Philippine Banks: June’s Financial Losses and Liquidity Strains Expose Late-Cycle Fragility

Debt-fueled booms all too often provide false affirmation of a government’s poli­cies, a financial institution’s ability to make outsized profits, or a country’s standard of living. Most of these booms end badly—Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff 

Philippine Banks: June’s Financial Losses and Liquidity Strains Expose Late-Cycle Fragility 

In this issue: 

Part 1: Earnings Erosion and the Mask of Stability

1.A NPLs Fall, But Provisions Rise: A Tale of Two Signals

1.B Philippine Bank’s Profit Growth Falters: Q2 Deficit Breaks the Streak

1.C Universal and Commercial Banks Lead the Weakness; PSE Listed Banks Echo the Slowdown

1.D Income Breakdown: Lending Boom Masks Structural Risk

1.E CMEPA’s Gambit: Taxing Time Deposits to Diversify Bank Income

1.F The Real Culprit: Exploding Losses on Financial Assets

1.G San Miguel’s Share Plunge: A Canary in the Credit Mine? Beneath the Surface: Banks Signal Stress

1.H The NPL Illusion: Velocity Masks Vulnerability

1.I Benchmark Kabuki: When Benchmark-ism Meets Market Reality

Part 2: Liquidity Strains and the Architecture of Intervention

2.A Behind the RRR Cuts: Extraordinary Bank Dependence on BSP

2.B RRR Infusions: Liquidity Metrics Rebound; Weak Money Creation Amid Record Deficit Spending

2.C Rising Borrowings Reinforce Funding Strains, Crowding Out Intensifies, Record HTM Assets

2.D Divergence: Bank Profits, GDP and the PSE’s Financial Index; Market Concentration

2.E OFCs and the Financial Index: A Coordinated Lift?

2.F Triple Liquidity Drain; Rescue Template Risks: Inflation, Stagflation, Crisis; Fiscal Reflex: Keynesian Response Looms

2.G Finale: Classic Symptoms of Late-Cycle Fragility 

Philippine Banks: June’s Financial Losses and Liquidity Strains Expose Late-Cycle Fragility 

From earnings erosion to monetary theatrics, June’s data shows a banking system caught in late-cycle strain.

Part 1: Earnings Erosion and the Mask of Stability 

1.A NPLs Fall, But Provisions Rise: A Tale of Two Signals 

Inquirer.net August Bad loans in the Philippine banking system fell to a three-month low in June, helped by the central bank’s ongoing interest rate cuts, which could ease debt servicing burden. However, lenders remain cautious and have increased their provisions to cover possible credit losses. Latest data from the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) showed nonperforming loans (NPL), or debts that are 90 days late on a payment and at risk of default, cornered 3.34 percent of the local banking industry’s total lending portfolio. That figure, called the gross NPL ratio, was the lowest since March 2025, when the ratio stood at 3.30 percent. 

But the NPL ratio masks a deeper tension: gross NPLs rose 5.5% year-on-year to Php 530.29 billion, while total loans expanded 10.93% to Php 15.88 trillion. The ratio fell not because bad loans shrank, but because credit growth outpaced them. 

Loan loss reserves rose 5.5% to Php 505.91 billion, and the NPL coverage ratio ticked up to 95.4%. Past due loans climbed 9.17% to Php 670.5 billion, and restructured loans rose 6.27%. Provisioning for credit losses ballooned to Php 84.19 billion in 1H 2025, with Php 43.78 billion booked in Q2 alone—the largest since Q4 2020’s pandemic-era spike. 

So, while the establishment cites falling NPL ratios to reassure the public, banks are quietly bracing for defaults and valuation hits—likely tied to large corporate exposures. The provisioning surge is a tacit admission: risk is rising, even if it hasn’t yet surfaced in headline metrics.

1.B Philippine Bank’s Profit Growth Falters: Q2 Deficit Breaks the Streak

Figure 1

Philippine banks posted their first quarterly profit contraction in Q2 2025, down -1.96% YoY—a sharp reversal from Q1’s 10.64% growth and Q2 2024’s 5.21%. This marks the first decline since Q3 2023’s -11.75%. (Figure 1, upper window) 

Even more telling, since the BSP’s historic rescue of the banking system in Q2 2021, net profit growth has been trending downward. Peso profits etched a record in Q1 2025, but fell in Q2. 

The Q2 slump dragged down 1H performance: bank profit growth slipped to 4.14%, compared to 2H 2024’s 9.77%, though slightly higher than 1H 2024’s 4.1%. 

1.C Universal and Commercial Banks Lead the Weakness; PSE Listed Banks Echo the Slowdown 

Earnings growth of universal-commercial (UC) banks sank from 8.6% in Q1 2025 to a -2.11% deficit in Q2. 

UC bank profits grew 6.33% in Q2 2024. Still, UC banks eked out a 3.1% gain in 1H 2025 versus 5.3% in the same period last year. UC banks accounted for 93.1% of total banking system profits in 1H 2025—underscoring their dominance or concentration but also their vulnerability. 

PSE listed banks partially echoed BSP data. (Figure 1, Lower Table) 

Aggregate earnings growth for all listed banks hit 6.08% in Q2 and 6.77% in 1H—down from 10.43% and 9.95% in the same periods last year. The top three banks in the PSEi 30 (BDO, BPI, MBT) reported combined earnings growth of 4.3% in Q2 and 5.31% in 1H 2025, substantially lower compared to 13.71% and 15.4% in 2024. 

The discrepancy between BSP and listed bank data likely stems from government, foreign, and unlisted UC banks—whose performance may be masking broader stress. 

1.D Income Breakdown: Lending Boom Masks Structural Risk 

What explains the sharp profit downturn?

Figure 2

Net interest income rose 11.74% in Q2, while non-interest income increased 14.7%—slightly higher than Q1’s 11.7% and 14.5%, respectively. However, net interest income was lower than Q2 2024’s 14.74%, while non-interest income rebounded from -5.71% in the same period. (Figure 2, topmost chart) 

In 1H 2025, net interest income grew 11.7%, and non-interest income rose 14.6%, compared to 15.53% and -8.83% in 1H 2024. Net interest income now accounts for 82.5% of total bank profits—a fresh high, reflecting the lending boom regardless of BSP’s rate levels. 

This share has reversed course since 2013, rising from ~60% to 77% by end-2024—driven by BSP’s easy money policy and historic pandemic-era rescue efforts. Banks’ income structure resembles a Pareto distribution: highly concentrated, and extremely susceptible to duration and credit risks. 

BSP’s easing cycle has not only failed to improve banks’ core business, but actively contributed to its decay.

1.E CMEPA’s Gambit: Taxing Time Deposits to Diversify Bank Income 

The government’s response has been the Capital Market Efficiency Promotion Act (CMEPA). CMEPA, effective July 2025, imposes a flat 20% final withholding tax on all deposit interest income, including long-term placements. 

By taxing time deposits, policymakers aim to push savers into capital markets, boosting bank non-interest income through fees, trading, and commissions. But in reality, this is financial engineering. (Figure 2, middle graph) 

With weak household savings and low financial literacy, deposit outflows will likely shrink banks’ funding base rather than diversify their revenues. 

It would increase time preferences, leading the public to needlessly take risks or gamble—further eroding savings. 

Or, instead of reducing fragility, CMEPA risks layering volatile market income on top of an already over-concentrated interest income model. 

We’ve previously addressed CMEPA—refer to earlier posts for context (see below) 

1.F The Real Culprit: Exploding Losses on Financial Assets 

Beyond this structural weakness, the real culprit behind the downturn was losses on financial assets. 

In Q2 2025, banks posted Php 43.78 billion in losses—the largest since the pandemic recession in Q4 2020—driven by Php 49.3 billion in provisions for credit losses!  (Figure 2, lowest image) 

For 1H 2025, losses ballooned 64% to Php 73.6 billion, with provisions reaching Php 84.19 billion. 

Once again, this provisioning surge is a tacit admission: while officials cite falling NPL ratios, banks themselves are bracing for valuation hits and potential defaults, likely tied to concentrated corporate exposures. 

1.G San Miguel’s Share Plunge: A Canary in the Credit Mine? Beneath the Surface: Banks Signal Stress

Figure 3

Could this be linked to the recent collapse in San Miguel [PSE: SMC] shares? 

SMC plunged 14.54% WoW (Week on Week) as of August 15th, compounding its YTD losses to 35.4%. (Figure 3, upper diagram) 

And this share waterfall happened before its Q2 17Q 2025 release, which showed debt slipping slightly from Php 1.511 trillion in Q1 to Php 1.504 trillion in 1H—suggesting that the intensifying selloff may have been driven by deeper concerns. (Figure 3, lower visual) 

SMC’s Q2 (17Q) report reveals increasingly opaque cash generation, aggressive financial engineering, and unclear asset quality and debt servicing capacity. 

Yet, paradoxically, Treasury yields softened across the curve—hinting at either covert BSP intervention through its institutional cartel, a dangerous underestimation of contagion risk, or market complacency—a lull before the credit repricing storm. 

If SMC’s debt is marked at par or held to maturity, deterioration in its credit profile wouldn’t show up as market losses—but would require provisioning. This provisioning surge is a tacit admission: banks are seeing heightened risk, even if it’s not yet reflected in NPL ratios or market pricing. 

We saw this coming. Prior breakdowns on SMC are archived below. 

Of course, this SMC–banking sector inference linkage still requires corroborating evidence or forensic validation—time will tell.

Still, one thing is clear: banks are exhibiting mounting stress—underscoring the BSP’s resolve to intensify its easing cycle through rate cuts, RRR reductions, deposit insurance hikes, and a soft USDPHP peg. The ‘Marcos-nomics’ debt-financed deficit spending adds fiscal fuel to this monetary response. 

1.H The NPL Illusion: Velocity Masks Vulnerability

Figure 4

NPLs can be a deceptive measure of bank health. Residual regulatory reliefs from the pandemic era may still distort classifications, and the ratio itself reflects the relative velocity of bad loans versus credit expansion. 

Both gross NPLs and total loans hit record highs in peso terms in June—Php 530.29 billion and Php 15.88 trillion, respectively—but credit growth outpaced defaults, keeping the NPL ratio artificially low at 3.34%. (Figure 4, topmost pane) 

The logic is simple: to suppress the NPL ratio, loan velocity must accelerate faster than the accumulation of bad debt. Once credit expansion stalls, the entire kabuki collapses—and latent systemic stress will surface. 

1.I Benchmark Kabuki: When Benchmark-ism Meets Market Reality 

This is where benchmark-ism hits the road—and skids. The system’s metrics, once propped up by interventionist theatrics, are now showing signs of exhaustion. 

These are not isolated anomalies, but worsening symptoms of prior rescues—now overrun by the law of diminishing returns. 

And yet, the response is more of the same: fresh interventions to mask the decay of earlier ones. Theatrics, once effective at shaping perception, are now being challenged by markets that no longer play along. 

The system’s health doesn’t hinge on ratios—it hinges on velocity. Velocity of credit, of confidence, of liquidity. When that velocity falters, the metrics unravel. 

And beneath the unraveling lies a fragility that no benchmark can disguise. 

Part 2: Liquidity Strains and the Architecture of Intervention

2.A Behind the RRR Cuts: Extraordinary Bank Dependence on BSP 

There are few signs that the public grasps the magnitude of developments unfolding in Philippine banks. 

The aggregate 450 basis point Reserve Requirement Ratio (RRR) cuts in October 2024 and March 2025 mark the most aggressive liquidity release in BSP history—surpassing even its pandemic-era response. (Figure 4, middle chart) 

Unlike previous easing cycles (2018–2019, 2020), where banks barely tapped BSP liquidity, the current drawdown has been dramatic. 

As of July, banks had pulled Php 463 billion since October 2024 from the BSP (Claims on Other Depository Corporations)—Php 84.6 billion since March and Php 189.2 billion in June. Notably, 40.9% of the Php 463 billion liquidity drawdown occurred in July alone. 

This surge coincides with mounting losses on financial assets and record peso NPLs—masked by rapid credit expansion, which may be a euphemism for refinancing deteriorating debt. Banks’ lending to bad borrowers to prevent NPL classification is a familiar maneuver. 

When banks incur significant financial losses—whether from rising NPLs, credit impairments, or mark-to-market declines—the immediate impact is not just weaker earnings but a widening hole in their funding structure. The December 2020 episode, when the system booked its largest financial losses, highlighted how such shocks create a liquidity vacuum: instead of recycling liquidity through lending and market channels, banks are forced to patch internal shortfalls, draining capital buffers and eroding interbank trust. 

Into this vacuum steps the BSP. Reserve requirement cuts, while framed as policy easing, have functioned less as a growth stimulus and more as a liquidity lifeline. By drawing on their balances with the BSP, banks convert regulatory reserves into working liquidity—filling gaps left by financial losses. The outcome is growing dependence on central bank support: what appears as easing is in fact the manifestation of extraordinary support, with liquidity migrating from market sources to the BSP’s balance sheet. 

This hidden dependence underscores how financial repression has hollowed out market-based liquidity, leaving the BSP as the primary lender of first resort 

2.B RRR Infusions: Liquidity Metrics Rebound; Weak Money Creation Amid Record Deficit Spending

The liquidity drawdown has filtered into banks’ cash positions. As of June, peso cash reserves rebounded—though still down 19.8% year-on-year. Cash-to-deposit ratios rose from 9.87% in May to 10.67% in June, while liquid assets-to-deposits climbed from 47.29% to 49.24%. (Figure 4, lowest image)

Figure 5

RRR-driven cash infusions also lifted deposits. Total deposit growth rebounded from 4.96% in May to 5.91% in June, led by peso deposits (3.96% to 6.3%) and supported by FX deposits (4.42% to 6.8%). (Figure 5, topmost graph) 

Yet paradoxically, despite a 10.9% expansion in Total Loan Portfolio and ODC drawdown, deposits only managed modest growth—suggesting a liquidity black hole. CMEPA’s impact may deepen this imbalance. 

Despite record deficit spending in 1H 2025, BSP currency issuance/currency in circulation growth slowed from 9% in June to 8.1% in July, after peaking at 14.7% in May during election spending. Substantial money creation has not translated into higher CPI or GDP, and the slowdown suggests a growing demand problem. (Figure 5, middle diagram) 

Even with July’s massive ODC drawdown, BSP’s cash in circulation suggests a financial cesspool has been absorbing liquidity—offsetting whatever expansionary efforts are underway. 

2.C Rising Borrowings Reinforce Funding Strains, Crowding Out Intensifies, Record HTM Assets 

After a brief slowdown in May, bank borrowings surged anew by 24% in June to Php 1.85 trillion, nearing the March record of Php 1.91 trillion. Escalating liquidity strains are pushing banks to increase funding from capital markets. (Figure 5, lowest pane) 

This intensifies the crowding-out effect, as banks compete with the government and private sector for access to public savings.

Figure 6

Meanwhile, as predicted, record-high public debt has translated to greater bank financing of government via Net Claims on the Central Government, showing up in banks’ record-high Held-to-Maturity (HTM) assets. HTM assets have become a prime contributor to tightening liquidity strains in the banking system. (Figure 6, topmost graph) 

2.D Divergence: Bank Profits, GDP and the PSE’s Financial Index; Market Concentration 

Despite slowing profit growth, the PSE’s Financial Index—composed of 7 banks (BDO, BPI, MBT, CBC, AUB, PNB, SECB) plus the PSE—hit a historic high in Q1 2025, before dipping slightly in Q2. (Figure 6, middle visual)

Meanwhile, the sector’s real GDP partially echoed profits, reinforcing the case of a downturn. 

Financial GDP dropped sharply from 6.9% in Q1 2025 and 8% in Q2 2024 to 5.6% in Q2 2025. It accounted for 10.4% of national GDP in Q2, down from the all-time high of 11.7% in Q1—signaling deeper financialization of the economy. (Figure 6, lowest chart)

Figure 7

Bank GDP slowed to 3.7% in Q2 from 4.9% in Q1 2025, far below the 10.2% growth of Q2 2024. Since Q1 2015, bank GDP has averaged nearly half (49.9%) of the sector’s GDP. (Figure 7, topmost window) 

Thanks to the BSP’s historic rescue, the free-float market cap weight of the top three banks (BDO, BPI, MBT) in the PSEi 30 rose from 12.76% in August 2020 to 24.37% by mid-April 2025. As of August 15, their share stood at 21.8%, rising to 23.2% when CBC is included. (Figure 7, middle chart) 

This concentration has cushioned the PSEi 30 from broader declines—suggesting possible non-market interventions in bank share prices, while amplifying concentration risk. 

2.E OFCs and the Financial Index: A Coordinated Lift? 

BSP data on Other Financial Corporations (OFCs) reveals a dovetailing of ODC activity with the Financial Index. OFCs—comprising non-money market funds, financial auxiliaries, insurance firms, pension funds, and money lenders—appear to be accumulating bank shares, possibly at BSP’s implicit behest. 

In Q1 2024, BSP noted: "the sector’s claims on depository corporations rose amid the increase in its deposits with banks and holdings of bank-issued equity shares." 

This suggests a coordinated effort to prop up bank share prices—masking underlying stress. (Figure 7, lowest graph) 

Once a bear market strikes key bank shares and the financial index, losses will add to liquidity stress. Economic reality will eventually expose the choreography propping up both the PSEi 30 and banks. 

2.F Triple Liquidity Drain; Rescue Template Risks: Inflation, Stagflation, Crisis; Fiscal Reflex: Keynesian Response Looms 

In short, three sources of liquidity strain now pressure Philippine banks:

• Record holdings of Held-to-Maturity assets
• Rising Financial losses
• All-time high non-performing loans 

If BSP resorts to its 2020–2021 pandemic rescue template, expect the USDPHP to soar, inflation to spike, and rates to rise—ushering in stagflation or even possibly a debt crisis. 

With the private sector under duress from mounting bad credit, authorities—guided by top-down Keynesian ideology—are likely to resort to fiscal stimulus to boost GDP and ramp up revenue efforts. 

2.G Finale: Classic Symptoms of Late-Cycle Fragility 

The Philippine banking system is showing unmistakable signs of late-cycle fragility.

Velocity-dependent metrics are poised to unravel once credit growth stalls. Liquidity dependence is paraded as resilience. Market support mechanisms blur price discovery. Policy reflexes recycle past interventions while ignoring structural cracks. 

Losses are being papered over with liquidity, fiscal deficits are substituting for private demand, and the veneer of stability rests on central bank backstops. This choreography cannot hold indefinitely. If current trajectories persist, the risks are stark: stagflation, currency instability, and a potential debt spiral. 

The metrics are clear. The real story lies in the erosion of velocity and the quiet migration from market discipline to state lifelines. What appears resilient today may be revealed tomorrow as fragility sustained on borrowed time. 

As the saying goes: we live in interesting times. 

____

Prudent Investor Newsletter Archives: 

1 San Miguel

• Is San Miguel’s Ever-Growing Debt the "Sword of Damocles" Hanging over the Philippine Economy and the PSE? December 02, 2024 (substack)
• Escalating Systemic Risk: As Cash Reserves Plummeted, San Miguel’s 9M Debt Zoomed to an Astonishing Php 1.405 TRILLION! November 20, 2023 (substack)

Just among the many…

2 CMEPA

• The CMEPA Delusion: How Fallacious Arguments Conceal the Risk of Systemic Blowback July 27, 2025 (substack)
• The Seen, the Unseen, and the Taxed: CMEPA as Financial Repression by Design July 20,2025 (substack) 

June 2025 Deficit: A Countdown to Fiscal Shock

In the final analysis, it’s just central banks printing money, reducing its value and causing inflation as they support dishonest governments that refuse to be fiscally responsible and continually run massive deficits. Such policies flow from the “elite’s” greed and their insatiable thirst for power, benefiting themselves at the expense of the middle class and working poor… When a society loses its moral foundation, it’s only a matter of time before the economy and currency deteriorate and the wealth gaps between the rich and poor increase dramatically—Jonathan Wellum  

In this issue

June 2025 Deficit: A Countdown to Fiscal Shock 

I. A Delayed Reckoning: Anatomy of a Fiscal Shock

1. Easy Money–Financed Free Lunch Politics

2. The Political Cult of Spending-Led Ideology: Trickle-Down by Government Fiat

3. Chronic Policy Diagnostic Blindness

4. Econometric Myopia: Forecasting the Past

5. Behavioral Fragility: The Psychology of Denial

II. Countdown to Fiscal Shock: The Hidden Story of June’s Blowout

III. Q2 Slowdown, Q1 Surge: Anatomy of the Half-Year Blowout—From Past Binge to Present Reckoning

IV. Technocratic Overreach, Authorized Expenditures, Congressional Irrelevance

V. Deficit Forecasting: Averaging Toward a Crisis

VI. Financing Strain and the Debt-Debt Servicing Spiral

VII. Tax Dragnet, CMEPA’s Forced Financial Rotation: The Economic Asphyxiation Tightens

VIII. Bank’s Fiscal Complicity, Liquidity Strains, Treasury Market’s Mutiny

IX. Mounting USDPHP Exchange Rate Tension

X. Conclusion: The Structural Fragility of Deficit Philosophy 

June 2025 Deficit: A Countdown to Fiscal Shock 

When deficits become destiny: the fiscal countdown accelerates—a convergence of easy money and political overreach

I. A Delayed Reckoning: Anatomy of a Fiscal Shock 

A fiscal shock rarely emerges from a single misstep. It crystallizes from compound misalignments across policy, ideology, and behavior. It’s the law of unintended consequences—unfolding in real time. Where economic orthodoxy meets political convenience, stability is hollowed out. And just as critically, it’s a delayed consequence of systemic denial. 

Here are the five pillars of this reckoning: 

1. Easy Money–Financed Free Lunch Politics 

A regime of entitlement—fueled by populist spending and post-pandemic ultra-low rates—fostered a seductive illusion: 

Deficits don’t matter. Debt is painless. 

Years of stimulus, subsidies, and politically popular transfers hardened into fiscal habit— habits that now resist restraint, and are rooted in beliefs that are difficult to dismantle. 

2. The Political Cult of Spending-Led Ideology: Trickle-Down by Government Fiat 

At the heart of the Philippine development model lies a flawed political-economic ideology: that elite consumption and state expenditure will "trickle down" to the broader economy. 

Massive infrastructure programs, defense outlays, and subsidy-heavy welfare budgets may deliver short-term optics—but they also crowd out private investment, misallocate capital, and accelerate savings erosion. 

The result: an economy that becomes top-heavy, brittle, and structurally vulnerable. 

This heavy-handed, statist-interventionist, anti-market bias is what Ludwig von Mises called "statolatry"—the worship of the state. 

3. Chronic Policy Diagnostic Blindness 

In the social democratic playbook, populist tools dominate. And with them comes a dangerous neglect of structural realities:

• Crowding out is ignored
• Balance sheet mismatches are waved off
• Price distortions go unexamined
• Resource misallocations are dismissed
• Economic trade-offs are neglected 

Intervention becomes the default—not the diagnosis. The result? Mispriced assets, distorted capital structures, and risk narratives untethered from fundamentals. 

The same statolatry—elevating state action above market signals—undergirds this blindness. It promotes interventionist reflexes at the expense of incentive clarity and institutional coherence. 

Fragility escalates—masked by the optics of populist-driven fiscal theatrics. 

4. Econometric Myopia: Forecasting the Past 

The establishment clings to econometric models built on frangible assumptions—historical baselines, linear extrapolation, and trend mimicry. These tools overlook what matters most: 

• Nonlinear disruption
• Inflection points
• Complex feedback loops
• Tail risks and structural breaks 

With ZERO margin for error, fragility festers beneath the surface. 

That fragility was laid bare by a maelstrom of paradigm shifts: 

• The pandemic rupture
• Deglobalization and trade fragmentation
• Raging asset bubbles
• Debt overload
• Mountains of malinvestments
• Hot wars and geopolitical shockwaves
• Inflation surges
• Financial weaponization 

This isn’t noise—it’s a new architecture of global and domestic uncertainties. And econometric orthodoxy isn’t equipped to model it. 

5. Behavioral Fragility: The Psychology of Denial 

Heuristics shape policy—and not in ways that reward foresight. Beyond populist signaling and econometric hindsight, cognitive distortions rule: 

• Recency bias
• Rear-view heuristics
• Political denialism masked as institutional confidence 

Years of perceived “resilience” dulled vigilance: 

• Every deficit was shrugged off
• Every peso slide deemed temporary
• Every fiscal blowout “absorbed” by the system 

This cultivated an expectation: past stability ensures future resilience. It doesn’t. That assumption—embedded deep within policy reflexes—has left institutions blind to volatility and ill-equipped for disruptions and rupture. 

II. Countdown to Fiscal Shock: The Hidden Story of June’s Blowout

Figure 1

In May, we warned that if June 2025's deficit merely hits its four-year average of Php 200 billion, the six-month budget gap would surge to Php 723.9 billion—surpassing the pandemic-era record of Php 716.07 billion. (Figure 1, upper window) 

Inquirer.net, July 25, 2025: The Marcos administration exceeded its budget deficit limit in the first half of 2025 after narrowly missing both its spending and revenue targets. This happened amid a gradual fiscal consolidation program. Latest data from the Bureau of the Treasury (BTr) showed the government logged a budget gap of P765.5 billion in the first six months, which it needed to plug with borrowings. This was 24.69 percent bigger compared with a year ago. (italics added) 

Then came the payload: Php 241.6 billion in fresh red ink last June!   

The government’s first-half deficit reached Php 765.5 billion—24.69% higher than last year and larger than even our most aggressive baseline x.com forecast (Php 745.18–Php 756.53 billion). (Figure 1, table)

Figure 2 

Bullseye! Our projections weren't just close—they were surgical. And the final blowout went further still. (Figure 2, topmost chart) 

Curiously underreported, June’s deficit marked an all-time high, driven by expenditure growth of 8.5% outstripping revenue growth of 3.5%. (Figure 2, middle graph) 

• BIR Collections: Up 16.24% YoY—a strong bounce from 10.71% in May and 4.71% in June 2024.
• BoC Collections: Recovered 3.23% YoY, compared to –6.94% in May and 0.67% in June 2024.
• Non-Tax Revenues: Plunged 43.25% YoY—from 40.93% in May and 81.7% in June 2024. 

Behind the aggregate improvement lies deeper fragility: June’s revenue outperformance was narrow, uneven, and ultimately insufficient to contain the programmed spending expansion—a predictable artifact of the conventional socio-democratic ochlocratic political model. 

Populist instincts override structural diagnostics. And the fiscal narrative remains hostage to crowd-pleasing interventionism rather than incentive discipline or institutional coherence.

III. Q2 Slowdown, Q1 Surge: Anatomy of the Half-Year Blowout—From Past Binge to Present Reckoning 

Despite June's record deficit, Q2 posted just Php 319.5 billion, the second slowest since 2020. That means the bulk of the six-month deficit—Php 446.03 billion—was frontloaded in Q1. 

Even then, authorities revised March spending down by Php 32.784 billion, artificially narrowing the Q1 deficit. Adjustments may mask the underlying magnitude but not the fiscal trajectory. 

This six-month outcome validates what we’ve long emphasized: programmed spending vs. variable revenues is no longer an assumption—it’s a structural vulnerability, a primary source of instability 

Importantly, this wasn’t an emergency stimulus. Unlike 2021, there’s been no recession nor one in the immediate horizon—per consensus. 

Yet the deficit beat that year’s record—despite BSP’s historic easing:

• Policy rate cuts
• Reserve requirement reduction
• USDPHP cap
• Liquidity injections
• Deposit insurance expansion 

Behind the optics: a quiet financial bailout, not of households or industries, but of the banking system. 

IV. Technocratic Overreach, Authorized Expenditures, Congressional Irrelevance 

As we earlier noted: the government continues to use linear extrapolation in a complex environment. Even with declared economic slowdown, the BIR posted 14.11% growth, buoyed by May–June outperformance. (Figure 2, lowest image) 

But has "benchmark-ism" inflated performance claims? Have authorities padded the numerator (tax data) to rationalize a fragile denominator (spending data)?

Figure 3

Non-tax revenue was the Achilles’ heel—its 2024 spike became the baseline for 2025’s enacted spending binge. The result: forecast miscalibration leading directly to fiscal shock. Beyond mere overconfidence, it was technocratic hubris that helped trigger today’s blowout. (Figure 3, topmost visual) 

Again, an underperforming economy—whether a below-target GDP, sharp slowdown, or even recession—would only reinforce this SPEND-and-RESCUE dynamic, repackaged and sold as stimulus. 

Meanwhile, authorized expenditures: Php 3.026 trillion. Remaining balance: Php 3.3 trillion, implying a floor monthly average of Php 550.05 billion. 

Budgets have been breached 6 years in a row—highlighting a redistribution of budgetary power from Congress to the Executive. 

Whether through creative reinterpretation or technical loopholes, these breaches signal a quiet transfer of fiscal power from Congress to the Executive. 

V. Deficit Forecasting: Averaging Toward a Crisis 

Looking at pandemic-era averages:

• Q3 deficits averaged Php 374 billion
• Q3 2024 hit Php 356.32 billion (–5.7% below average)
• Q4 averaged Php 537.9 billion Q4 is typically the largest—as government drops all remaining balance and more
• Q4 2024 deficit: Php 536.13 billion (–0.4% deviation)
• 2H Average: Php 911.6 billion
• 2H 2024: Php 892.45 billion (–2.6% vs trend) 

If 2025 follows this pattern, the full-year deficit could hit Php 1.677 trillion—Php 7 billion above prior records. 

But averages conceal real-world volatility, political discretion, and data manipulation—can skew results. 

Once again, it bears emphasizing: all this unfolded as the BSP eased aggressively—through rate and RRR cuts, doubled deposit insurance, capped USDPHP volatility, and expanded credit (mostly consumer-focused). 

Despite the stimulus, vulnerabilities not only persist—they’re escalating. 

If so, the DBCC's revised deficit-to-GDP target of 5.5% would be breached, necessitating another substantial upward adjustment. (Figure 3, middle table) 

Authorities would be mistaken to treat this as mere statistical noise; its implications extend far beyond the ledger into the real economy

VI. Financing Strain and the Debt-Debt Servicing Spiral 

Treasury financing soared 86.2%, from Php 665 billion to Php 1.238 trillion in H1 2025. (Figure 3, lowest diagram) 

Even with record high cumulative cash reserves of Php 1.09 trillion, June alone posted a residual cash deficit of Php 90.09 billion—evidence that surplus buffers are already depleted.

Figure 4 

As such, in June, public debt spiked Php 1.783 trillion YoY (+11.52%) or Php 348 billion (+2.06%) MoM to reach a historic Php 17.27 trillion! (Figure 4, topmost pane) 

Critically, this growth has outpaced the spending curve, suggesting potential deficit understatement or an acceleration of off-book liabilities. (Figure 4, middle image) 

Despite this, external debt share rebounded in June—a pivot back to foreign financing amid domestic constraints. (Figure 4, lowest graph)

Figure 5

Meanwhile, total debt servicing fell 40.12% YoY due to a 61% plunge in amortizations, even though interest payments hit a record. (Figure 5, topmost diagram) 

Why?

Likely causes:

• Scheduling choices
• Prepayments in 2024
• Political aversion to public backlash 

But the record and growing deficit ensures that borrowing—and debt servicing—will keep RISING. This won’t be deferred—it will amplify. 

As we warned last May

• More debt → more servicing → less for everything else.
• Crowding out hits both public and private spending.
• Revenue gains won’t keep up with servicing.
• Inflation and peso depreciation risks climb.
• Higher taxes are on the horizon 

VII. Tax Dragnet, CMEPA’s Forced Financial Rotation: The Economic Asphyxiation Tightens 

Debt-to-GDP hit 62%, triggering a quiet revision: Malacañang raised the ceiling to 70%. 

To accommodate this, authorities imposed a hefty tax on interest income via the Capital Markets Efficiency Promotion Act (CMEPA), engineering a forced rotation out of long-dated fixed income into leverage-fueled speculation and spending— (see previous discussions) 

This fiscal extraction dragnet is poised to widen—ensnaring more of the economy and constricting what little fiscal breathing room remains. 

VIII. Bank’s Fiscal Complicity, Liquidity Strains, Treasury Market’s Mutiny 

Banks continue to stockpile government securities through net claims on the central government (NCoCG). (Figure 5, middle image) 

Yet despite BSP’s easing, treasury yields barely moved—fueling further Held-to-Maturity (HTM) hoarding and deepening the industry's liquidity drain. 

At end of July, despite dovish guidance: (Figure 5, lowest graph) 

• Yields across the curve stayed above ONRRP, muting or blunting transmission
• Curve flattened unevenly: front and long ends softened, belly firmed—signaling hedging against medium-term risk
• T-bill rates remained elevated —signaling inflation fears and short-term funding stress 

Despite rate cuts, the treasury market refused to follow. Monetary policy faces bond mutineers. 

IX. Mounting USDPHP Exchange Rate Tension

Figure 6 

Following the June fiscal report, the USDPHP surged 1.29% on July 31, wiping out prior losses to post a modest 0.52% year-to-date return. 

With wider deficits on deck, foreign borrowing becomes more attractive—and a weaker dollar, further incentivized by the BSP’s soft peg, adds fuel to that pivot. But beneath the surface, this dynamic strain long-term currency stability. 

While global dollar softness might offset domestic fragilities, the USDPHP’s recent breakout hints at further testing—possibly probing the BSP’s 59-Maginot line, a psychological and tactical policy threshold. (Figure 6 upper chart) 

Should that line give, external financing costs and FX volatility could surge, exposing cracks in the peg architecture. (Figure 6, lower graph) 

X. Conclusion: The Structural Fragility of Deficit Philosophy

The Php 17.27 trillion debt—and growing—isn’t the cost of failure. It’s the price of consensus under a soft-focus ochlocratic social democracy. 

These systems don’t just elect leaders—they ratify an ethos: that deficit-fueled expansion is not only moral but inevitable. Redistribution becomes ritual. The annual SONA pipelines new spending schemes, boosting short-term political capital—but the structural anchors are threadbare. 

Compassion without discipline sedates policy. Voters misread rhetoric as reform, empathy as capability, largesse as virtue, and control as stewardship. Time preferences spiral, gravitating toward the instant dopamine hit of political dispensation. 

Alas—the tragedy is not merely fiscal. It’s intergenerational erosion. Each electoral cycle mortgages future agency, compounding fragility over time. 

What’s swelling isn’t just debt. It’s a philosophical incoherence—subsidizing dysfunction and labeling it 'development.’ 

When such convictions are deeply embedded, a disorderly reckoning is inevitable. 

____

References 

Prudent Investor Newsletter, The Philippines’ May and 5-Month 2025 Budget Deficit: Can Political Signaling Mask a Looming Fiscal Shock? Substack July 7, 2025 

Prudent Investor Newsletter, Is the Philippines on the Brink of a 2025 Fiscal Shock? Substack June 8, 2025 

Prudent Investor Newsletter, Philippine Fiscal Performance in Q1 2025: Record Deficit Amid Centralizing Power, Substack May 4, 2025 

Prudent Investor Newsletter, The Seen, the Unseen, and the Taxed: CMEPA as Financial Repression by Design, Substack, July 20, 2025 

Prudent Investor Newsletter, The CMEPA Delusion: How Fallacious Arguments Conceal the Risk of Systemic Blowback, Substack, July 27, 2025

The Philippines’ May and 5-Month 2025 Budget Deficit: Can Political Signaling Mask a Looming Fiscal Shock?

 

THE question of deficit finance is at the center of public discussion of economic matters today, as it is in any society undergoing serious price inflation, and as it should be, for there is no more basic connection in economic affairs than that linking deficit finance and inflation. Though Milton Friedman's aphorism that ''inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon'' is true (or as true as economic aphorisms get), it is equally true that sustained monetary expansions are always and everywhere a consequence of printing money to cover the difference between Government expenditures and tax revenues—Robert E. Lucas 

In this issue

The Philippines’ May and 5-Month 2025 Budget Deficit: Can Political Signaling Mask a Looming Fiscal Shock?

I. The Illusion of Fiscal Soundness: Benchmark-ism, Political Signaling, and the Fiscal Narrative

II. The Five-Month Reality Check: The Mask of March’s Spending Rollback

III. Revenue Performance: Strong Headline, Weak Underpinnings

A. May 2025 Revenue Dynamics

B. Five-Month Revenue Trends

IV. DBCC Downgrades 2025 GDP and Macroeconomic Targets

V. The Politics of Economic Forecasting and Revenue Implications

VI. Public Spending Patterns: Election Effects and Structural Trends

A. May 2025 Expenditure Analysis

B. Five-Month Spending Trends

C. Budget Execution and Future Projections

VII. Deficit Financing and Debt Servicing: A Ticking Time Bomb

A. Interest Payment Trends

B. Financing Implications

C. Liquidity, Interest Rate Pressures and the Bond Vigilantes

VIII. Conclusion: Beyond the Headlines: A Looming Fiscal Shock 

 

The Philippines’ May and 5-Month 2025 Budget Deficit: Can Political Signaling Mask a Looming Fiscal Shock? 

Fiscal Theater vs. Market Reality: A Critical Look at the 2025 Budget Trajectory Using May and 5-month Performance as Blueprint 

I. The Illusion of Fiscal Soundness: Benchmark-ism, Political Signaling, and the Fiscal Narrative 

This article is an update to our previous piece titled “Is the Philippines on the Brink of a 2025 Fiscal Shock?" 

Are Philippine authorities becoming increasingly desperate in their portrayal of economic health? Is there an escalating reliance on "benchmark-ism"—the artful embellishment of statistics and manipulation of market prices—to project an aura of ‘sound macroeconomics?’ 

Beyond the visible interventions—such as the quasi-price controls of Maximum Retail Prices (MSRPs) and the Php 20 rice initiatives, which signal low inflation—amid the emerging disconnect between market dynamics and banking conditions, does May’s fiscal deficit reflect political signaling? 

This article dissects the National Government’s (NG) fiscal performance for May 2025 and the first five months of the year, revealing structural nuances behind the headline figures and questioning the sustainability of current fiscal policies.

Figure 1

The Bureau of Treasury (BTr) reported: "The National Government’s (NG) fiscal position significantly improved in May 2025, with the budget deficit narrowing to Php 145.2 billion from Php 174.9 billion in the same month last year. This lower deficit was primarily driven by a robust 13.35% growth in revenue collections, alongside a moderation in expenditure growth to 3.81% during the national elections month. The cumulative deficit for the five-month period reached Php 523.9 billion, 29.41% (Php 119.1 billion) higher year-on-year (YoY), as the government accelerated investments in infrastructure and social programs to support inclusive growth. NG remains on track to meet its deficit target for the year through prudent fiscal management and efficient use of resources, in line with its Medium-Term Fiscal Program" (BTr, June 2025) [bold added] [Figure 1, upper graph] 

However, beneath the fog of political rhetoric, the election-induced public spending cap—mainly on infrastructure—appears to be the true catalyst behind May's reported budget improvement. The temporary restraint on government expenditures during the electoral period created an artificial enhancement in fiscal metrics that masks underlying structural concerns. 

II. The Five-Month Reality Check: The Mask of March’s Spending Rollback 

Examining the January-to-May period reveals a more complex narrative. The stated deficit of "Php 523.9 billion, 29.41% (Php 119.1 billion) higher year-on-year" actually reflects a substantial revision in March spending that resulted in a lower reported deficit. 

March public spending was revised downward by 2.2% or Php 32.784 billion, from Php 654.984 billion to Php 622.2 billion. This revision cascaded into a 5.9% reduction in the five-month deficit, from the original Php 556.7 billion to the revised Php 523.9 billion. Authorities attributed this revision to "trust transactions." 

Despite this rollback, the current deficit represents the THIRD-highest level on record, trailing only the unprecedented Php 566.204 billion and Php 562.176 billion recorded in 2021 and 2020, respectively. [Figure 1, lower chart]

Figure 2

Those record-high deficits reflected ‘fiscal stabilization’ policies during the pandemic recession, when deficit-to-GDP ratios reached 7.6% and 8.6% amid negative GDP growth of -8.02% in 2020 (pandemic recession) and +8.13% in 2021 in nominal terms, or -9.5% and +5.7% in real GDP terms.  (Figure 2, topmost window)  

Of course, these were funded by all-time high public debt (excluding indirect liabilities incurred by private firms under PPP projects). 

Remarkably, without a recession on the horizon, the five-month deficit has already surpassed the budget gaps of the last three years (2022-2024) and appears likely to either match or even exceed the 2020-2021 levels. 

This trajectory stands in stark contrast to authorities' optimistic target of a 5.3% deficit-to-GDP for 2025—revised to 5.5% just last week. Just 5.5%! Amazing. 

With financial markets seemingly complacent—barely pricing in any surprises—would the eventual revelation that the early 2025 deficit “blowout” might mimic the fiscal health of 2020–2021 trigger a significant market shock? 

Or has the risk premium been quietly numbed by a narrative of “contained inflation” and headline-driven optimism? 

In this climate, the interplay between fiscal slippage and monetary posture warrants closer scrutiny. If macro fundamentals continue to diverge from market sentiment, will the ‘bond vigilantes’ remain silent—or are they simply biding their time? 

III. Revenue Performance: Strong Headline, Weak Underpinnings 

While the five-month headline figures for revenues and expenditures did set new nominal records, the underlying structural details will ultimately dictate the fiscal year's trajectory. 

A. May 2025 Revenue Dynamics 

Total revenues grew by 13.35% in May 2025, slightly below the 14.6% recorded in May 2024. Tax revenues, comprising 75% of total revenues, expanded by 6.25%—nearly double the 3.35% growth rate of May 2024. This improvement was driven by the Bureau of Internal Revenue's (BIR) robust 10.71% growth, while the Bureau of Customs (BoC) contracted by 6.94%, contrasting with 2024's respective growth rates of 3.35% and 4.33%. 

Non-tax revenues surged 40.9% in May 2025, though this paled compared to the 98.6% spike recorded in May 2024. 

B. Five-Month Revenue Trends 

May's revenue outperformance lifted the cumulative five-month results. From January to May 2025, total revenue grew by 5.4%, representing significant deceleration from the 16.34% surge in the corresponding 2024 period. (Figure 2, middle diagram) 

Tax revenues, accounting for 89.7% of total collections, increased by 10.5%, marginally down from 2024's 11.2%. The BIR demonstrated resilience with 13.8% growth compared to 12.8% in 2024. However, the BoC stagnated with a mere 0.22% increase, dramatically lower than the previous year's 6% growth. 

Despite May's surge, non-tax revenues contracted by 24.8% in the first five months of 2025, a sharp reversal from the 60.6% growth spike recorded last year. 

While the BIR shows resilience, the BoC and non-tax revenues lag, signaling vulnerabilities in revenue diversification. 

IV. DBCC Downgrades 2025 GDP and Macroeconomic Targets 

Authorities markedly lowered their GDP target for 2025. According to ABS-CBN News on June 26, "The Philippines has again revised its growth target for the year, citing heightened global uncertainties such as the conflict in the Middle East and the imposition of US tariffs. The Development and Budget Coordination Committee on Thursday said it was targeting an economic growth range of 5.5 to 6.5 percent. In December last year, the target for 2025 was set at 6 to 8 percent." (bold added) (Figure 2, lower image) 

The BSP's June rate cut also hinted at growth moderation. As reported by ABS-CBN News on June 19: "BSP Deputy Governor Zeno Abenoja said the central bank also eased rates due to the possible 'moderation' in economic activity." (bold added) 

The most striking revision involved reducing the upper end of the growth target from 8% to 6.5%—a substantial markdown that signals underlying economic concerns! 

V. The Politics of Economic Forecasting and Revenue Implications 

The Development Budget Coordination Committee (DBCC), as an inter-agency body, represents an inherently political institution plagued by ‘optimism bias’—the tendency to overestimate GDP growth. This bias stems from multiple sources: political pressure to maintain public confidence for approval ratings, the need to justify ambitious economic targets for budget and spending projections, and the imperative to maintain access to affordable financing through public savings. 

Authorities also embrace the Keynesian concept of ‘animal spirits,’ believing that overly optimistic predictions boost business and consumer confidence, thereby spurring increased spending to drive GDP growth. 

Likewise, by promoting investor sentiment, they hope that buoyant markets will create a ‘wealth effect’ that further bolsters spending and economic growth. Rising asset markets may translate capital gains into increased consumption, while higher collateral values encourage more debt-financed spending to energize GDP. 

However, because authorities rely on “data-dependent” approaches, they turn to economic models anchored in historical data and rigid assumptions—often constructed through ex-post analysis. 

Yet effective forecasting requires more than backward-looking templates; it demands grappling with the complexities of purposive human action, where theory operates not as a passive derivative of data, but as a deductive logical framework for validation or falsification. 

As economist Ludwig von Mises observed: 

"Experience of economic history is always experience of complex phenomena. It can never convey knowledge of the kind the experimenter abstracts from a laboratory experiment. Statistics is a method for the presentation of historical facts concerning prices and other relevant data of human action. It is not economics and cannot produce economic theorems and theories." (Mises, 1998) (bold added) 

Because the DBCC relies on “data-dependent” econometric models that essentially project the past into the future, authorities attempt to smooth out forecasting errors through revisions. 

They often rely on ‘availability bias or heuristic’ to inject perceived relevance into their projections.  

They also embrace ‘attribution bias’—crediting positive developments as their accomplishments, while assigning blame for adverse outcomes to exogenous factors. 

Last week’s GDP downgrade exemplifies this pattern. Authorities cited the Middle East conflict and new US tariffs to justify the lower projections—an example of political messaging shaped by both availability and attribution biases. 

This GDP downgrade carries significant implications, as revenues depend on both economic conditions and collection efficiency. If authorities have already observed signs of economic “moderation” that warranted substantial downward revisions—yet continue to overstate targets—this suggests that actual GDP may fall well below projections. 

A lower GDP would likely erode public revenues, potentially setting off a vicious cycle of fiscal deterioration. 

VI. Public Spending Patterns: Election Effects and Structural Trends 

A. May 2025 Expenditure Analysis 

Public spending barely grew in May—the mid-term election period—increasing by only 0.22% compared to 22.24% in 2024. National disbursements remained virtually unchanged at 0.12% versus 22.22% in 2024. Local government unit (LGU) spending increased 14.5%, accelerating from 8.54% last year. Interest payments jumped 14.5% compared to 47.8% in 2024. 

The national government commanded the largest expenditure share at 69.9%, followed by LGUs at 16.15% and interest payments at 12.1%. 

B. Five-Month Spending Trends 

Though public spending in the first five months of 2025 reached record levels in peso terms, growth moderated to 9.7% from 10.6% in 2024. LGU spending growth of 13.2% exceeded 2024's 10.6%. Both national government and interest payments registered lower growth rates of 9.24% and 11.14% respectively, compared to 14.83% and 40% in the previous year.

Figure 3 

Despite decreased growth rates, interest payments hit record highs in peso terms, with their expenditure share reaching 14.43%—the highest level since 2010. (Figure 3, upper visual) 

C. Budget Execution and Future Projections 

The selective infrastructure ban during elections, combined with March's spending cuts, clearly reduced five-month disbursements and the fiscal deficit. Public spending in the first five months totaled Php 2.447 trillion, representing 39.16% of the annual budget. 

With seven months remaining to utilize the annual allocation of Php 6.326 trillion, government outlays must average Php 549.83 billion monthly. If the executive branch continues asserting dominance over Congress, the six-year trend of budget excess will likely extend to a seventh year in 2025. (Prudent Investor, May 2025) 

Crucially, with authorities anticipating a potential significant shortfall in GDP, the recent spending limitations due to the exercise of suffrage could translate into a substantial back-loading of the budget in June or Q3. (Figure 3, lower chart) 

That is to say, even if June 2025's deficit merely hits its four-year average of Php 200 billion, the six-month budget gap would soar to Php 723.9 billion, surpassing the 2021 record of Php 716.07 billion! 

Thus, it defies sensible logic for authorities to assert, "NG remains on track to meet its deficit target for the year through prudent fiscal management," as this would amount to a complete inversion of economic reality. 

The crucial question is, ‘how would markets react to a likely fiscal blowout?’

VII. Deficit Financing and Debt Servicing: A Ticking Time Bomb 

How will the current deficit be financed? 

A. Interest Payment Trends 

While 2025's five-month interest payment growth of 11.14% was considerably slower than 2024's 40%, nominal values reached record highs, with interest payments' share of public expenditure rising to its highest level since 2010.

Figure 4

Including amortizations, public debt servicing costs declined significantly by 42.22% compared to the previous year, which had posted a 48.5% growth spike. This wide gap primarily resulted from a 61.4% plunge in amortizations. (Figure 4, topmost graph) 

However, the five-month foreign exchange (FX) share of debt servicing accelerated dramatically from 18.94% in 2024 to 38.6% this year. (Figure 4, middle window) 

B. Financing Implications 

Several critical observations emerge from the data. 

First, authorities may currently be paying less due to scheduling reasons, 2024 prepayments, or political considerations—to avoid arousing public concern or triggering uproar over the rising national debt. 

Second, the widening deficit represents no free lunch—someone must fill the financing void. In the first five months, debt financing surged 86.24%, from Php 527.248 billion to Php 981.94 billion. (Figure 4, lowest image) 

Regardless of how authorities obscure these costs, sustained borrowing will inevitably translate into higher servicing burdens. 

As we noted last May: 

This trend suggests a potential roadmap for 2025, with foreign borrowing likely to rise significantly. The implications are multifaceted: 

-Higher debt leads to higher debt servicing—and vice versa—in a vicious self-reinforcing feedback loop.  

-Increasing portions of the budget will be diverted toward debt repayment, crowding out other government spending priorities. In this case, crowding out applies not only to the private sector, but also to public expenditures.  

-Revenue gains may yield diminishing returns as debt servicing costs continue to spiral.  

-Inflation risks will heighten, driven by domestic credit expansion, and potential peso depreciation  

-Mounting pressure to raise taxes will emerge to bridge the fiscal gap and sustain government operations. (Prudent Investor, May 2025)

Figure 5

Third, public debt surged 10.24% YoY to hit a fresh all-time high of Php 16.95 trillion in May and will likely continue climbing through bond issuance to finance a swelling deficit! (Figure 5, topmost pane) 

The increase in May’s public debt was partly muted by a stronger peso. The BTr noted, "The decrease was due to P3.55 billion in net repayments and the strengthening of the peso, which reduced the peso value of foreign debt by P29.35 billion." 

But of course, this represents statistical "smoke and mirrors," as FX debt will ultimately be repaid in foreign currency—not pesos. In a nutshell, the strong peso disguises the actual extent of the public debt increase. 

Fourth, despite record-high government cash holdings of Php 1.181 trillion, the Bureau of the Treasury reported a cash deficit of Php 23.14 billion in May—underscoring underlying liquidity strains. 

Fifth, banks will likely remain the primary vehicle for deficit financing. While their Held-to-Maturity (HTM) assets slightly declined from a record Php 4.06 trillion in March to Php 4.036 trillion in April, this was mirrored in net claims on the central government (NCoCG), which moderated from Php 5.58 trillion in March to Php 5.5 trillion in May (+9.36% YoY). Notably, NCoCG has closely tracked the trajectory of HTM assets. (Figure 5, topmost and middle visuals) 

C. Liquidity, Interest Rate Pressures and the Bond Vigilantes 

Beyond government debt affecting bank liquidity conditions, competition for public savings between banks and non-financial conglomerates continues to tighten financial conditions—via liquidity constraints and upward pressure on interest rates. 

The crowding-out effect from rising issuance of government, bank, and corporate debt further diverts savings toward non-productive ends: debt refinancing, politically driven consumption, and speculative “build-and-they-will-come” ventures. 

Despite this, Philippine Treasury markets and the USD-PHP exchange rate appear defiant in the face of the BSP’s easing cycle—even as the Consumer Price Index (CPI) trends lower—as previously discussed) 

Globally, rising yields amid mounting debt loads have reawakened the specter of “bond vigilantes”—their resurgence partly driven by balance sheet reductions and Quantitative Tightening. Their presence is evident in the upward drift of sovereign yields (e.g. Japan 10Y, US 10Y, Germany 10Y and UK 10Y), posing a risk that could reverberate across local markets. (Figure 5, lowest chart) 

In response, the Philippine government has redoubled efforts to lower rates through a variety of channels—ranging from quasi-price controls to market interventions to an intensified BSP easing cycle. 

Yet perhaps most telling is its increasing reliance on statistical legerdemain or "benchmark-ism"—notably, the reconstitution of the real estate index to erase prior deflationary prints, despite soaring commercial vacancy rates—a subject, of course, for another post. 

VIII. Conclusion: Beyond the Headlines: A Looming Fiscal Shock 

What authorities frame as "prudent fiscal management" increasingly looks like an exercise in political optics designed to pacify markets and voters, while deeper structural risks build beneath the surface. Headline improvements in the deficit mask the reality of slowing revenue momentum, surging financing needs, rising reliance on FX debt, and a likely surge in second-half deficit. 

As markets remain lulled by political signaling, the Philippines moves closer to a fiscal reckoning — one where statistical smoothing and policy theater will no longer suffice. 

The key question: how will markets and the public react when the full weight of these imbalances becomes undeniable? 

___

References 

Bureau of Treasury, National Government’s Budget Deficit Narrows to Php 145.2 Billion in May 2025 Amid Sustained Strong Revenue Growth June 26, 2025 https://www.treasury.gov.ph/

Ludwig von Mises, Human Action, p.348 Mises Institute, 1998, Mises.org 

Prudent Investor Newsletter, Philippine Fiscal Performance in Q1 2025: Record Deficit Amid Centralizing Power, Substack May 4, 2025