BY HERMAN M. LAGON
IN A WORLD where a cup of coffee might cost more than an entire day’s meal under the National Economic and Development Authority’s (NEDA) recent poverty threshold, one can’t help but wonder how detached such calculations are from the real lives of millions of Filipinos. The announcement that spending P64 per day on food — equating to a meager P21 per meal — renders a person “not food poor” has sparked a wave of outrage, disbelief, and derision across the nation.
To anyone living in the Philippines or anywhere in the world where inflation is real, and prices are steep, this figure appears more as a cruel joke than a serious statistic. Memes and sarcastic comments exploded on social media, mocking the notion that one could survive — let alone a family — on such a budget. The issue here is not only with a poorly selected number but also with the risky precedent it creates when we begin basing public opinion and policy on numbers so far apart from reality.
Sen. Risa Hontiveros captured the sentiment of many when she called the threshold “insulting” and “saddening”. Indeed, to suggest that P64 a day is enough to stave off food poverty is not just an affront to the dignity of those struggling with hunger; it is a glaring misrepresentation of the complexities of poverty itself. “Kung ganun lang ang akala nating kailangan, ganun din lang ang aambisyonin natin bilang isang bansa,” she lamented. If we settle for such low standards in our metrics, what does that say about our ambitions as a nation?
Former senator Kiko Pangilinan went even further, dismissing the threshold as “kalokohan” (nonsense) and calling for reconfiguring these criteria. He astutely noted that if such figures truly reflect what it costs to eat adequately, then perhaps government officials should be required to live within this budget themselves. The absurdity of the P64 per day threshold becomes glaringly apparent when placed alongside the everyday expenses of ordinary citizens, not to mention the significant costs associated with ensuring a nutritious diet.
This controversy sheds a harsh light on how we measure poverty and, by extension, how we tackle it. The Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) admitted that the P64 threshold is insufficient, yet it was defended as a “least-cost method approach” designed to track changes in poverty over time. The methodology, which adjusts for inflation but not for the actual cost of living, is based on a food bundle supposedly capable of meeting the minimum nutritional requirements at the lowest possible price.
PSA’s explanation might hold up under the scrutiny of statistical analysis, but it falters when tested against the reality of everyday life. As Michael Ricafort, Chief Economist at Rizal Commercial Banking Corp., pointed out, poverty measures must reflect the actual living costs faced by Filipinos. Otherwise, any claims of poverty reduction ring hollow. After all, statistics may provide a sense of scale, but they are of little comfort to those struggling to meet their daily needs.
The food bundle used to calculate the P64 threshold includes scrambled eggs, coffee with milk, and rice or corn mix for breakfast; boiled monggo with malunggay and dried dilis for lunch; and fried fish or boiled pork with vegetables for dinner. On paper, it might seem like a reasonable diet. Practically, though, especially for children, the elderly, and those with specific dietary requirements, this menu falls far short of the varied and balanced diet required for good health. The most nutritious food is not necessarily the least expensive; hence, depending on this computation, the cultural and geographical variations in food availability and taste are ignored.
Moreover, the presumption that such food could be made at home with little gas or oil expenditure indicates how disconnected this strategy is from the reality of urban poverty. Food is inevitably more expensive in urban areas and town centers, where many depend on karinderyas (small eateries) due to the need for more suitable cooking facilities and time to prepare the ingredients and cook. Even in rural areas, where subsistence farming is prevalent, the growing cost of agricultural inputs makes it progressively challenging to stretch limited incomes to cover even the most basic needs.
Many Filipinos expressed anger and disbelief in response to this threshold, which are not merely reactions to a number but responses to the systematic neglect to address poverty meaningfully. When the metrics used to define poverty are so far removed from reality, they hinder our ability to create effective policies and programs. As Pangilinan suggested, those responsible for these calculations should return to the drawing board, not just for accuracy, but for the sake of justice.
The clamor over the P64 threshold reminds us that poverty is a lived experience needing empathy, understanding, and, above all, honesty; it is not only a statistical condition. We will never be able to address hunger, poverty, and deprivation if we begin with a mistaken conception of reality — that which is technically possible rather than what is humanly necessary. The statistics we employ to gauge poverty should mirror our will to pull people out of poverty, guaranteeing that every Filipino has enough to eat, not only to survive but also to flourish. They should not only be a tool for tracking development.
It is imperative that this process includes a more realistic evaluation of the cost of living as the government prepares to review its approach to computing the poverty threshold. The food basket used in these computations should represent the minimum and the real needs of families from various areas. The threshold ought to be a tool for empowerment rather than a tool to hide poverty’s actual degree.
Any poverty-reducing plan should ultimately aim to let every person live with dignity. This entails guaranteeing access to education, healthcare, and chances for economic development in addition to satisfying the minimum nutritional needs. It helps one realize that poverty is about the capacity to lead a meaningful life rather than only about money.
The memes and sarcastic remarks circulating on social media in response to the P64 threshold powerfully highlight the growing disconnect between official statistics and the public’s experiences. They represent more than just frustration; they are a rallying cry — a call for more accurate, empathetic, and effective ways to measure and combat poverty. Let this debate ignite a shift in how we define and tackle poverty, driving us toward solutions that truly resonate with and uplift those who need it most.
***
Doc H fondly describes himself as a ”student of and for life” who, like many others, aspires to a life-giving and why-driven world grounded in social justice and the pursuit of happiness. His views do not necessarily reflect those of the institutions he is employed or connected with./PN
