When Benigno S. Aquino III won the presidency, he promised the era of “daang matuwid.” He also more than doubled the pork barrel of the congressmen.
Pork barrel, or the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) is a lump-sum discretionary fund allotted to legislators for projects within their constituencies. Online news network Rappler shows that the allocations for the congressional PDAF during the last three years of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s administration were as follows: 7.89 billion pesos in 2008, 9.67 billion in 2009 and 10.86 billion in 2010.
Aquino’s first year in Malacañang saw an increase in the PDAF to 24.62 billion pesos for the 2011 budget. It then became 24.89 billion in 2012 and 24.79 billion in 2013.
“Bukas na bukas din po, ihahain natin ang panukalang 2.268 trillion pesos na national budget sa Kongreso (Tomorrow, we are submitting to Congress our proposed 2.268-trillion-peso National Budget),” President Aquino said in his fourth State of the Nation Address. The “people’s budget” for 2014 proposed 25.24 billion pesos for congressional pork. PDAF. After requests were processed by the respective committees and the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), the funds received were allegedly pocketed by Napoles and the involved lawmakers
“Kumpiyansa po ako sa suporta at pakikibalikat ninyo upang mapatibay ang pondong ito na talaga naman pong masusing pinag-isipan (I am confident of your support and advocacy for the allocation of funds which was arrived at after careful consideration).”
Then Janet Napoles grabbed the public’s attention.
“Mother of all scams”
Only July 12, The Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI) released a report on a National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) probe of a scam involving legislators’ PDAF.
Benhur Luy, second cousin and former personal assistant of Napoles, accused her not only of illegally detaining him, but of concocting a multibillion-peso scam for almost a decade. The affidavits of Luy and five other whistleblowers became the backbone of a probe regarding what an investigator of the NBI dubbed the “mother of all scams.”
Napoles was accused of setting up fake non-government organizations (NGOs) as beneficiaries of some legislators’.
An estimated 10 billion pesos worth of PDAF was reportedly lost to the scam.
This scandal prompted citizens to petition that the President abolish the PDAF. Aquino defended the PDAF at first, saying that it was necessity for addressing the immediate needs of far-flung communities. He also cited his past experience as a representative of Tarlac when he used his PDAF allocation to repair the MacArthur Bridge.
But as anger escalated and threatened to reach a climax at the nationwide #MillionPeopleMarch rally held on August 26, Aquino surprised the nation with a new rhetoric: “It’s time to abolish PDAF,” he declared in a hastily called press conference on August 23.
Leaner, nameless pork
In his speech, Aquino outlined the new “nameless” system meant to replace PDAF. While legislators receive lump sum funds under the current PDAF, the new system will require them to first propose their intended projects in budget hearings.
Restrictions will also be placed on possible projects. Legislators will only be able to choose from a menu of projects that does away with so-called “soft” projects. These projects, which are comprised of temporary infrastructure work, training programs, and scholarships, among others, were deemed inconclusive and corruption-prone. Many of them have turned into “ghost” projects, which are approved but never implemented.
In response to the Napoles scam, release of funds to NGOs and government owned and controlled corporations will also be prohibited. In the case of party-list representatives, projects will be implemented only within the sponsored district or sector.
Once the projects have been approved, the necessary funds will be allotted to the budget of the involved implementing agency, which is tasked with carrying out the projects. An example would be the Department of Public Works and Highways for road construction projects. The public will also be able to monitor the bidding, procurement and implementation of these projects by visiting the websites of the DBM and the implementing agencies concerned.
Overhaul, take 2
But will Aquino’s planned reforms work?
The president’s proposed overhaul is already the second major facelift the pork barrel has seen in the post-EDSA years. In 1996, another PDI exposé revealed the depth of corruption in the pork barrel system, then known as the Countrywide Development Fund (CDF).
Established by former President Corazon Aquino, the CDF granted congressmen and senators the freedom to ultimately decide on the projects they would spend their allocation on. At one time, a congressman availed of 12 million pesos in CDF while a senator received 18 million pesos.
With the cooperation of whistleblower and former Marikina representative Romeo Candazo, PDI exposed the “kickback” system during the later years of the Ramos administration. In a series of articles in 1996, the newspaper uncovered how legislators, conspiring with the project implementers, were able to pocket 19 to 52 percent of a project’s total worth.
Outrage over the scandals prompted then presidential candidate Joseph “Erap” Estrada to promise the abolition of CDF. He later won the 1998 elections over Ramos’ favored successor, Speaker Jose De Venecia.
“I believe that Congress shares my conviction that we have to abolish the pork barrel,” Estrada stressed in his first State of the Nation Address. Yet, in the end, he opted to compromise: In 2000, the PDAF was established in place of the CDF. Under the PDAF, legislators could only propose projects found in a menu specified by the executive branch.
Two layers of pork
In an e-mail interview with The GUIDON, Ateneo de Davao University President Fr. Joel E. Tabora, SJ said that reforming the pork barrel system has two levels.
“We have to understand what we are trying to reform. There are two levels: First is planning, oversight, reportorial and audit requirements. [Past neglect of these matters is the reason why] such a shocking Napoles scam has been possible. On the second level, the use of funds that legitimize and perpetuate the usurpation by the legislative of executive prerogatives (‘legislators should legislate, not implement projects!’), and through the budgetary process, the manipulation by the executive of legislative prerogatives (‘the executive should execute policy, not force their formulation’).”
Tabora says that Aquino’s stricter policies aimed at greater transparency over pork barrel funds is a step in reforming the first level. But the problem’s second level should be properly addressed as well.
“The proposal of President Aquino of a reformed PDAF does not solve the problem of the illegitimate entry of legislators into executive functions and the dangerous manipulative powers of the executive over legislators in the budgeted PDAF (or [its new] equivalent) and the executive discretion to release or withhold allocations,” he says.
Early years of pork
The battle against the excesses of “pork” is a battle against a longstanding tradition in government—a practice that started roughly ninety years ago.
The concept of pork barrel was first established in the country in 1922. The Public Works Act was passed, allowing separate funds for building infrastructure. Some projects needed approval from a congressional committee, giving legislators some discretionary power for the first time.
Abuses became evident after only a few years of the pork barrel’s implementation, prompting Senator Juan Sumulong—President Aquino’s maternal great-grandfather—to speak out against it. According to VERA Files, a compendium of in-depth reports on current Philippine issues by veteran journalists, Sumulong took the Senate floor in 1925 to denounce the incumbent administration because it had “misused public funds in the form of pork barrel appropriations.”
Culture of patronage
However, Sumulong was ignored and the pork barrel persisted. Legislators gained more discretion in the 1950s when a new public works act shifted the power of selecting projects from the executive to the legislative with the justification that the Congress “represented the people.”
The discretionary power given to legislators encouraged a culture of patronage—congressmen could give something tangible to their constituents, guaranteeing their “electability” and cementing their hold on power. The concentration of political power in turn secured economic power for those in office while the ordinary people were left to struggle for subsistence. This ensured that there would always be people knocking at the doors of politicians, asking for help.
This system was abolished by President Ferdinand Marcos when he entered office. However Ateneo School of Government Dean Antonio La Viña stressed in an interview with ABS-CBN that “that doesn’t mean there was no corruption.”
“The money just went to the cronies of Marcos. Malaking corruption din ‘yun (This was a big act of corruption too),” La Viña said.
With Corazon Aquino’s rise to the presidency, the pork barrel returned with the label “CDF,” and the rest is history.
Gunning for transparency
In the end, greater transparency may be the key to end this culture of corruption.
“To prevent [scams] such a[s] the PDAF-Napoles scam in the future, the people should have the right always to the information necessary to audit its own money entrusted to government officials,” said Tabora.
“A strong Freedom of Information bill would [be] the legal expression of this right,” he emphasized. “To prevent a future pork barrel scam—as well as other misuses of the government’s purse or power, including military power—pass a strong Freedom of Information bill.”
The Freedom Information bill, grounded on granting more access to public documents, still languishes in Congress despite earlier promises of its passage.
Meanwhile, Janet Napoles has surrendered and is in detention. It remains to be seen if her scandal and the slew of issues it has brought to light will be the final blow to the pork barrel culture of controversy that has persisted for generations.
