PDAF: How it worksBy Jess Diaz (The Philippine Star) | Updated August 17, 2013 - 12:00am

MANILA, Philippines - The Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), the official name of the congressional pork barrel, is a lump sum appropriation in the national budget. For this year, it has a funding of nearly P25 billion.

It allocates P200 million a year for each senator and P70 million for each member of the House of Representatives.

The process of releasing PDAF allocations starts with a senator or congressman making a request for the release of his or her allocation. A project list accompanies the request. Projects are drawn from a menu specified in the annual budget law.

The request is sent to the Senate finance committee, in the case of a senator, or the House appropriations committee, in the case of a House member. The committee chairman endorses it to the Senate president or the Speaker, who then forwards it to the Department of Budget and Management (DBM).

The DBM makes sure that the project list conforms to the menu in the budget law. It then releases the funds to the implementing agency identified by the lawmaker, who is furnished a copy of the release document known as special allotment release order (SARO).

The lawmaker is not supposed to meddle in project implementation. But in reality, as Commission on Audit (COA) Chairperson Grace Pulido-Tan said yesterday, they chose the non-government organizations (NGOs) that received their funds and implemented their projects.

Tan said the supposed implementing agencies, when they received the PDAF funds, “just turned around and transferred the money to the NGOs identified by lawmakers.”

The transfer is presumably covered by a memorandum of agreement signed among the lawmakers, their implementing agencies and their chosen NGOs.

Auditors usually conduct a post-project implementation examination. By this time, the funds had already been misused.

Budget Secretary Florencio Abad yesterday said senators and congressmen cannot escape responsibility for the misuse of their pork barrel funds.

He said ultimately, it is the lawmakers who allocated the funds and officials of the implementing agencies who have to account for the money and how the lawmakers’ projects were implemented, including their choice of NGOs, if these are the project implementers.

What do we young people think of pork barrel scam?By Rama O. CoSeptember 27, 2013 at 2:23 am

What is the pork barrel?

In the Philippines, it is the budgetary allocation given members of the Congress and the Senate. In 2006, the amount was P70 million for each member of Congress, and P200 million for each member of the Senate.

The term “pork barrel politics” usually refers to spending what is intended to benefit a politician’s constituents, in return for their political support. Recently, however, the most widely known reference to the term would have to be the 2013 Philippine Pork Barrel Scam.

Being the future of the country, the youth is our nation’s prime asset. It is the country’s duty to support and care for its children. In turn, the youth has an obligation to be involved in the affairs of our nation, and not to stand by idly when scandals arise.

With the revelation of the recent pork barrel scam—whose roots go deep into the cracks and crevices of the government—the call on the youth movement is even greater.

It has been repeatedly said that corruption in the Philippines is not only deeply rooted, but also is institutionalized. It has become the norm, a way of life. And, to put it bluntly, the wrong seems to have become the right—because everyone else does it.

What’s even more scandalous is that those accused of stealing flaunt their excessive lifestyles with neither shame nor guilt. If this has become the norm, how do you put a stop to it? The problem is so complex that we should start examining our own values as a people.

Government officials and their cohorts seem to have forgotten even the most fundamental of human values. Maybe they should go back to the basics—all the wealth accumulated in one’s life cannot really be taken to the grave or to the next life. If you truly love your family, would you want them to pay for your sins in the form of karmic justice? Bare essentials

Maybe lessening the pork barrel amount would minimize corruption. The creation of a combined public and private audit would minimize political dishonesty. Perhaps the government can create a “log-in” system where anyone can access information on publicly funded projects, budgets, expenditures. (All these are available online, under the General Appropriations Act, Department of Budget and Management.) If we strip the issue down to its bare essentials, it boils down to accountability. It’s like us kids—when our parents give us an allowance, we are obligated to report expenditures honestly.

Before we can move forward, however, we appeal to President Aquino to make a strong stand, so that those guilty are held accountable and the sums stolen are rightfully returned. If even half the stolen amount was returned, the money could still go to the right projects.

It is only after these past wrongs have been righted that we may have a chance to work on other major issues, like the education of the masses (to vote wisely) and the provision of proper health care for the people.

Naming and shaming no longer work for calloused thieves. The wrong must be made right. No man is above the law.

May truth and justice prevail in this time of deceit and disillusionment—for the sake of this generation, and of other generations to come.

To better understand the effect of the pork barrel scam, and to better grasp the extent it has rocked the youth, I’ve asked kids my age this question:

What do you think of the pork barrel scam, and how can the public stop government officials from abusing this power?”

What they said:

“Many of the young people I know are indifferent. Were it not for the media’s sensational coverage of the Janet Napoles case, the pork barrel scam and abuse of privilege would have stayed an obscure issue.Clearly a lot more needs to be done. The true victims here are the organizations in need which should have been the beneficiaries of the pork, and the Filipino people whose taxes funded the pork.

I believe that vital to any solution are neutrality and accountability. The pork barrel budget should be reallocated to a neutral third-party organization that will disburse funds directly to the selected beneficiaries. The beneficiaries should be held accountable for the funds they receive. Both parties—the funding organization and the beneficiary—should be subject to periodic audits by an independent body selected by the taxpayers. It may sound simple and easier said than done, but it just might work.”—Abigail Theresa F. Cancio, 16, high-school senior, St. Paul College Pasig

“Pork barrel is a government fund supposed to be used to help the people, but what happened is that many unscrupulous people, especially the corrupt, have used it for their own good, especially some of our government officials. We can stop them by putting them in jail if guilty.”—Paola Lianne De Leon, 18, out-of-school youth, Caloocan

“I think the pork barrel scandal is an injustice, especially against people in need, those who are victims of calamities such as wars and typhoons. The money stolen could have been used to help them. It could’ve been more useful to the people of the community than to the senators who are collecting them.

The money itself belongs to the people who are paying taxes. It’s supposed to be used to develop the country. To prevent things like this from happening again, the government should physically show the masses where their taxes go. The tax payers should be able to acknowledge the changes brought to them and their country.”—Karl Escovidal, 16, freshman, University of the Philippines Manila

“I think it is really devastating that despite the government’s anti-corruption statements, the Philippine government is in the middle of another scandal. It’s really disappointing that people are scamming the

government and the tax payers for their own personal gain, but it is also upsetting that authority figures within the government are allowing these things to happen.

Janet Napoles and the government officials who have been abusing the system couldn’t have done it overnight, nor could they be the only ones, so why is this corruption not being reined in and stopped?

“I think the only way to prevent or minimize corruption is to make every government transaction completely transparent to the public.”—Tamara Gibb, 17, high-school senior, British School Manila, Taguig

“The pork barrel scandal is what government corruption is all about. While pork barrel, as well as other rules and laws, were imposed with good intentions, it was easily manipulated and has become a big scandal that had people protesting in the Million People March and on Edsa. The scandal should be enough to help the government understand the flaw, as well as question the integrity of those who were put in charge and abused their authority and responsibility to the people.

While people can march for the abolition of pork barrel, we also need to get to the heart of the problem to stop government officials from abusing their power—by electing those we know and trust to do what they’re meant to do as a representative of and for the people, and not take advantage of that power for their own personal profit and gain.”—Maia L. Paterno, 16, high-school junior, International School Manila, Taguig

“It saddens me to think how deeply rooted corruption is in our country. And it further saddens me that the only time we realize the extent of the damage done is when there is a whistleblower.

“This scandal serves as a wake-up call for the youth. We need to be more involved, and know the issues of our country. By doing so, we can be more vigilant and, in our little way, effect positive change as a unit. Sad to say, the abuse of power by officials has been a way of life in the government, so that it seems difficult to put a stop to this. The reach is far and wide and is deeply rooted.

“I believe putting a stop to the abuse needs to start with me—my commitment to be more involved by making an effort to know what is happening in the country, to help put a stop (or not contributing) to small corrupt acts such as bribing public officials to expedite permits, or a policeman so that he/she doesn’t issue you a traffic ticket, etc. If we as citizens do the right thing, we will be able to break the chain in this epidemic.”—Jose Antonio P. Felipe, 15, high-school sophomore, De La Salle Santiago Zobel School, Alabang

“Spending government funds is not the role of the senators and representatives. Aren’t they supposed to create laws? Stop giving them the temptation and the opportunity to get what is not due them. The pork barrel should be scrapped immediately. Let the department heads of our government do the allocation and spending of funds for the common good of our countrymen. Lastly, a request to our cabinet secretaries: Don’t follow in the footsteps of some of the unscrupulous lawmakers.”—Katrina Estanislao, 15, high-school sophomore, St. Paul College, Pasig

“I think the pork barrel scandal just reveals to all of us that too much power, indeed, does make people corrupt. This leads to the abuse of the power that the people gave to the government officials.

“I guess the public can stop these officials from abusing their power by voting wisely. Stop voting for the name (political dynasties), and actually vote for the projects and laws the candidate aims to implement.

If the abuse has not stopped by then, the public could also unite as one people and rally against the corruption of the Philippine government, and hopefully the Philippines will see a better tomorrow.”—Gabe Madrid, 16, high-school junior, Philippine Science High School, Quezon City

Nápoles & Pork Barrel: It’s the Lousy System“I’m a Party Girl, in a Party World…”

There’s been a lot of anger expressed regarding Janet Nápoles, her daughter Jeane, their lavish lifestyles, and the Pork Barrel scam that funded it all. Everyone seems to be screaming about the need to abolish the Pork Barrel, which today bears the official name “Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF).

But before jumping into the “abolish the Pork Barrel” bandwagon, it is necessary for Filipinos to first understand why the Pork Barrel system exists, and why it was institutionalized the way it has been in the Philippines. Understanding this will allow us to see if merely abolishing the Pork Barrel fund will actually work, or whether it is actually part of a wider set of systemic problems that stem from a common set of root causes.

Looks like a Paris Hilton just waiting happen.

Pork Barrel was intended to “address” certain Problems

The Pork Barrel fund didn’t come about just because some politicians decided it was cool to have loads of cash at their discretion. Rightly or wrongly, it was actually originally intended to serve as an immediate palliative remedy or “Band-Aid” to fix some key symptomatic problems caused by deeper systemic root causes inherent in the overall Philippine “System.”

The following are the problems that the institution of the Pork Barrel intends, rightly or wrongly, to fix:

1. Widespread poverty and the perceived need to “assist the poor”

There are just too many poor people all around the Philippines asking for assistance. The politicians long ago who thought of institutionalizing the Pork Barrel did so because they felt that a certain discretionary “special assistance fund” would give legislators the necessary funding they feel they need in order to spearhead projects that could “assist” the needy people in areas they represent in order to gain goodwill and justify the reason for their elected positions’ existence. Apparently, far too many Filipino leaders didn’t think that legislators are supposed to concentrate on legislation – i.e.: passing new relevant laws and/or repealing obsolete ones, or that representing their constituents’ interests in the legislature was what they signed up for.

It seems more like their idea was that all elected positions are somehow “executive” and are supposed to have projects (both soft projects such as scholarships as well as “infrastructure projects”) that would create visibility for them even if the elected positions they ran for are purely within the legislative branch. Hadn’t they heard of “Meet the People” or “Townhall” Sessions that happen where representatives regularly meet with the people they represent in their own districts for Q&A’s and thus gain the necessary input they need for privilege speeches and for discussions and debate in the legislature? (Then again, “Meet the People” or “Townhall” Sessions are how things work in a Parliamentary System)

The problem of massive poverty and the mendicant attitude that had been nurtured in the Philippines has caused politicians to think that it is absolutely necessary for them to dole largesse out to the people in their districts in order to placate the poor and their demands/requests for assistance. This is a “pull factor” in the sense that it is oftentimes many ordinary people who directly or indirectly beg for the Pork Barrel fund to continue on. Without the Pork Barrel fund, they feel they’ll be helpless.

Well, instead of handing out dole-outs, why don’t legislators push for ways to create real jobs in their communities? (More on the details of how to do that later in this article) After all, if jobs were plentiful, then people wouldn’t be asking for dole-outs in the first place. If people weren’t asking for dole-outs because they had jobs, then politicians wouldn’t need to hand-out pork barrel largesse which are funds they get from taxpayers.

But because there aren’t that many jobs, so many Filipinos are poor and always asking for money and assistance, the pork barrel fund serves as an institutionalized means for politicians to elicit a debt of gratitude from among the people who benefit from their largesse.

2. Economic Disparity between the Capital versus the Countryside

Remember what the original name of the Pork Barrel fund was before it was called the PDAF (Priority Development Assistance Fund)? Answer: Countrywide Development Fund

In other words, part of the intention for the Pork Barrel was to “distribute funds from the national coffers to localities in the countryside.” In defense of the Pork Barrel fund, you might have read comments about the need to “assist local communities through special funding” or “redistribute wealth to the rest of the country through various local projects.”

The problem is that those “local projects” often show up in the form of basketball courts or sponsorships in local town fiestas. Very often, due to the discretionary nature of the fund, politicians use the fund to reward supporters or buy the support of many others.

Clearly, using the Pork Barrel does not develop the countryside. It simply makes people in the countryside more likely to develop a mendicant attitude of dependence on dole-outs.

3. Need for the Executive to get the Legislature’s Cooperation

The Philippines, sad to say, uses a Presidential System. And Presidential Systems feature a separation of powers where the Legislative and Executive are distinct entities who are meant to act as a “check and balance” against each other.

In theory, the intentions in separating the legislative and executive seem good, but in actual practice, this has resulted in widespread failure. Countless world-renowned political science PhDs from the Ivy League and the world’s most respected universities have separately studied the phenomenon over and over again and the same observation keeps popping up: Presidential Systems, thanks to the separation of powers between legislative and executive, tend to be unstable and prone to gridlock.

The Executive may want to do something, but the Legislature may block it. The Legislature may want to do something, but the Executive may block it. That clash between the two branches is called GRIDLOCK.

And Gridlock is wasteful and unproductive.

As the Philippines is a developing nation that can ill-afford delays and showstoppers caused by gridlock, many leaders in the past sought a means of mitigating this debilitating feature of the Presidential System. They needed a means for the Executive (aka “The Office of the President”) to be able to control, entice, cajole, and buy the legislature in order to get them cooperating.

This became the key rationale for institutionalizing the Pork Barrel fund. Without the pork barrel fund, the Executive would simply be unable to get the legislature agreeing with it, and both branches could end up going in different directions. Surely, everyone understands this to be a disaster.

Sadly, the palliative remedy that is the Pork Barrel which was originally envisioned so that the executive could get the legislature’s cooperation has spawned a lot more evil side-effects than benefits.

All of the enumerated issues above serve as either pull (or demand from the People) or push (or supply from the State) factors which perpetuate the existence of the Pork Barrel fund. Simply removing the “supply” by abolishing the pork barrel fund will not work, since the demand will continue. Cutting off supply without finding ways to reduce demand in the first place will mean that future leaders and politicians will very likely end up reviving the Pork Barrel system since the pull factors that necessitated its creation will still continue to exist. These are all systemic problems caused by systemic root causes. As such, it is necessary to solve these systemic issues from their roots at the underlying “system level.”

How to truly get rid of the PDAF Pork Barrel Fund

We must remove all the reasons why People (especially poor people) ask for such dole-outs. We must remove whatever causes the imbalance between the Capital and the Countryside. And we must eliminate (or at least reduce) the root problems that cause the executive to need to rely upon pork barrel funds as a means to elicit the legislature’s cooperation.

Here are the three solutions necessary to truly wean Filipinos away from their dependence on the pork barrel, on the one hand, and eliminate the need of government to make use of it as a “tool for governance” on the other:

1. Economic Liberalization: Remove 60/40 & other anti-FDI provisions

Economic Liberalization through Constitutional Reform and the repeal of numerous anti-FDI laws aims to get rid of the primary showstopper that prevents numerous multinational corporations and foreign direct investors from easily coming into the Philippines to set up offices, factories, and other operations that would have created millions of opportunities for gainful employment for locally-based Filipinos.

This simply means one thing: MORE JOBS FOR FILIPINOS.

When there are more jobs for locally-based Filipinos, then these people will earn salaries and be more capable of supporting themselves and their families instead of relying on dole-outs and hand-outs. When people earn their own salaries, there is less need for them to ask for largesse and less need for them to ask elected officials and other politicians to help them out with “donations”, fiesta-funding, funerals, baptisms, weddings, and special “projects.”

Economic Liberalization allows multinational corporations and foreign direct investors to more easily come in and leads to rapid economic development and massive job-creation. When people have jobs, they don’t feel helpless, they don’t feel dependent. There’s simply less need for Pork Barrel funds once the problems of massive unemployment and poverty are addressed by economic liberalization.

More jobs for Filipinos means more Filipinos earning salaries which means less need for Pork Barrel.

2. Evolving Federalism: Empower the Regions, Develop the Countryside

Federalism actually isn’t that difficult to sell as a concept. Just talk to most Visayans, Mindanaoans, Bangsamoros, Cordillerans, Bicolanos, and even many Ilocanos, and you’ll realize that the concept has a lot of followers and supporters.

Evolving Federalism aims to empower the regions in a gradualist “when you can” fashion that concentrates firstly on giving the regional authorities the ability to attract investors into their regions in order to create employment opportunities for a majority of their people. This is very much tied to Economic Liberalization, but this time, the regions themselves will be empowered to take the initiative to more actively “court investors” by having the regions set policies that would make themselves much more investor-friendly and competitive in order to attract job-creating corporations to set up operations in various regions.

Rather than “redistributing taxpayers’ money across the country”, why not “redistribute economic opportunities” by giving the regions the authority and the ability to attract investments themselves? That’s one of the key selling points of Federalism.

DISTRIBUTING OPPORTUNITIES TO THE COUNTRYSIDE

When the regions who form the “Countryside” are much more capable of fending for themselves economically, what need is there for the Pork Barrel as a means of “redistributing funds?”

3. Parliamentary System: NO GRIDLOCK, Greater Transparency

While Presidential Systems were designed to separate the executive and legislative branches which makes them all prone to gridlock when the two branches cannot agree on the same issue, Parliamentary Systems fuse both the executive and the legislative functions to parliament (particularly to the more powerful lower house if bi-cameral). This is why there is NO GRIDLOCK in Parliamentary Systems.

Simply shifting over to a Parliamentary System immediately eliminates the gridlock problem, thus eliminating the key “supply-side” rationale behind the institutionalization of the pork barrel fund in the first place. See, merely abolishing the pork barrel fund without addressing the problem of gridlock

means that as gridlock continues, politicians from the executive branch will later on think of reinstating the pork barrel (perhaps calling it something else) because of the need to buy the legislature’s cooperation.

Aside from having no issue of gridlock as parliamentary systems do not feature a separation of the executive and the legislative branches, they also feature a superior, more transparent, and more accountable means of checks and balance. Unlike presidential systems which specifically rely on gridlock as a means of having the executive check on the legislature or having the legislature check on the executive, Parliamentary Systems have the opposition Minority checking upon the Majority bloc who runs the Government.

The Minority Opposition creates what is known as a Shadow Cabinet which is composed of leaders and senior members of the coalition or party that leads the opposition minority bloc, who will take on “shadow ministerial positions” and are each assigned to follow the official Government Cabinet’s own ministers around in each of their ministry’s meetings. While the Majority bloc will assign their most senior leader to be the Prime Minister and the other leaders and senior members to be Ministers heading each of the Ministries, the Minority will do the same. The Opposition’s most senior leader will be the Leader of the Opposition who will keep tabs on what the Prime Minister does, while the Shadow Minister for, say, Defense will keep tabs on whatever the official government’s Minister of Defense does. The other Shadow Ministers will do the same for each of the Government Ministers they are assigned to “shadow.”

(“Shadow” —> “to follow around and keep detailed tabs on“)

In a Parliamentary System, the competition between the Opposition versus Government during parliamentary debates ensures that the Government is on its toes

Every week, the Leader of the Opposition grills the Prime Minister during the PM’s Question Period on decisions, project outcomes, and issues of budget expenditures, while the Shadow Minister for Education grills the Minister for Education on anything pertaining to the Ministry of Education, and so on and so forth… This system keeps the Government on its toes and forces them to keep themselves clean and above-board. Any anomalous transactions can easily be exposed as the Opposition is always watching whatever the Government does and raises questions every week.

No wonder Parliamentary Systems are leaner, more efficient, and less prone to Corruption than Presidential Systems.

In summary, here are just a few of the many major advantages that shifting to the Parliamentary System will bring to the Philippines:

1. Better quality & highly competent leaders2. Greater transparency as the Opposition can question the Government during the numerous Question

Periods and parliamentary debates.3. Greater efficiency as there is no gridlock to speak of4. Ease of getting rid of lousy leaders instantaneously5. Greater political stability as there is no gridlock6. Better policy-consistency as executive and legislative are fused

7. Superior check and balance as the Shadow Cabinet regularly scrutinizes the Government’s Cabinet and their decisions and actions.

Moreover, there is no equivalent concept of the PDAF in most Parliamentary Systems. It’s interesting to note that the term “Pork Barrel” has its origins as an American term and is associated primarily with the Presidential System.

Parliamentary: NO GRIDLOCK; SUPERIOR GOVERNANCE

Bottomline: Since Parliamentary Systems fuse the legislature and executive together and thus do not have gridlock, then there would be no need for a Pork Barrel fund to entice the legislature to cooperate with the executive.

We must address Root Causes, not just Symptoms

One totally disappointing recurring theme in Philippine Society is the overwhelming focus that Filipinos have in merely addressing symptoms, but not going deep enough to hit the root causes of a particular “disease” or problem.

Agitating for the abolition of the Pork Barrel or PDAF is a good start. But it should not end there. Abolishing the Pork Barrel because of the harmful side-effects of corruption it causes upon society will not work if the reasons for why the Pork Barrel was made to exist continue to be present.

To use an analogy, imagine that you are taking a pill that is supposed to solve a particular symptom you are experiencing. However, taking that pill gives you rashes, although it does solve – to an extent – that other symptom you originally had. But now, the rashes are getting to you, and you feel that it’s not worth the trouble. So you stop taking the pill. Unfortunately, that other symptom re-emerges. You got rid of the rashes, but the old symptom that the pill addressed of has returned.

Perhaps it is time to take a big picture view of what could be the root cause of that symptom. Is it a disease? Is it poor hygiene? Poor health? Well, if you are able to get to the root, then you may end up getting rid of the symptom without even needing to take that pill that causes rashes.

That’s the same thing as the pork barrel. The Pork Barrel fund was meant to “solve” a few problems. But the Pork Barrel has a lot of totally harmful side-effects. Does getting rid of the pork barrel alone work? Obviously not. We need to get rid of the reasons why the pork barrel was thought of as a palliative “quick-fix” in the first place.

Going back to the health analogy, for many people, simply exercising, eating well (having fruit / vegetables / avoiding too much fat), not smoking, drinking lots of water, sleeping well, and just keeping healthy are enough to avoid many health problems that affect many people. Being healthy often means not being prone to disease which often requires people to take medicines which could have other undesirable side effects. In short, being less disease-prone means having less need to pop pills, and thus not have to endure their side-effects.

That’s what the Three Point Agenda described above is all about. We should get to the roots of our problems instead of just ignoring them and using Band-Aid “quick-fixes” merely attempt to suppress the surface-symptoms but also often end up having serious side-effects. Because those side-effects will

prompt us to find other Band-Aid quick-fixes to fix those side-effects and they too will have their own side-effects, and so on and so forth. Instead, by getting down to the root cause(s), we eliminate (or at least reduce) the need for quick fixes in the first place, so we won’t need to experience their harmful side-effects.

Do we really want a truly better country? Then let’s not just look at symptoms. Let’s seek to truly solve the problems of the country by looking at the bigger picture. Let’s not just stick to the surface. Let’s all dig deeper, and solve root causes. Fix the system, all 3 aspects of it.

These three are what we need in order to totally eliminate the need for the Pork Barrel once and for all:

(1) Economic Liberalization, (2) Evolving Federalism, (3) Parliamentary System

CoRRECT™ the Constitution!

Sunday Essays: The other side of pork barrelMAJORITY of the people nowadays are furious about the P10 billion scam of Janet Napoles, senators and congressmen and consequently they cry for the abolition of pork barrel.

Everyone is mad at those who were involved in the anomaly. Everyone is asking, “Where did the money go?”

All this time, we were expecting that the funds in pork barrel would help the people who are in need of assistance. If there are calamities, war or development for the community, pork barrel supports the needs for those who are affected. This is the main duty or purpose of PDAF but unfortunately, it was corrupted and manipulated.

Because of this unfortunate event, people want to abolish pork barrel to stop all the corrupt intentions. People want to make the taxpayers’ money safe because they can never tell that even if all the corrupt officials will be prosecuted, the next in line wouldn’t do the same.Filipinos are now traumatized.

But let's also look at the other angle. PDAF is also a source of poor people’s financial health assistance, projects for the barangay, development of the community and preparation for calamities.

People may now generalize that congressmen and senators are corrupt and they are not doing their responsibilities and duties in serving the public. But there are still constituents who expect and need the help of officials and projects that are now pending because of this issue.

If pork barrel is abolished, there would be no funds for the projects, development and assistance for the people. It will be difficult for the officials to give funds if they don't even have any money to allocate for the benefit of the people.

Maybe we need a new system of pork barrel and not completely abolish it because it would also be a great problem for some people who are benefitting from it.There should be a change in the system of the pork barrel because obviously it lacks transparency. Let the people know monthly or quarterly where the funds have been allocated and inform them initially of projects that will be implemented in the community.

In short, transparency is the name of the game.

It could also be that senators and congressmen can only be given money if their projects or purposes are approved. There would be no release of money without validation of projects.Easier said than done. But we have to move and we need change. (Julia Toni L. Azarcon)

Philippines’ ‘Pork Barrel’ Graft Probe Has Lawmakers SquealingPublic protests against rampant culture of political corruption are gathering momentumBy Charlie Campbell Sept. 11, 2013

The Philippines and corruption go together like pork and mustard. But a fresh inquiry into the country’s so-called pork-barrel culture has produced some of the largest popular protests to hit the nation in years, and they show no signs of abating. Up to 100,000 people took to the Manila’s Rizal Park to protest on Aug. 26 with further marches slated for Wednesday and Friday.

Pork barrel is a pejorative term for Priority Development Assistance Funds — discretionary annual lump sums of $4.5 million and $1.6 million provided respectively to each of the country’s 24 Senators and 289 Congressmen to pay for local infrastructure and development works. However, much of this cash is simply ferreted away through bogus NGOs and nonsensical initiatives (like $115,000 for “antidengue inoculants” although no dengue-fever vaccine is currently available). In addition, the cash is treated as a slush fund for ensuring political patronage and successful re-election. “It looks like everyone has their hands dipped in the cookie jar,” Malou Mangahas, executive director of the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism, tells TIME.

Although graft is endemic in the Philippines, the sweeping scope of pork barrel has stunned even the most cynical. The scale emerged after a businesswoman named Janet Lim Napoles was accused of laundering staggering sums of money for lawmakers. From 2009 to ’12, Napoles allegedly provided at least six Senators and 26 Congressmen with $224.9 million, according to an Aug. 16 report by the Philippines’ official Commission on Audit. The 49-year-old former Laguna City housewife, who turned herself in to President Benigno Aquino III ostensibly out of fear for her own life, reportedly took a cut of 30% while delivering the bulk back to the pockets of politicians — much of it cash delivered furtively in shopping bags.

The opulent lifestyle enjoyed by Napoles — swanky houses, sports cars and a socialite daughter seen hobnobbing with celebrities including Justin Bieber at L.A. parties — spurred public outrage. “People were scandalized as you are dealing with a country where 80% of the people are poor, and the minimum wage doesn’t even reach the poverty line, only to find out that they do have money but they can’t have services because the officials are pocketing the money,” says Harry L. Roque, professor at the University of the Philippines College of Law.

In response, hordes of seething voters have taken to the street to demand an end to pork-barrel discretionary funding. So far, however, Aquino has only gone as far as to offer more transparency. Under touted reforms, each Senator and Congressman would maintain their current $4.5 million and $1.6 million allocations but must reveal where it is being spent — a half-measure described as “misleading the people” by Roque. “Unless you remove the budgetary entitlement of politicians,” he tells TIME, “there will always be pork.”

Although Aquino remains untainted by the most serious allegations, he has not been immune to criticism. Aside from lawmakers, the office of the President also comes with a sizable discretionary budget — like calamity relief — and there are calls for this to also be abolished, as well as discretionary development funds for the judiciary and other arms of government. This comes with political risks. “There could be mutiny in the Congress if all pork is phased out,” warns Mangahas.

Indeed, pursuing legal cases will likely prove troublesome, as both allies and enemies of the executive have been implicated. “It would be difficult to file suits against so many Congressmen,” says Mangahas. In addition, complex graft cases will take several years to reach the courtroom — especially for the expected charges of “plunder” — during which time even more people could be implicated. Investigation attempts are currently focusing on a paper trail via illicit bank accounts, but the likelihood of numerous cash transactions could make gathering primary evidence extremely problematic.

Nevertheless, the strength of public feeling means that inaction is not an option. “The President wants to finish his term and he will make sure [something is done] as people are very, very mad,” explains Roque, adding that some token convictions will likely be forced through as quickly as possible. A long-awaited Freedom of Information Act is also receiving widespread public backing as it will give media the tools to properly investigate alleged impropriety. “I’m hoping that this anger will redefine Philippine politics and end the cycle of vote buying and corruption,” says Roque.

Sunday Essays: Why Pork Barrel should not be abolished and its alternativesSO MUCH has been said about "abolish pork barrel system" but something seems missing. Has anyone suggested any alternative?

But is pork the real root of corruption? Let us say a person is convicted of rape. When asked why he did such crime, he would say it is because he found the lady beautiful and tempting. Should everyone go and kill all beautiful women so that rape will end?

That logic may sound oversimplified and childish but that is what the call is saying.The controversy on the pork barrel scam sheds light on the corrupt officials, ergo, many say, it should be abolished. But what would happen to the common folk if the pork barrel for the betterment of the nation be abolished?

Every decision must be followed by suggestions but it seems that our honorable lawmakers are busy diverting the minds of the people from the real issues.

With all the fuss over the pork barrel scam, there are still a number of Pinoys who have no idea what it is.

Priority Development Assistance Fund, a government program most commonly known as Pork Barrel, has existed and been institutionalized for many years. It is the distribution of money for the lawmakers and congressmen to aid their official projects.

The people must remember that the scheme had its merits such as the paving of roads and bridges, scholarships, support for poor farmers and legitimate non-government organizations.

The challenge now is to ensure that those who continue to benefit from it will not be affected if and when the pork barrel is scrapped. There must be a guarantee that these people can still go to school and continue to receive medical assistance.

The solution to the pork barrel issue is not abrogation but greater accountability, transparency, and rationality in its utilization.

What can be done?

There must be a promotion of greater transparency in the use of pork barrel funds. The officials must be required to list their reports through the print media. By doing so, the Filipinos will have a clearer and seemingly honest record.

There must also be a creation of watchdog groups that shall monitor these government or non-government organizations. They shall see for themselves these so-called organizations' existence.Before they send the money, these watchdogs must scrutinize if such organization exists and if the suggested project seems fit. They shall also determine if the organization is a type of "bad pork" or "good pork."

If the request of the lawmaker or congressman is approved, the watchdogs must still be on the lookout. If no such project has been under operation, then they shall determine if it was after all a scam or not.Each government must have a website or public page inclusive of their budgets and expenditures. A constitutional liquidation must be presented each month with official receipts acknowledged by BIR.Perhaps the most obvious solution for this problem is to allocate directly the money to the social services.

For the aid of the scholars, money must be sent directly to the Department of Education.If there is a need for a support to free medicines, the money must be sent directly to the Department of Health.

If farmers ask for aid for their plantation, they won't need to approach their congressman but directly go to Department of Agrarian Reform.

The common folk must also keep an eye on their government leaders. They have all the right to undertake any official who have gone bad and corrupt if proven factual.

If we adapt these suggestions, then the public would have a better appreciation of the pork barrel.While the call to suspend pork barrel comes from the good intentions to curb corruption and promote good governance, the people must make sure that all voices in our country are considered especially those that will be greatly affected of this decision.

The worst that may happen is that it may further marginalize those who are already marginalized if we do not come up with possible alternatives to help those that benefit from their congressmen or senator's pork.

So for the better future of our country, alternatives must be implemented and thought of. Let us not let the emotions and anger interfere with the decisions that are ought to be made. (Sharlene Marie A. Ferraren)-o0o-

PDAF and the jeepney: Why the pork barrel should be abolishedI think the pork barrel should be abolished. Some people think some people have benefited from pork barrel money and that abolishing it will be like throwing the baby out along with the bath water. Perhaps. But that is really the sort of Robin Hood mentality that has no place in a modern 21st Century society. The existence of the pork barrel is premised on the notion that the Executive branch of government is focused on the “national” level and does not think local enough. And, to follow the logic further, delegating the need for local considerations to legislators will solve that problem.The trouble with that medieval logic lies in this simple question:

On what basis is the presumption that legislators are better channels forlocal concerns than officials of local government units (LGUs) (such as mayors and Barangay officials) made?

Lots of people, according to legend, benefited from Robin Hood’s altruistic banditry. But to institutionalise Robin Hoodery as a routine business-as-usual means to keep “local needs” addressed is a moronic proposition. That’s the same kind of thinking that turned jeepneys from the quaint samples of “Filipino ingenuity” back in 1946 to the enormous intractable socio-economic problem that they are

today. Sure, lots of people “benefit” from jeepneys. But the jeepneys’ lack of coherence as a modern system of moving people en masse stares us in the face today like an Alcoholics Anonymous facilitator.The parallels between the pork barrel and the jeepney are very evident. Pork barrel disbursment of “development funds”, like the jeepney, does not lend itself to a transparent system that could be governed with some semblance of coherence. And this is why the whole regime comes across — rightly so — as an institutionalised national scam. We didn’t need Janet Lim Napoles (if the allegations are true) to put the “scam” in the “PDAF scam”. The Priority Development Assistance Fund has always been a scam. Filipinos were just too dumb to realise it over the last three decades. Indeed, the pork barrel, like the jeepney infestation, are products of short-sighted populist politics. Both are products of wrong arguments that have been allowed to win for too long by a people not exactly renowned for arguing intelligently.

Pork barrel apologists harp on what they describe as the “important point and outcome” of the pork barrel gravy train; “All that matters is for the beneficiaries to get what they need. In full,” to quote the pompous assertion of a certain bozo. Sounds nice on paper, doesn’t it? That’s like saying that what’s ultimately important is that jeepney passengers get to where they want to go — even if it means allowing their means to do so to foul up traffic all over the metropolis and turn our roads into Highways to Hell in the process. If we are to use the same logic with the pork barrel, that’s like trying to implement measures to ensure that everything stolen by Robin Hood from the King is spent on putting breadcrumbs on peasants’ tables. Good luck with that “fix”. It’s no wonder Robin Hood’s men are so merry. They’re all laughing all the way to the bank.

If we want “micro level assistance” (now supposedly currently enabled by the almighty pork barrel funding) to continue, then a more systematic way of achieving that should be put in place (or done properly where it alreadyexists) where it REALLY belongs — in the Executive Branch. We all talk about “freedom of information” like we are some kind of expert about what the term means. Yet many of our high-horsed social media barons fail to understand what it takes to mine useful information from transaction-intensive operations. You need control measures in place to capture the data in a form readily convertible to said “information”. When money is palmed over to oinking politicians at the whim of presidents starved for their “cooperation”, there will be no such information.

The short answer to idiotic calls to retain the pork barrel is that a mechanism to get resources allocated to address “micro needs” already exists in the Executive Branch.

It does not take political “experts” to see that the whole point in being a duly-elected legislator is to ensure that constituencies are well-represented when crafting laws. They should leave the execution of those laws (and the use of public funds to do so) to the Executive Branch. That is why said branch is named as such.

Trying to “fix pork without hurting those who really need it” is like trying to modernise public transport without abolishing the jeepney. Change alwayshurts. Only people who lack imagination and routinely face the future with a pathetic lack of courage aspire for painless change. And we wonder why China kicks Filipino ass.

It’s simple, really — but not for the small-minded amongst us.

The P10 billion pork barrel scam: The Leviathan revisitedBy Efren N. Padilla August 22, 2013 12:17pm

Thinking about the alleged scam that involved the funneling of lawmakers' Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) also known as “pork barrel” into bogus Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), I can’t help myself asking some questions. How can a select few in our country freely appropriate billions of people’s money to themselves without transparency and accountability? How can a select few squander so much of the people’s money without any sense of guilt? How can a select few steal billions of the people’s money without any fear of reprisal or being punished? Now that a whistleblower had openly exposed the fraud and the affected officials are all busy denying, obfuscating, or feigning ignorance to extricate them out of the mess, the fact remains that the nation’s coffer had been emptied with an estimated P10 billion worth of alleged misused pork barrel fund as reported by the Commission on Audit (COA). Perhaps this sort of scam is not new. Maybe, it has been going on for a long time. I’d even say that these scammers simply picked up where our former greatest dictator-scammer left off. The corruption is so endemic and embedded in our body politic that I wholeheartedly agree with President PNoy's observation on whom and what is to be blamed. As he aptly puts it: “officials to blame, not just system” (The Philippine Star, August 21, 2013). Because of PNoy’s Machiavellian utility of the PDAF and his unyielding stance against its abolition, perhaps it was the intention of his spin to displace the blame away from the rotten pork barrel system towards erring individuals. And yet, he unwittingly did recognize that the problem does exist and that it is also systemic. For me, this intersection of the personal issue with the structural issue is the crux of the matter. Reflecting on this, I was astonished by the aptness as well as the relevance of Thomas Hobbes, a 17th Century philosopher who so perceptively wrote The Leviathan as he brooded on how to curb the “summum malum” (greatest evil) impulse that is driving individuals in their natural state to seize power in a sort of “bellum omnium contra omnes” (the war of all against all). And talking of “war of all against all” one of the alleged scammers to date, owns 28 houses and condos and 30 pricey cars. Here’s the list of the cars she owns:1. BMW 352. Cayene Porsche CYN 78 white3. Chevrolet Tahoe ZAG827 gray

4. Crosswind Pearl XPK 5625. Estrada Pick-up ZJB 2356. Ford E150 JLN 128 Red7. Ford E150 JLN 18 white8. GMC Savana xry 1689. Honda Civic ZDX 319 blue10. Honda CRV NSO24511. Hummer HRM3312. Isuzu PQU 99313. L300 XDC96314. Land Rover Defender red15. Mercedes Benz XDX527 black16. Navigator XPL358 black17. Pajero WCC896 white18. Range Rover Autobiography TIN1119. Starex NOQ 168 white20. Suzuki NQF 48721. Suzuki NOG41622. Suzuki NOW94523. Toyota Alphard24. Toyota Altis XPG88425. Toyota Hi-Lux SIM 0826. Toyota Innova NGQ37027. Toyota Innova NSQ56828. Toyota Land Cruiser PSQ 16929. Toyota Previa XPG39830. Toyota Vios silver Given such condition Hobbes argues that “…there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently, not culture of the earth, no navigation, nor the use of commodities that may be imported by sea, no commodious building, no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force, no knowledge of the face of the earth, no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society, and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" (The Leviathan,XIII.9). Grasping the ruthlessness of our natural state, Hobbes carefully wraps himself with the mantle of a social contract. Thus, The Leviathan, that is, the agreement of a strong central structure of a commonwealth to restrain the appetites and desires of individuals in their natural state and to prevent the “the war of all against all.” Although an advocate of a monarchical commonwealth, Hobbes also thought deeply of two other types of commonwealth---aristocracy and democracy. Hobbes soliloquy doesn’t get more apropos than that when we talk about what is happening in our country. Surely, we are not a monarchical government but are we a democracy or an aristocracy? I am inclined to think that while we call our political system a democracy, in practice, we are really an aristocracy---an assembly of a select few who possesses the power and sole discretion on how to spend or squander the people’s money. That is why, when you have a select few especially the numbnuts who are ambitious

and ethically inadequate, the aristocratic structure simply buckles under the stress of unbridled appetite of greed and self-aggrandizement. In the end, we have to ask the question whether in the midst of this unrelenting aristocratic onslaught of corruption, is it still possible for us to regain a semblance of our democratic sense? My answer is yes. As a start, in order to regain our democratic sense, we have to find a highly educated and ethically adequate individual who can lead us and who will scrap the pork barrel, once and for all. To date, I am glad that the Blue Ribbon Committee Chair, Senator TG Guingona has initiated the investigation of the pork barrel fiasco in the senate. I hope something very dramatic comes out of this investigation. Otherwise, what’s the point? Second, in the absence of a highly educated and ethically adequate leader, the people have the option to protest and march for the scrapping of the highly discretionary and corrupted pork barrel allocation. That’s why I welcome the August 26, 2013 netizens “Tara Na” assembly in Luneta. Although, I’ll be in the province then, I will be participating in the same assembly planned in my city at the same time.

The 10 billion peso pork barrel scam & why Janet Napoles could have been our relativeThere is something more that meets the eye concerning this alleged 10-billion-peso pork barrel scam than what has been said or alluded to in both print and social media circles.

No, it’s not the fact that top legislators, or their underlings, have conspired with the alleged mastermind and now fugitive Janet Lim-Napoles to set up bogus NGOs as back channels to tap pork funds in the billions, with very little actually being used for the benefit of the common good.

In the Philippines’ short but dodgy NGO history, it is old news given the Code-NGO controversy and the fact that even President Estrada himself was impeached over an allegedly bogus non-profit (dummy) organisation as well.

It isn’t also the fact that top senators of the republic have been implicated in accusations of having provided financial allocations, some on a recurring basis, on their Priority Development Assistance Funds (PDAF) to these bogus NGO projects.

We know only too well that the financial wherewithal of many of our esteemed senators go beyond their monthly salaries and that it’s somewhat tolerated. Except from now, as the peso amounts have been so staggering even for our "overly gracious" Filipino minds.

What is big about this whole issue is not just the Ivan Boesky-like pizzazz and scale upon which this whole scam was alleged to have been perpetrated.

It is the fact that the alleged perpetrator could have been our relative, or somebody you or I could have all called "Tita" (Auntie). Someone so familiar because "fixers", for the lack of a better word, is as common in the Philippines as basketball courts in some corner somewhere. Now think about that for a minute, and how endemic that sounds.

Way back in 2004 when I had a project with the National Home Mortgage & Finance Corporation (NHMF), I was stumped when I had with me some foreign investors examining NHMFC’s housing portfolio as part of their due diligence, only to be greeted by an official agency sign at the door that said, "No fixers allowed, beyond this point". How endemic is that?

Perhaps time has changed, but ask anyone who has had a legal case and he will tell you that you actually should hire two lawyers all the time: One who knows the law and writes up your counter-affidavit, and one who simply knows the fiscal or the judge if not in the same fraternity, just to ensure a level playing field.

I remember in my college years being offered the chance to pass the written portion of my driver’s licensing test for a few bucks, by a fixer who was clearly not officially on the Land Transportation Office payroll, but perhaps a gofer relative of someone inside.But some relatives do have more fun in the Philippines. We Filipinos are only too aware of whose uncle was with the military or the Bureau of Internal Revenue or some government post, raking it in. I remember a classmate in college who drove an S-Class to school, his father’s claim to fame was being close to someone in the Bureau of Customs at that time.

President Aquino (or PNoy as he is fondly referred to), has actually gone at great lengths to fix what is endemically ingrained in the Filipino psyche: "Out-of-the-box packaging". You may see that as funny, but it’s so true.

Pinoys are somewhat crafty "circumventionists" – put in some rules and we will figure out the best way to circumvent them in some out-of-the-box manner or scheme.

Install new traffic rules, and we find a way to make them mere suggestions. Was it not a Filipino who created the "love bug" virus? That crafty dude was eventually employed by Microsoft with a slap on the wrist. What is that if it is not an out-of-the-box, but highly successful job search?

But my point is this – fixers are ingrained in Philippine culture and tolerated precisely because we Filipinos allow this type of silly out-of-the-box logic to prevail. It is so silly that we underpay our policemen and yet expect them to "tow the line" and not resort to out-of-the-box schemes to earn a decent living.

Look into any government institution warped in century old civil service rules and you will see everybody grossly underpaid, yet the reason why underpaid servants stick around is only too obvious: some out-of-the-box low profile racket somewhere.

So far, PNoy’s record stands at 2 out of 3: One member of the executive, an ex-president on trial and behind aluminium sliding hospital bars, and one member of the judiciary, in fact the Supreme Court Chief Justice, actually impeached. All attributable to some out-of-the-box scandal.

Now, it all boils down to legislators and who amongst them abused their Priority Development Assistance Fund allocations. If PNoy’s moral crusade or "daang matuwid" (i.e. straight path) is to have any semblance of legitimacy after his term, he must win this final leg for a final 3/3 scorecard. The people expect nothing less.

On August 26, a "Million People March to Luneta" calling for an end to our political pork diet will take place. I, as a Filipino, fully agree and support this one.

But if I was to be a truly smart Filipino, not just an emotional one, why don’t we all march against our silly logic and hypocritical expectations as well. To be more precise, why don’t we march against ourselves for voting these same clowns to office, not once, but many times.

Given how financially unrewarding it is to be in government service, isn’t it too obvious that many of these folks are in there for some out-of-the-box no good?

What the pork barrel scam reveals about usBy Randy DavidPhilippine Daily Inquirer8:37 pm | Saturday, September 28th, 2013

For more than 10 years, a good number of lawmakers, with the aid of the fixers who assisted them, were able to pocket the entire cash value of their Priority Development Assistance Fund, without anyone in government publicly protesting that there was anything wrong in what they were doing. That is astonishing. It reveals a high tolerance for corruption that contradicts all the norms of modern government enshrined in our Constitution. It exposes the feebleness of our institutional control systems.No amount of tweaking can cure the loopholes in the system unless we begin to understand where corruption comes from, why it persists, or how it is maintained through time.

First of all, I think it is important to go beyond explanations that view corruption in simple moral terms—for instance, as the product of greed or evil or of a deeply flawed character. Such descriptions do not prod us to inquire into the social conditions that make this phenomenon possible. The word “corruption” itself has no analytical value. It doesn’t tell us what social factors drive it, and how it is able to engage the seeming cooperation of so many people. We must go beyond labels, and analyze the complex series of acts to which it refers. We need to ask how it is possible for something so despicable (as we view corruption from a distance) to elude detection and condemnation. We need to know what it is about our society that makes corruption functional.

My own view, as a student of society, is that what is called corruption refers to a wide range of acts, many of which hide behind the veneer of public service. In general, corruption is a way of doing things

that ignores the differentiation of functional responsibilities which one takes for granted in a modern society. Thus, almost all instances of corruption involve the abuse of power or prerogative. Office-holders overstep the boundaries of their formal duties, or allow others to take over or subvert the functions and decisions that rightfully belong to their office.The motives behind corruption vary. Most people do it for the money or the power they derive from it. Others participate in it out of fear or pakikisama (social acceptance). The range of possible motives is an interesting subject to study. But, my own interest is in knowing how people are able to carry it out in spite of the control systems supposedly in place. How is it that others who are not themselves corrupt learn to tolerate it? It is remarkable that none of the whistle-blowers in the pork barrel scam are public officials. The practice could have continued undisturbed if Janet Lim-Napoles had not unwittingly triggered a whole train of events when she allegedly threatened and detained Benhur Luy. Benhur Luy himself might not have turned into a whistle-blower if his parents had not asked the National Bureau of Investigation to rescue him.

There are other equally remarkable things in this sordid affair. It is fair to assume, I think, that every lawmaker who has spent some time in Congress knows more or less how the PDAF is abused, and how easy it is for even the most honest among them to be tempted into misappropriating these funds. It is, of course, admirable that legislators like Sen. Panfilo Lacson and Sen. Joker Arroyo consistently refused to touch their PDAF. Yet, it is remarkable that neither one saw it fit to blow the whistle on their colleagues in such a way as to cause a serious investigation of its abuse.

Perhaps they thought it was futile to do so. After all, the Supreme Court itself had previously ruled that the PDAF was legal, noting that the lawmakers’ participation in its utilization was limited to recommending projects. In theory, this was indeed a minor concession to lawmakers, not enough to violate the constitutional separation of legislative and executive powers. In practice, however, everyone knew that lawmakers were actively recommending not so much the projects as the contractors that would handle them. We now know that some lawmakers habitually funneled billions of pesos in public funds to moribund government corporations that were nothing but empty shells. It is remarkable that, with their retinue of researchers, they could pretend not to know that the implementing agencies and NGO contractors they chose were the least reliable partners they could possibly enlist if they had meant to put their PDAF to good use.

There were other “red flags” all over. They were seen, but willfully ignored. The executive agencies knew what was going on, but, in the general scheme of Philippine politics, they had reason not to raise a stink, unless the people above them were prepared to do battle. It is no joke crossing swords with lawmakers, who tend to close ranks when they feel their institution is under attack. Every lawmaker learns not only the art of shadow-boxing but also the all-important science of avoiding antagonistic confrontations that could boomerang while yielding little political value.

The Commission on Audit, on whose vigilance rests the government’s self-imposed pledge to be honest, legally has the power to demand complete liquidation reports for every peso of public money spent, but, unless it can draw support from other branches of government and from an awakened citizenry, it is no match against the power of legislators.

In sum, the pork barrel scam shows us the ugly side of a premodern political system that is basically unchecked by the rule of law, even as it has freed itself from the moral restraints (e.g., delicadeza and sense of honor) that used to bind rulers of an earlier time.

LIFE AFTER PORK BARREL | Can these NGOs help fix budget that bogus NGOs helped ruin?By: InterAksyon.comSeptember 15, 2013 3:43 PM

MANILA, Philippines - Even as nongovernment organizations have been getting a bad rap in the raging scandal over the role of bogus NGOs in diverting congressional pork barrel into kickback-padded projects, an alliance of seasoned budget reformers is engaging lawmakers in a bid to make the budget truly serve the people.

The House of Representatives’ Committee on Appropriations has vowed to endorse the incorporation to the 2014 General Appropriations Act (GAA) of budget proposals submitted by the Alternative Budget Initiative (ABI), a network of over 100 nongovernment organizations (NGOs) that annually lists alternative budget proposals, mainly to boost funding for socioeconomic programs.

The budget being taxpayers’ money, "it is very important that citizens directly influence how much of the budget is allocated for what purpose," explained former national treasurer Leonor Magtolis Briones, lead convenor of Social Watch Philippines (SWP) which leads the ABI. "The budget should be properly spent to meet the real needs and priorities of citizens,” said Briones, former national treasurer and public administration expert.

The chair of the House Committee on Appropriations, Isidro T. Ungab Jr., thanked SWP-ABI for sharing their insights on the budget. "We will definitely consider their recommendations; and we will do our best to incorporate these.” Ungab revealed a plan to try and reactivate the Oversight Committee on the Budget in Congress.

Overall, SWP-ABI proposed P76-billion increases in the budgets for health, education, agriculture, environment and social protection at a formal panel hearing on the NGO’s alternative budget proposals at the House of Representatives.

“The government boasts of a 6.8% growth rate in Real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2012. On this basis, it projects to surpass this performance within the next four years. However, we have seen that the positive performance of the Real GDP has not really benefitted the more than 25 million Filipinos who remain to live in dire poverty,” Briones said.

Briones conceded that “some of the macroeconomic assumptions will be difficult to achieve and have to be readjusted. The 2014 budget should address the gaps and distributional issues of the GDP to ensure that economic growth is enjoyed by all.

“If we want the national budget to tackle problems of poverty, hunger and unemployment, it has to focus on the sectors where the poorest are and where unemployment is highest,” she added.

Among others, the NGO alliance is pushing for higher allocations for NFA rice to increase its operating capital for domestic palay procurement and to cover 10 percent of national production. NFA said earlier "the procurement budget is usually lower as they resort to other sources of funds like loans,” recalled Hazel Tanchuling of R1 Rice and Action Network of the ABI Agriculture Group. The group proposed P12.912-billion programs to promote inclusive growth and ensure resilient rural communities.

Boost for education

Meanwhile, ABI’s Education Group proposed P41,687,001 increases in the 2014 budget for education. “The President’s proposed 2014 budget for the Department of Education will be 14.9% of the national budget only. Our ABI proposal will bring it up to 18.6%,” said Raquel Castillo of E-Net Philippines.

“Though increased by 15.2% from pervious year, the education budget 2014 still falls short of international benchmarks for financing education. There are 15 million school dropouts, but the ‘Abot-Alam’ P2 billion fund targets only one million out-of-school youth. The President’s proposed budget also did not allocate funds to address the needs of 600,000 women illiterates in the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM). Also, the National Education for All (EFA) Committee and its activities are not funded,” said Castillo.

Health spending below benchmark

“For the health sector, the proposed 2014 budget showed a dramatic increase in allocations but is still below the World Health Organization (WHO) benchmark of 5% of GDP,” according Mercy Fabros of the ABI Health Group. The group proposed a total of P6,026,326,000 to ensure access of the poor to free and quality public health service.

“Our proposed budget covers allocation for mainstreaming traditional and alternative health care; improved access and availability of HIV/AIDS services; and elimination of barriers to life-saving services using community-based methodologies,” said Fabros. “We also proposed allocations to double the support to government specialty hospitals. Specialty hospitals attached to the Department of Health (DOH), especially the Philippine Children’s Medical Center and Lung Center of the Philippines, have gained reputation as Poor Peoples’ hospitals,” she added.

In order to enhance the resiliency and adaptive capacities of communities and effectively respond to the increasing vulnerability of the country to the devastating impacts of climate change and disasters, the ABI Environment Group proposed a total of over P14.5 billion.

“We call on the Government to invest in improving resiliency and adaptive capacities of poor people,” said Jonathan Ronquillo of La Liga Policy Institute. “Our proposals include allocation for programs on Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (CCA-DRRM); biodiversity conservation, sustainable agriculture, fisheries and forestry; renewable and sustainable energy systems; and ecological waste management, he said.

“The Philippines is the third most disaster-prone country in the world. The country is visited by an average of 20 typhoons a year with five to six of these causing severe damage. We need P5,295,000 additional budget in the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) to set up child-friendly spaces (CFS) as an immediate response to protect children from physical harm and psychosocial distress,

and to help them continue learning and developing both during and after emergency,” said Minerva Cabungcal Cabiles of Save the Children, a member of the ABI Social Protection Group.

Realign funds prone to corruptionSWP-ABI proposed the realignment of budgets highly prone to corruption to finance programs proposed by the NGOs. “The Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) and other lump sum funds have been severely utilized to feed a culture of corruption, plunder of the government treasury, and engendered a culture of patronage politics to the undue benefit of the powerful few and the politically connected. Congress should move to abolish all pork barrel funds, and require the integration of all Off-Budget items into the GAA. This includes Malampaya Fund, the President’s Social Fund and similar funds, which are clearly pork barrel funds of the President. As of today, the Off-Budget items are not subject to the approval of Congress. Congress as a co-equal branch of government should put an end to this practice and pass appropriate legislation to the effect,” Briones said.

“The budget can be an instrument to redistribute income by putting funds into programs that directly benefit the poor and disadvantaged sectors in our communities such as health and educational services, capacity-building programs for the unemployed and low-income groups to enable them to gain entrepreneurial and technical skills,” Briones said.

Senators pray to keep people’s trust in wake of ‘pork barrel’ scamBy Philippine Daily InquirerNorman Bordadora

MANILA, Philippines – The multi-billion-peso pork barrel fund scam has placed the Philippine Congress, including the Senate, in such bad light that some senators now pray, quite publicly, that their institution regain the people’s trust and survive this crisis.

“Lord Almighty, our country is once again in the midst of a political crisis arising from allegations of misuse of public funds,” intoned Senator Sergio Osmeña III in the prayer he read to open the Senate session on Tuesday afternoon.

With his colleagues bowed in prayer, Osmeña continued, “As we seek justice and search for the truth, free our minds and hearts of partisanship, Lord, so we may listen with dispassion.”

“Heavenly Father, heal our nation and inspire our people so that they might regain their trust in government. May the current challenges serve as a fitting reminder that public office is a public trust,” he continued. “And that for us, public officials, winning and maintaining that trust is paramount.”

Senator Aquilino Pimentel III, who led the opening prayer on Wednesday, also made references to the political controversy brought about by the large-scale abuse of billions of pesos from the congressional Priority Development Assistance Fund over the past decade.

“Thank You, too, for the controversies You send our way once in a while. These remind us of our humanity, our mortality, and of the temporary nature of our membership in this important institution,” Pimentel prayed. “We pray for the gift of wisdom, and Your guidance, on how to best carry out the mandate given to us to serve the Filipino people. We lift up to You the Philippine Senate as well as our individual political careers. Let Your will be done.”Osmeña is a vice chairman of the Senate committee on the accountability of public officers and investigations, otherwise known as the Blue Ribbon Committee investigating the role of senators and congressmen in the pork barrel fund scam.

Pimentel heads the Senate committee on justice and human rights.

Their prayers came as the Blue Ribbon Committee continued its inquiry into the alleged involvement of senators and House members in the scam allegedly engineered by businesswoman Janet Lim Napoles through bogus non-governmental organizations.

Senate Minority Leader Juan Ponce Enrile, Sen. Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada and Sen. Ramon Revilla, Jr., were identified by former heads of government corporations in Thursday’s hearing as among the lawmakers who endorsed dubious NGOs as conduits for the implementation of supposedly worthy projects using their PDAF allotments.

Agriculture Assistant Secretary Salvador Salacup, former head of Zamboanga Rubber Estates Corp., and Alan Javellana, the former president of the National Agribusiness Corp., in effect, corroborated the Commission on Audit report presented to the same panel two weeks ago by COA chairperson Grace Pulido-Tan.

Enrile, Estrada and Revilla have repeatedly denied any wrongdoing with respect to the disbursement of their PDAF allocations.

It is “very awkward. It’s trying times for us. We hope it’s not true but at the same time we are mandated by our own to investigate,” Osmeña told reporters after he led the prayer on Tuesday.

Osmeña was asked if it did not feel awkward scrutinizing budget proposals of government agencies when lawmakers themselves were being investigated for misuse of taxpayers’ money.

“Until proven guilty everybody must be presumed innocent,” Osmeña said.

Abolishing the pork barrelBy Dean Tony La Viña | Posted on August 31, 2013 at 12:01am | 10,548 views

I start with asking a question many have asked me in these past three weeks—is it possible at all to totally abolish the pork barrel system? Isn’t the pork barrel a necessary, even a desirable component of a republican system where citizens choose their representatives in the government through elections? Some have even raised the question on whether we should now abolish Congress because of this.

Let me very clear where I stand on this. I would rather have our messy democracy than any form of authoritarianism. We went that route before and corruption was just as bad, even worse.

When the pork barrel controversy erupted, I was at first ambivalent about the abolition of Priority Development Assistant Fund. The President’s argument regarding the utility of the PDAF for both basic needs of people and development interventions actually made sense to me. In fact, I have a number of personal experiences myself of the good use of PDAF, among others because the Ateneo School of Government (where I am Dean) has had projects with local governments supported through it. Through the years I have been Dean, and that is since June 2006, we must have had gotten around P10 million from PDAF allocations, most of which were used for scholarships.

In my view, it is wrong and unfair to say that all PDAF has been misused. This is especially true in the provinces where district representatives are often the last resort of constituents for health or other urgent needs. This was confirmed to me by friends and colleagues this week when I visited my hometown Cagayan de Oro during our fiesta.

While recognizing however that the pork barrel system can sometime be used for the good, the PDAF and its predecessor mechanism, the Countrywide Development Fund, clearly provide many opportunities for irrational decision-making as well as corruption. By its very nature, pork barrel mechanisms are potentially anomalous because, when designed badly, they violate the constitutional principle of separation of powers. In the case of Philippine Constitution Association v Enriquez, decided in 1994, the Supreme Court actually ruled that the CDF program was constitutional because the authority given to the members of Congress under it was “merely recommendatory”. The CDF was, according to the Court, a way of equalizing the unequal. But as one scholar has pointed out, the conclusion that legislators only make recommendations was in fact not entirely accurate. We know now that legislators actually meddled with implementation, among others, by endorsing favored contractors and/or NGOs. It would be interesting to know if the Supreme Court today would decide the same way given what we know about how the pork barrel system has been manipulated for personal gain.

As I have written elsewhere, it is however not correct to say that legisIators should stick only to passing laws. They do have other functions as representatives of the people. This includes a role in identifying projects in their localities and in enacting the national budget that funds these projects. The national appropriations act itself is the most important law the Congress passes every year and obviously senators and representatives participate in its deliberation and enactment.

I believe the President means well and is motivated by the public good in overhauling the pork barrel system. I also think that the proposed reforms, as elaborated by Secretary Butch Abad, would make the process more rational and transparent. However, as I always emphasize to my law students, citing my mentor Prof. W. Michael Reisman of Yale Law School, there is a big difference between “black-letter law” (the official policies, rules and regulations) and the “operational code” (how things really work). The CDF and PDAF would actually pass scrutiny if one only looked at the former but fail when we examine their implementation. Even before this recent scam exploded, so many safeguards were already in place, including the Procurement Act or R.A. 9184 and many COA issuances, yet the operators still managed to circumvent them with impunity.

I have proposed a three pronged control-entitlement test for the abolition of the pork barrel or for its authentic reform if it cannot be totally eliminated. Citizens should ask three questions: (1) How is the

project to be decided? Is it solely the legislator’s discretion? (2) Is there an entitlement to the fund? In other words, does the legislator believe that s/he has control of the fund? (3) Does the legislator have a say on who implements the project and how it is implemented? That is, can s/he influence who the agency/implementor/contractor will be? A yes answer to these questions means there is no iron wall between the executive and legislative branches of government and that patronage politics lives on. The bottom line is to totally remove the legislator’s discretion in the use of funds and how the project will be implemented, including making endorsements of contractors/suppliers. Project determination shall be undertaken as a collective action of stakeholders, including the legislator himself.

The control-entitlement test will help but it will not ensure a corruption-free budgeting system. Citizen vigilance is critical and must continue. Convictions must be obtained against those who have manipulated the system and gained from their corrupt acts. Above all, as I have said again and again, we must have a Freedom of Information Act so that we are not dependent on the next whistleblower to catch wrongdoing.

Pork Barrel, Philippine Politics and the EconomyBy Adrian M. Tamayo

Pork barrel defined

Pork barrel has its origin in the American history. Prior to the civil war, the slaves in the Southern part of America were traditionally provided salted pork as a gift to enjoy on holiday. The slaves would run into frantic for the barrel . Kawanaka cited Evans that the onrush of the legislators to get a subsidy was evocative of the stampede of the slave of the pre American Civil war. Pork barrel formally defined as the appropriations of public funds for projects that do not serve the interests of any large portion of the country’s citizenry but are nevertheless vigorous promoted by a small group of legislators because they will pump outside taxpayers’ money and resources into the local districts these legislators represent ; an effective legislation and use of pork barrel results into the legislator being re-elected. As defined by a Civil Society group in the Philippines, PDAF Watch, “pork barrel funds are those allocated to politicians such as congresspersons and senators, to be used, based on their decision, to fund programs or projects in their districts ”.

Keeping the pork thin or thick?

In a position paper of Nograles and Lagman to decry the scrapping of PDAF , it was brought into the fore the origin of the pork barrel and how was it used in the Philippine fiscal activity. It described the American colonial accent with the keeping of central leadership of the ruling party with the pork barrel as spoiling incentives for the legislators. Towing the line would mean an increased access to the fund without contest of use or misuse during the martial law era. This offensive taking of the government fund by the legislators resulted into a mechanism after the famous EDSA of the 8th Congress that will ensure fund will make the “unequal equal” by setting up parameters, equal apportionments, built-in accountability and transparency (Nograles and Lagman). However, the current system provided a

system where funds are included in the general appropriations act (GAA) but as an independent item without mention of definite project. Also, the GAA includes items where each legislator is given a definite monetary value which is reflective of the projects that can be made out from the amount. Kawanaka described the system vividly in lieu of the appropriation and the legislators’ control of the fund as:

“….legislators have been given items, namely the Priority Development Fund Assistance Program (PDAF) and the budget of the Department of Public Works and Highways. While an appropriation act is prepared in congress, no specific projects need be listed, since these lump – sum allocations. A legislator is given a free-hand to identify her pet projects, programs within budget, and requests the concerned departments to implement them, after a general appropriation act has been promulgated”.

The above statement signifies the space accorded to the legislator to determine the socially acceptable project in order to indicate “bringing the pork” to the level of the constituents as demands are effectively meet by the legislators. Such provision of the public good will be in competition with the executive branch with its implementing agency working along the line of a systematic and sustainable development.

As it was noxiously termed, pork barrel was changed into an innocuous Countrywide Development Fund in 1990 where which the intention is to fast-track development. However, it evolved itself in 2000 into an even milder which up to present holds it name, the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) .

The Philippine Constitution describes the separation of the powers between the Legislative and the Executive departments with the former having the “power of the purse” and appropriation while the latter has the power to implement or veto the Congress’ resolution. With the Executive department directly engaged in the operation of the government being apprised by the bureaucratic office of every agency down –the-line – up, the Executive holds a better vantage than the Legislative department on the priority needs of the whole nation, thus information of the important projects, programs which can significantly re-structure the economic status of the poorest of the poor. This will therefore place the Legislative department in a comparable insufficient situation for project or program implementation. But with the intention of the separation of powers, the check-and-balance mechanism will indicate the need for the later to determine the priority needs of the whole nation thus allocation of fund, the monitoring and monitoring of the same being the representative of the general public.

Such mechanism will ensure that the resource allocation is a constitutional public spending and ‘taking out of the purse’ mean thickening of the pork of the legislators.

Types of Pork barrel

Kawanaka (2007) described two types of pork barrel. The first type refers to the pork-barrel that focuses on the discretion of the national leaders. This emphasizes the “tow the line” principle as it highlights the control of the leader over the members of the legislative. The second looks at the characteristics of the legislators. This means that the legislators’ stay in congress, position in the legislative branch, and expertise are factors that settle distribution of the fund.

The first type tells that the legislators who are members of the ruling party are given share of the government share in abundance as a mode of tapping the shoulder for supporting the priority programs, initiatives and development projects of the Executive department. The second type will stress the

discriminating aspect of seniority, positions in the committee to distribute the fund. The Speaker of the House, the House leaders will have a greater piece of the pork.

The Pork barrel and its many influences

In Philippine politics, the manifest of legislated pork barrel includes construction of waiting shed, single school room construction/re-painting of schoolrooms , road pavement, local health spending, training centers, purchase of chairs,tables, computers, scholarships, construction of overpass, livelihood programs and many other geographic-specific projects which would benefit a constituency – residents of the political districts.

Of equally interesting case is the pork barrel’s legislation practices of the senators who are elected nationally. In order to avail of the rent-seeking benefits, these politicians will spend on a specifically –defined geographic district that can assure of high voter’s turn-out. Normally, these are political districts found in highly – urbanized cities/provinces with dense population catering into immediate remedies done through legislative spending. Pork – barrel is the misuse of the people’s money for the purpose of gaining political advantage over a location-oriented accruing of benefits using a national budget.

The pork – barrel legislation will cut expected efficiency of public finance. Rossi and Inman (1998) described pork barrel as having a ‘distributive’ nature of public goods citing Lowi with benefits concentrated within an identifiable constituent group using general taxation of government borrowing . This would mean, the whole society will pay for the project which full benefit accruing to a small portion of the public. Allowing the legislators to fund the local projects using a nationally – legislated resource using the national governments revenue will further thin out the slices of the pie thus pressing the depressing conditions of the not politically aligned constituency even more poor.

The Rossi and Inman paper theorized that if the demands of the constituents were echoed by the elected representatives, and that, it leaves no spillover effects to non-constituents will result into inefficiency of public spending on the distributive goods, with the elected officials crying for an increased budget for the constituency’s needs while the constituents share of paying in the form of tax declines. This is attributable to the non-zero elasticity of demand. This will lead into “Harberger triangle ” which is an indication of the problematic political economy, and a consequent reduction in the benefit of the public spending.

The planned expenditure of the government will be hampered as a result of the PDAF as the government’s limited resources were used to fund locally-beneficial programs, leaving national agencies deficit of budget of its carefully planned spending using the most appropriate formula to address systematic perils of the society like hunger, criminality and the chronic poverty and hunger. Also, it is hard to dissociate the impressions of corruption in the dealings of infrastructure projects which leads into usurping the DPWH with its notorious tag as the most corrupt agency, scholarship programs with DEPED officials’ dirty hands and many other agencies. Proven or not, the impressions of the public remained glaringly suspicious.

As earlier stated, the fund is a lump-sum allocation of the appropriations act, but with the full discretion of the legislator on the amount, is an inviting scene for corruption. Parreno(1998) described in a report for the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism on the rates that a Congressman will be receiving as a cuts, kickbacks, commissions, rebates and discounts are robbery done on the very poor. The report mentioned that the contractors have to provide 30-50% discount or rebates to a legislator for granting

the contract. This will lead into reducing by 20% the cement on a road project making it substandard – the poor thus paying the high cost.

On the one hand, the PDAF is a representation of an effective leadership of a people’s representative. If the districts’ needs for bridges, roads, bridges are meet due to the PDAF or initiative of the Congressman. If the social benefit is higher on the benefit of congressional project such as providing scholarship to students for training or formal education belonging to a poor family but wanted to learn, the social and personal benefit will be higher than the social cost as these individuals will contribute productively in the society – thus, reducing the risk of potential criminals and society’s menace.

Also, the PDAF brings the government into the small units in the community who were away from the short but caring arms of the State. The PDAF supports the small important projects that will directly enjoyed by the district constituents hence, providing an opportunity for democratic and productive practices towards economic development.

In Conclusion

The Pork barrel, PDAF or CDF in any of its moniker has its Janus face indicating its sullen past and its likely future.

1. It had perennially showed that it will undermine the whole framework of the organization, fund and budget, and operation in favor to a small and geographically determined beneficiary.

2. When the benefit is large and the obligation of the constituents is small, there is the tendency to demand for an increasing pork value. Pork barrel promotes inefficiency of public spending resulting to a loss in the welfare of the greater number of people, that is the marginal national benefit (benefit of carrying the national plan) against marginal local benefit (political district project).

3. Looking at pork barrel as a reward for support of the ruling party’s priority agenda, of the attribute of the legislator may result to corrupt the officials of its slightest padding of budget into the most horrendous misuse of public funds.

4. PDAF projects effectively and efficiently addresses the needs of the “political constituents” as opposed to the national agenda.

5. The misuse of the fund will be reduced when the mechanism of transparency and accountability will be put in place and appropriately implemented.\

6. Pork barrel remained an American model which cannot be transplanted into the political system of the Philippines as this will only cause the “on-rush” of the politicians to get a share of the pork leaving the poor Juan crumbs for his family, and the generations to come beholden to the vicious cycle of poor getting poorer and the politicians getting richer.

Imagine what P10B can buy: 8,000 classrooms in 2-story buildingsImagine P10 billion!

Readers are welcome to send in a list of goods and/or services that the P10 billion can buy.

Janet Lim-Napoles is accused of converting P10 billion in government funds into kickbacks over the past 10 years through bogus NGOs, and ghost projects and recipients.

Ten billion pesos is a mind-boggling amount. Its misuse has moved Manila Archbishop Luis Antonio Cardinal Tagle to tears and appalled Commission on Audit Chair Grace Pulido-Tan.

In Tan’s words: “Kahindik-hindik (appalling).”

Tan, who announced on Friday the results of a COA special audit of pork barrel funds from 2007 to 2009, found total releases for legislators’ programs and projects amounting to P116 billion. On top of this, the COA uncovered excess appropriations amounting to P50 billion.

Tan said the fake NGOs racket was much bigger, wider and more appalling than Napoles’ P10-billion scam.

But just how much is P10 billion?

For example, Kristel Tejada, the 16-year-old University of the Philippines student who committed suicide in March because she could not pay her tuition worth less than P10,000 per semester. P10 billion can pay that amount a million times over.

Ten billion pesos can also cover the withholding tax paid by 3.8 million workers earning around P20,000 monthly and pay for the wages of close to a million minimum wage workers for a month.

For daily MRT riders, P10 billion can pay for 333.3 million round trips from North Avenue in Quezon City to Taft Avenue in Pasay City.

The P10 billion can also buy:

Food: 370 million kilos of well-milled NFA rice 55.6 million kilos of pork 185 million dozen of chicken eggs 222 million kilos of sugar 83 million kilos of galunggong 131.6 million one-piece chickenjoy with rice meals

76.9 million big mac meals with regular fries and drink 823 million 155-gram cans of sardines 1.59 million 50-gram packs of instant noodles 4 billion pieces of pandesal

Infrastructure: 400 kilometers of standard two-lane roads 417 bus terminals

Social welfare and education: 5.6 million philhealth members 248 million textbooks 8000 classrooms in two-story buildings 13699 classrooms in single-story buildings 8 billion pieces of 100 mg aspirin

Defense: 600,240 glock pistols 153,846 long firearms 260402 m-4 cal. 5.56-mm assault rifles 6 f/a-50 fighter jets 57,143 low-cost houses for soldiers and policemen