Pork barrel back to our people

Representatives Edcel C. Lagman and Prospero C. Nograles wrote an article entitled “Understanding the Pork Barrel,” which tried to explain to the public what pork barrel really means and why Congress exercises the “ power of the purse” related to these funds. ( See http://www.congress.gov.ph/pdaf/news/pork_barrel.pdf)

The authors explained that the Countrywide Development Fund (CDF), which was transformed into the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) in 2000, was created in 1990 “with an initial funding of P2.3 billion for projects in all congressional districts and the national constituency of Senators.”

The aim of the CDF, regularly included in the annual General Appropriations Acts since 1990, was “to support small local infrastructure and other priority community projects which are not included in the national infrastructure program involving massive and costly projects.”

According to the authors, the House of Representatives was given the power over the expenditure of public funds for the obvious reason that “it is the more popularly representative chamber (which) has a more direct affinity with the people whose very own money is to be spent.”

The authors cited the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Philconsa vs. Enriquez, et. al. and the case ofSarmiento et al. vs. The Treasurer of the Philippines, et al. (G.R. No. 125680 & 126313, September 4,2001) which clarified that: “the Countrywide Development Fund attempts to make equal the unequal. It is also a recognition that individual members of Congress, far more than the President and their congressional colleagues, are likely to be knowledgeable about the needs of their respective constituents and the priority to be given each project.”

The authors also explained that representatives and senators are entitled to “soft” projects which “are basically non-infrastructure projects like scholarship programs, medical assistance to indigent patients in government hospitals, livelihood support programs, the purchase of IT equipment and financial assistance to local governments (LGUs) for the latter’s priority projects and programs. Included for PDAF funding are “small infrastructure projects like roads, bridges, footbridges, pathways, multipurpose buildings, school buildings, potable water systems, flood control, drainage systems, irrigation facilities and electrification projects.”

Congress people are also entitled to “hard” projects which cover“relatively small infrastructure projects similar to those funded under the PDAF which, are reflected in the General Appropriations Act under individual district allocations and under the DPWH locally funded nationwide lump sum appropriations.”

A website ( http://www.congress.gov.ph/pdaf/profile/index.php?y=2008) was created to show PDAF data for certain tranches for 2007 and 2008 but no PDAF statistics for subsequent years were published.

 As already known by the public, the legislators allocated their PDAF principally for Public works (47.72% in 2007 valued at P3,895,588,548.00) and for 2008, (51.04% valued atP7,444,447,117.49) over and above the other combined needs of the people such as financial assistance, livelihood/CIDSS, Education, Health, Water Supply, Peace and Order, Forest Management, Irrigation, Housing, Rural Electrification.

The funds are intended for Priority Development Assistance and surely, pray tell, cannot the legislators see that poverty, hunger, education, health, housing, employment, water supply, irrigation, peace and order and forest management count more than basketball courts, pathways, and other non-essential infra projects of theirs?

The important question to the lawmakers is obvious: have their PDAF allocations decreased poverty and improved welfare and services among their constituents?

Can Congress be mandated to expand PDAF allocation to about 70-80 percent to lessen the number of hungry and the poor, to improve health, education and housing provisions for their constituents more than the non-essential, non-urgent infra projects?

Can the DILG or Congress require the uploading online of past and present information about the PDAF allocation and projects and costs per representative and senator, to include other local government officials as well, so the public can be duly informed and can help validate the public fund data in their respective areas?

The public disclosure of public funds can be a major step in understanding and rationalizing pork barrel, and hopefully, in restoring the public funds for effective use for the most needy in every part of the Philippines.

***

Email: [email protected]