The Malampaya controversy should not end with an audit report.
It should force Congress to answer a larger question: why should billions in national resource wealth remain idle — or be spent at presidential discretion — while millions of Filipinos remain poor?
The Malampaya Fund was created under Presidential Decree (PD) No. 910 to finance the exploration, development and exploitation of indigenous energy resources.
But the Supreme Court’s Belgica ruling correctly ended the practice of treating “other purposes as directed by the President” as a blank check.
Public money needs clear legal limits, transparent governance and measurable public benefit.
The Malampaya Fund was cread by Presidential Decree (PD) 910. In 2017, the COA audit covered ₱38.8 billion in 184 Special Allication Release Orders (SAROs) released from January 2004 to May 2012. The Supreme Court’s Belgica v. Ochoa ruling in 2013 invalidated the use of the fund for purposes beyond energy-resource development.
FACT FILE: The ₱200 billion ($3 billion) has been stated as the "cumulative Malampaya royalties" collected from 2014 to 2024.
On April 13, 2026, The Philippine Star reported that 4Ps Party List Rep. Marcelino "Nonoy" Libanan, citing the Budget of Expenditures and Sources of Financing (BESF), noted the government collected ₱200 billion in Malampaya royalties from 2014 to 2024, averaging ₱18.2 to ₱20 billion a year. Libanan, a Filipino lawyer, current serves as the Minority Leader of the Philippine House of Representatives.
Fund reported as 'idle'
But how did the fund go idle?
In 2011, a landmark report emerged: The Commission on Audit (COA) revealed that ₱77.2 billion generated from the Malampaya gas project had been lying unspent or "idle" over an eight-year period.
That was contained in COA's 2010 report on the Department of Energy (DoE).
Worse: Billions more were diverted to projects "completely unrelated" to energy development.
This kicked up a legal battle.
It eventually resulted the Philippine Supreme Court's Belgica ruling.
Fund Code 151: Where the money sits
The Bureau of the Treasury (BT) said the royalties are stored under a "Special Account in the General Fund", called Fund Code 151, as per Rappler.
The DBM explains the fund was created under PD 910 to finance energy resource development and exploitation programs as well as "projects of the government and for other purposes the President may direct".
So the Budget of Expenditures and Sources of Financing (BESF) reports the royalties as "earmarked revenue", not freely spendable general revenue.
Why amend Malampaya Fund law?
Congress now has a constitutional and policy opening: amend the law governing the Malampaya Fund and channel future royalties, dividends and resource revenues into a professionally managed Philippine Wealth Fund.
Congress can do the following:
#1. Define its uses
First, Congress can define the Malampaya Fund’s permissible uses through a new statute, ending the legal uncertainty created by Belgica. It can earmark the fund for energy security, grid modernisation, electrification, research and a sovereign investment vehicle — subject to COA audit and congressional oversight.
#2. Create a separate Philippine mineral wealth fund
Second, it can create a separate Philippine Wealth Fund with a board independent of partisan politics, strict investment rules, public reporting and a mandate to finance long-term national priorities: fund preservation, science and technology education, health, climate resilience, rural infrastructure and strategic industries.
The Maharlika Investment Corp. was created under Republic Act No. 11954 with authorised capital stock of ₱500 billion. It is mandated to mobilize and invest the Maharlika Investment Fund to generate returns for job creation, poverty reduction and sustainable development. (Source: Department of Finance)
#3. Congress must define share of royalties
Third, Congress can direct a defined share of royalties from mining, petroleum, natural gas and other extractive industries into the fund.
This would convert one-time extraction into a permanent national asset, rather than allowing resource wealth to disappear through short-term spending or weak enforcement.
#4. Mandate transparency for LGUs, community beneficiaries
Fourth, it can require local government units and affected communities to receive transparent benefit-sharing arrangements, while strengthening environmental safeguards and free, prior and informed consent for Indigenous peoples.
A mineral-rich, poor nation
The paradox is damning.
The Philippines is one of the world’s most mineralised countries, yet much of its population remains destitute — a proverbial "pauper sitting on a pot of gold".
Its commercially recoverable gold, copper, nickel and chromite reserves alone were valued at ₱588.12 billion in 2025.
Gold, copper, silver, nickel, chromite and other minerals can finance schools, hospitals, power grids and climate adaptation — but only if their revenues are captured transparently and invested for future generations.
Otherwise, the country will continue exporting raw wealth while importing poverty.
RECOVERABLE GOLD RESERVES: The Philippines' estimated commercially recoverable (Class A) gold reserves stand at 371,260 kg (approximately 371.26 metric tons). Surging global metal prices caused the monetary valuation of these reserves to shoot up by 41.6%, reaching a record PhP 308.79 billion. Source: PSA
The MIF model
The Maharlika Investment Fund (MIF) already provides an institutional precedent: a state vehicle designed to invest public resources for long-term returns.
But a resource-backed Philippine Wealth Fund should be more tightly constrained — and more transparent.
Moreover, it would be justified for the the fund management to be more clearly tied to the communities that bear the environmental and social costs of extraction.
Audit, drive transparency, redistribute
Congress should not merely investigate past Malampaya releases.
It should legislate a future in which Malampaya royalties and mining revenues become a permanent national endowment — audited, professionally managed and owned, in substance, by the Filipino people.
A country rich in gas, gold, copper and nickel should not remain poor because its wealth is idle, misused or captured by the elite.
What Norway actually does
Clear roles. The fund, which was built with Norway's oil revenues, is a deposit account at the central bank. The Finance Ministry owns it, Norges Bank’s investment arm manages it, and major strategy changes need parliament’s approval.
Saving first, spending by rule. A fiscal rule limits how much public money can be drawn, reported at about 3% of fund value a year.
Passive and global. It holds stakes in over 9,000 companies worldwide, has no debt at the fund level, and has returned an average 5.99% a year since 1998.
Where the Philippines already stands
It already has a fund, the Maharlika Investment Corp (MIC), created in 2023.
It says it follows the Santiago Principles, the international governance standard, and aims to become a full member of the sovereign wealth fund forum IFSWF by 2027.
But it’s still waiting for ₱50 billion of its ₱125 billion capital.
Rappler reported that only 8% of its initial capital was deployed by the end of 2025, with most earnings from deposit interest.
Unlike Norway, Maharlika invests directly at home, for example in a ₱15 billion Petron working-capital facility.
How to copy the model (my analysis, not an official plan)
Ring-fence the royalties by law, with a spending cap on the fund’s income, not its principal. COA’s audit of earlier Malampaya releases found funds spent on agricultural and rehabilitation projects instead of energy, including ghost projects.
Separate owner, manager and auditor, with published guidelines and annual reports. Maharlika’s 2% operating cost cap is a start.
Decide between passive global investing and strategic domestic investing. Norway’s passive approach has drawn criticism for having few tools to adapt to global capital swings. Domestic projects serve local needs but carry more political and concentration risk.
Compare saving with paying down debt. COA once suggested Malampaya money could pay down public debt to cut interest costs. Saving wins only if the fund’s return beats the government’s borrowing cost.
A reality check on scale
At roughly ₱63 to the dollar, ₱200 billion is about $3 billion, around 0.15% of Norway’s $2.2 trillion fund, making it the largest single sovereign wealth fund in the world.
Illustratively, investing ₱18.2 billion a year at 6% for 30 years would grow to about ₱1.4 trillion. That’s an assumption, not a forecast, since royalties swing with output and prices.
Norway’s real advantage was discipline and Storting (parliament, in place since 1814) oversight over decades, not size.