Limits to current policy Fiscal policy is central to the human rights condition in the country. Public provision and support of social services such as education, nutrition, health care, housing, basic utilities are essential to the enjoyment of human rights. Given low tax revenues notwithstanding previous efforts to reform the tax system and improve collection efficiency, the insistence on balanced budgets or low deficits has resulted in levels of public spending that barely allow the satisfaction of core obligations, let alone progressive levels of enjoyment of human rights. This is evident in the tight balance between revenue and spending, and in the way fiscal goals and policy are stated in the country's development plans. Fiscal consolidation during the period 2003-2008, which saw spending drop by more lhan 2o/o of GDP, resulted in cutbacks in essential health, education and social services along with underinvestment in critical infrastructures. The consequences were by now too predictable, but no less serious: . . . . Real per capita national government spending fell to a low of PhP 5,813 (2000 prices) in 2005 from PhP 6,701 in 2OO2: Real national government spending on social and economic services fell to 9% of GDP in 2001-2006 from 1 1 .2/" in 1999-2000; Real per pupil national government spending dropped to an average PhP 5,304 (2000 prices) in 2001-2006 from PhP 5,830 in 1999-2000; and Real per capita national government health spending plunged to PhP 114 (2000 prices) in 2001-2005 from PhP 159 in 1999-2000. (Diokno, 2008) There was a brief spurt in public spending in 2009 as the government attempted to mitigate the impact of the global recession. The last two years, 2010-2011, yet again saw government scaling back on spending in an effort to bring down the deficit. Both episodes of fiscal consolidation were applauded by financial markets and cefiainly played a role in recent credit rating upgrades. But this came at the expense of human rights: significant levels of poverty and hunger, widespread lack of access to essential primary health care, and the worsening problem of lack of access to basic education remain. The Philippine Development Plan 2011-2016 (PDP) does not depart from the straight and narrow path of fiscal stability defined by low deficits and balanced budgets. While it recognizes the need to redress the regressive impact of the previous effort at fiscal consolidation, the Plan defines the task of fiscal policy as "one of achieving fiscal consolidation, while at the same time substantially increasing the country's investments in infrastructure, health and education." The obviously conflicting objectives of fiscal consolidation and increased investment are reconciled in the plan through an increase in revenues (+2.4"/" of GDP) and a smaller increase in expenditures (+ 1.8o/" of GDP). The net result is a planned reduction in the fiscal deficit (-0.6% of GDP) to 2.0o/" of GDP in 2016. The first year of the Plan's implementation betrays a strategy of achieving fiscal consolidation while paying lip service to increasing investments. ln 2011, notwithstanding an increase in government revenues (+0.55% of GDP) and continued decline in interest payments (-0.44o/o ot GDP), which left government with more room to spend (+0.99% of GDP), non-interest expenditure dropped (-1.0% of GDP) from its 2010 level. Fiscal consolidation was clearly uppermost on the government's mind: the fiscal deficit was narrowed (-1 .460/o of GDP) lo 2.03o/o 81