funding through it every single year as if it was a foreign object, this law solidifies that and makes it integral in our government, in our system,” Almario said.

So where did this pet bill go south?

At its core, both House Bill No. 6636 and Senate Bill No. 1966 provide immediate services to individuals facing extremely difficult circumstances. The types of support include financial assistance (e.g., medical, funeral, educational, transportation, food expenses), material assistance (e.g., food packs, hygiene kits), psychosocial support, and referral services to other agencies (for requested support outside AICS range).

The two bills, however, are definitely not carbon copies of each other.

For example, the Senate version, unlike the House bill, provides a more granular list of vulnerable sectors, such as indigenous peoples, rebel returnees, and children living with HIV. The Senate bill also emphasizes the role of the Department of Information and Communications Technology in developing an integrated program delivery system, which is not mentioned in the House bill.

The most striking difference between the two documents is the Senate bill provision that explicitly prohibits politicians from participating in the actual distribution of AICS cash aid, as well as the display of the name, image, and likeness of public officials in connection with the project. The House bill did not mention that.

Tulfo said the “deadlock” over the ratification of the bill stemmed from the House’s opposition to such provision.

“There are some of them who don’t want to sign it because they want to study it. I don’t understand, what is there to study? Are they afraid that finally, after so many years that AICS is being used for political gain, this measure will put an end to that practice?” Tulfo lamented on the plenary floor.

Play Video

Is the House really opposed to the ‘anti-epal’ clause?

Almario, speaking to Rappler and Newswatch, declined to address Tulfo’s allegation that House lawmakers opposed the “anti-epal” provision to preserve the use of AICS for electioneering.

“I’d rather focus on the bill. I’d rather focus on how it can help rather than just pointing and naming people,” he said.

Almario, however, insisted he is “100% in support” of an “anti-epal” provision on the bill, but said it has to be discussed in the bicam.

“In (my) committee, they said it’s best to discuss these provisions. The first was the penal process. How do you punish those who use or politicize AICS? Once we put an ink on that, there’s no turning back,” he said.

“Our version didn’t have an ‘anti-epal’ provision, mainly because it is already enshrined in the General Appropriations Act. It’s redundant,” he added.

Play Video

What happened on June 17?

The House passed its version on December 16, 2025, and the Senate only passed its bill on May 12 this year. This was a day after Senator Tito Sotto was replaced as Senate president by Alan Peter Cayetano, an episode that kickstarted a tumultuous month for the upper chamber.

Almario said there had been efforts between senators and congressmen to reconcile the clashing provisions internally — via Zoom meetings — before a potential bicam.

A bicam isn’t always automatic. If both bills are essentially the same, a bicameral conference committee is abandoned. It can also be avoided if either chamber just yields to the version of the bill passed by their counterpart.

“I mean, we both would want each other to adopt our version. I think it’s normal to talk about it before the actual bicam,” Almario explained.

But with no chamber willing to cave in, the House requested a conference committee on May 26, but it was not acted upon. Why? At the Senate, the unprecedented chaos under Cayetano’s rule effectively paralyzed legislative operations. He did not hold sessions on June 1 and 2, and tried to wrap up a session on June 3 via a letter to what was then the Senate minority, but his political rivals launched their own coup and removed Cayetano as Senate president with a 12-person quorum.

The June 17 special session could have passed a ratified version of the AICS bill, provided that either chamber just adopts the version of the other.

It appears that there were last-minute negotiations taking place between both chambers through phone calls. In fact, Senate Majority Leader Migz Zubiri already moved to adjourn the special session past 5 pm, but withdrew it. Tulfo’s explanation to reporters indicate that they were convincing their House counterparts to affix their signatures on the Senate version.

The House, however, won’t budge on the “anti-epal” clause.

“They even want Malacañang to call and convince them,” Tulfo claimed.

Almario said this did not happen. “No, not that I know of,” he added.

Nonetheless, it appeared Marcos and the Palace did not intervene, resulting in a stalemate that prolongs the passage of the measure until after the State of the Nation Address, when Congress returns to work.

Whether the provision will be retained after bicameral talks is now one of the key questions hanging over the measure. – Rappler.com