SPEAKERS AND panelists of the special school forum held last August 23 at the Ricardo and Dr. Rosita Leong Hall auditorium discussed the abolition of the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF).
The forum was meant to provide an opportunity to discern how the community can respond to social issues in a constructive way.
During his introductory speech, University President Fr. Jett Villarin, SJ said that efforts should not end with pushing for the abolition of the PDAF.
“Kahit [na] binubuwag natin ang isang makasalanang sistema… ang hamon [sa atin] ay ang magtayo ng isang epektibong alternatibo (Though we are abolishing a sinful system, the challenge is for us to build an efficient alternative),” said Villarin.
On the other hand, the event’s official speaker, Political Science Department instructor Melay Abao, said that it is time to abolish the PDAF because reforming it is not a rational option.
Panelists from different social sectors also gave their insights about the topic.
The panelists in the forum were the following: Ateneo School of Government Dean Tony La Viña, International Center for Innovation Transformation and Excellence in Governance Executive Director Maxine Tanya Hamada, and Transparency and Accountability Network Executive Director Vincent Lazatin.
Why abolish the PDAF?
During their speeches, Abao and Villarin explained their respective stands regarding the PDAF.
Villarin explained that the abuse of the PDAF, more than just a personal sin, is an example of a structural sin because of its social dimension.
“I think this is one example of a structure that is sinful because it is also hurtful,” he said.
Villarin added that the abolition of the PDAF should also be accompanied by measures to create a more effective alternative.
Abao, on the other hand, discussed how the PDAF must be abolished completely because it would be “self-defeating to reform” it.
She framed her argument around a reader’s comment on her article that was published last August 17 in Rappler entitled “Why Rationalize Bad Practice.”
The comment, made by an individual with the username nongtsismis, read, “Sa probinsya, ang pera ni congressman lang ang nagpatunay na may pagpapahalaga sa kanila ang gobyerno (In the province, it is only the congressman’s money which proves that the government values the people).”
Abao explained how the comment illustrates the public’s view on the PDAF as the congressmen’s personal fund.
She clarified that removing the PDAF does not mean that benefits provided to the provinces will stop, but that what needs to be removed is the system of how the PDAF is being transacted to politicians.
Abao called these transaction “inherently anomalous and corrupting.”
The PDAF, according to Abao, distorts the presidential system because it gives the government’s executive unit undue influence over the legislative body, blurs separation among government branches and promotes collusion among the executive, legislative and local government units.
She explained that the PDAF is inherently corrupting because it is ultimately up to the congressmen and senators to decide whom the beneficiaries of the fund will be.
Abao also elaborated on the actions that should be taken by the executive and the legislative branches of government in order to fully abolish the PDAF.
She said that the executive branch should take steps to remove the P25.2 billion of PDAF as a special or separate fund and instead reallocate this to regular departments or projects that are severely underfunded.
As for the legislative branch, she proposed that it support the executive’s action of the removal of PDAF, reject the acceptance of pork barrel funding, prosecute Napoles, her cohorts and coddlers, institute budget reforms and pass the Freedom of Information Bill.
Panelists’ arguments
The panelists gave further arguments and questions regarding the PDAF system.
Hamada said that even “when the PDAF has been abolished, it will rear itself in another system” but improved accountability will keep it in check.
Lazatin said that although some of the projects from the PDAF may be good, as pointed out by its supporters, the issue extends beyond merely the projects.
He said that if this was so, then Marcos’ impeachment was a mistake since he, too, had good projects.
He added that the corruption in the government has already been long running and it is not only present in the issue of the pork barrel.
“It’s not shocking that there’s corruption in the pork barrel; it’s shocking that we’re finally seeing it,” said Lazatin, referring to the Napoles issue.
La Viña, who was not in favor of abolishing the pork barrel at the onset, said that his concern is that abolishment may create worse problems.
“The question now is, if it’s not reformable, how do we make sure that it’s not resurrected in the same form?” he said.
La Viña further identified constructing clear separation of powers as key to an improved system, as well as stricter term limits for senators and congressmen.
UPDATED: 8:25 PM, August 25, 2013
