‘Positive’ developments

There are also some positive aspects in what is actually happening to our country now. This is really the first time after so many years and several administrations that solid proofs of the evils of the pork barrel system are gradually coming out. People used to merely talk about these evils before, but now concrete evidence of their existence and their gory details are gradually being exposed.

The irony here is that they are now being divulged only because this administration is manipulating the Press to divert the peoples’ attention from the numerous corruptions and anomalies happening under its watch especially in the various departments of the Executive branch. For damage control of their PR strategy that has gone astray, PNoy’s boys are now trying to concentrate the exposé and the reports on the scam among the people of the previous administration and the current opposition. If PNoy and his cohorts have nothing to hide, they should also allow the revelation of the amount of pork they used when they were legislators themselves as well as how and where they used them. They should always bear in mind that “there is really nothing concealed that shall not be eventually revealed”.

 PNoy’s lack of sincerity in this regard is further shown by his reaction to the million peoples’ march at the Luneta. In an obvious attempt to defuse the rally, he even announced two days before that he would abolish the pork barrel. Actually however, it was not the pork barrel he was referring to here but only the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) of the Congressmen and Senators. And the PDAF was not really abolished. Only the rules for its use have been changed giving him more control.

Besides, the PDAF is only a small portion of the pork barrel and does not include the other sources of pork like the President’s Special Purpose Fund (SPF) and the funds which are not even part of the General Appropriations Act (GAA) consisting of remittances to the Office of the President by the PAGCOR and those coming from the Malampaya Fund and the Motor Vehicles Users’ Charge. According to former National Treasurer Leonor Briones and former NEDA director Solita Monsod, an honest to goodness abolition of the pork barrel entails the inclusion of these remittances in the GAA so that their use will be specified and not left at the discretion of the President.

Hence Filipinos are now more aware and fully understand the nature and extent of the pork barrel and could not be easily deceived by the ruse of Malacañang in defusing the peoples’ outrage over this system and its evils. The clamor for its abolition has not died down and may even intensify in the coming days until the whole system is finally scrapped. This is another “positive” development.

The other “positive” development in this controversy is that the Supreme Court (SC) has joined the fray and may give due course to the two petitions filed questioning the constitutionality of the pork barrel system despite its previous rulings to the contrary. Indeed as early as 1994, in the case of Philconsa vs. Enriquez, the SC has already upheld the constitutionality of the PDAF then still known as the “Countrywide Development Fund” (CDF). It even considered the CDF as an “imaginative and innovative process or mechanism of implementing priority development programs/projects specified in the law”. In brushing aside the charge that the CDF promotes patronage politics and corruption the high tribunal pointed out that the proposals and identification of the projects by members of Congress are merely “recommendatory” anyway.

Then last year, in the case of Lawyer’s Against Monopoly and Poverty (LAMP) versus Department of Budget and Management (DBM), the SC once more dismissed the petition for the scrapping of the Congressional pork barrel because “no convincing proof was presented showing that indeed there were direct releases of funds to members of Congress who actually spend them according to their sole discretion”.

But since then, the situation has completely changed. With the ongoing much publicized exposé and investigation of the P10 billion pork barrel scam of “Ma’am Napoles”, a can of worms has been irretrievably opened giving out convincing proofs that members of Congress have the authority and discretion in the identification of the projects and releases of pork funds. In fact public outrage soared when it was revealed that the funds were released to fake NGOs with big percentage going to the pockets of our “honorable” legislators. This is further confirmed by the ensuing highly selective Commission on Audit (COA) report apparently made only to show that it is not sleeping on the job.

Besides, PNoy himself has shown that he can use his power of approval to release the pork in order to compel members of Congress to do his bidding in violation of the principle of separation of powers. This was shown in the impeachment of the SC Chief Corona after the SC invalidated PNoy’s Executive Order No. 1 creating the Truth Commission to investigate his predecessor and also after it decided against PNoy’s family in the Hacienda Luisita case. The impeachment complaint here was already prepared and members of the Lower House were just required to sign it even without reading it. Again, PNoy dangled the pork so that Congress would at last pass the foreign sponsored RH bill after more than 15 years obviously to accommodate Obama’s request during his last state visit in the US.

Then from the mouths of our legislators themselves comes out the truth that they need the PDAF in order to grant the favors and answer the needs of their constituents. This is clearly patronage politics enabling them to retain power in the midst of grinding poverty. It is the very cause of unsolvable poverty in the land and makes a mockery of the constitutional mandate to “free the people from poverty (Section 9, Article II).

All of the foregoing facts are matters of public record which the SC can take judicial notice of in giving due course to the petitions for the scrapping of the pork barrel system and eventually granting them after due hearing. And the SC can do so in the exercise of its judicial power “to determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government (Section 1, Article VII Constitution).

With these “positive” developments, PNoy should finally heed the incessant pleas of his “bosses” to scrap the entire pork barrel.

E-mail: [email protected]