7/29/2019 Of Porks and Crocodiles

1/4

13

Damazo, Frances Grace P.

1Q

Of Porks and Crocodiles

In the revered halls of the Senate and House of Representatives, you will find

distinguished men and women dressed impeccably, with their cars that have plate numbers 7 and

8 filling the parking lots of both complexes. What happens behind these hallowed halls,

however, is another matter of consequence. Bills and laws passed are not the only additions to

the portfolio of the legislative department. The Philippine government is no stranger to

controversies especially on corruption and the latest of which is the P10-billion pork barrel scam

which involves businesswoman Janet Lim-Napoles and several legislators. They all allegedly

benefitted from the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), or what we commonly know

as pork barrel. The phraseology may have evolved but one thing remains constant: it has

continually been a source of anomaly in the government. PDAF, which aimed to source projects

for public purpose, is being used as a personal piggy bank.

As early as the 1930s, pork barrel is already in existence and traces its roots to

American politics. It was projected to be used as a discretionary fund of legislators who belong

to the ruling party as an aid for their respective districts. As such, the pork barrel was intended to

be a responsibility and not a privilege. In the country, PDAF is considered a lump sum allocation

included in the General Appropriations Act (GAA) and is an independent item without any

definite project. It is within the legislators discretion on what projects he or she intends to do

with the budget and orders the concerned agencies to implement it. With such leeway given to

the lawmakers on how their funds are to be spent, it seems that their function is not only limited

to making laws but has been extended to actually having a say on where and how the funds are tobe implementeda function reserved for the executive department. Several arguments were

already raised regarding this issue. Those in defense of the pork barrel insist that it is proper to

give legislators a free hand in the budget since they know what their constituents need. Anyway,

safeguards are in place to prevent abuse of discretion. Or so they claim. Currently, a

Congressman is allocated P70 million every GAA. P30 million of that must be spent on soft

7/29/2019 Of Porks and Crocodiles

2/4

projects like education, health, arts and culture, among others. The remaining P40 million is

intended for hard projects like public infrastructure. The amount reserved for each Senator is

higher: at P200 million, half of it is for soft projects and the remaining is for the hard projects.

Before PDAF, the appropriation was known as the Countrywide Development Fund (CDF)

during President Corazon Aquinos term and it is not without controversies. The discretionary

fund is supposed to aid the legislators constituents but it appears that it is the legislators

themselves who gained more from it, given that they have the upper hand on its spending. It is

for this very reason that in 1994, the constitutionality of CDF is questioned. In Philippine

Constitutional Association (PHILCONSA) vs. Enriquez, the petitioners claim that the CDF is

unconstitutional:

x x x the power given to the members of Congress to propose and identify the

projects and activities to be funded by the Countrywide Development Fund is an

encroachment by the legislature on executive power, since said power in an

appropriation act in implementation of a law x x x proposal and identification of

the projects do not involve the making of laws or the repeal and amendment

thereof, the only function given to the Congress by the Constitution (Rollo, pp.

78-86)

In the case at bar, it can be seen that there is the conflicting claim on the authority of the

Legislative and Executive branchthe power of the purse and the power of the sword. However,

the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the said CDF and the authority of members of

Congress in proposing and selecting projects, stating that:

The authority given to the members of Congress is only to propose and identify

projects to be implemented by the President. x x x the President must perforce

examine whether the proposals submitted by the members of Congress fall within

the specific items of expenditures for which the Fund was set up, and if qualified,he next determines whether they are in line with other projects planned for the

locality. Thereafter, if the proposed projects qualify for funding under the Funds,

it is the President who shall implement them. In short, the proposals and

identifications made by the members of Congress are merely recommendatory.

7/29/2019 Of Porks and Crocodiles

3/4

The ruling on PHILCONSA vs. Enriquez did not stop another group from assailing the validity

of the discretionary fund allotted for legislators, now renamed PDAF. In 2004, The Lawyers

Against Monopoly and Poverty (LAMP) filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to declare the

2004 PDAF unconstitutional. The contention of LAMP is not a far cry from that which was

previously contested by PHILCONSA, claiming that the situation is against the principle of

separation of powers since in receiving and then spending of the funds for projects of the their

choosing, Congress intrudes into a function inherently Executive. Authority to propose and select

projects is not a legislative function. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition because the

petitioners failed to establish a clear showing that an offense to the principle of separation of

powers was committed. Let us fast track to 2013 and contemplate on the hullabaloo surrounding

Congress which prompted BizNews Asia to dub it as the Biggest Criminal Syndicate. The

controversy just served as a Pandoras Box to dig up issues of transcendental importance. The

release of the 2007-2009 COA report showed that most of the lawmakers channelled their PDAF

into ghost projects and through bogus non-government organizations, just like those owned by

Napoles. The report also revealed questionable releases worth P6.15 billion from the PDAF of

180 Congressmen and 12 Senators. The fraud and embezzlement is nothing new in Philippine

politics. What made it the talk of the town is the staggering amount involved and how systematic

the scam is accomplishedand no less than in the hallowed halls of Congress. They have the

power of the purse. Ironically, it is the taxpayers money which fills up these lawmakers

pockets. In truth, PDAF is controlling the dynamics of the Legislative and the Executive

Departments. It has allowed for the perpetration of patronage politics. The PDAF might as well

encouraged political dynastiesmaking it more alluring for people to run for public office

knowing the amount of money involved. In truth, the pork barrel made the buwayas fatter.

And richer. The issue at hand has made people re-evaluate the powers of the three branches of

government. Legislators are supposed to make laws, not build bridges and stamping their name

on these projects. It is the sphere of the executive. Local Government Units are in place to secure

the needs of its constituents and they serve as the communication line between the local and

national level. So why the need for pork barrel? Is it not a mechanism or a creative way to justify

theft or malversation? Transparency and Accountability are words that should not be used as

battle cries. These are words that need to be exemplified. Otherwise, we are just growing

crocodiles in our own backyards by feeding them pork.

7/29/2019 Of Porks and Crocodiles

4/4

Bibliography:

LAMP v. DBM, G.R. No. 164987, April 24, 2012.

PHILCONSA v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 113105 August 19, 1994.

Rellin, K. (2013) Power of the Purse: Probing the Politics behind the pork barrel [Internet]

Philippine Collegian, University of the Philippines. Available from:

[Accessed 9 September 2013]

Tamayo, A. (2011) Pork Barrel, Philippine Politics and the Economy, Philippine Democracy

Online, 12 July. Available from: [Accessed 9 September 2013]

Yvonne T. Chua and Booma V. Cruz (2013) Pork by any name, The Inbox, Yahoo News, 23

August. Available from [Accessed 10 September 2013]

http://philippine-democracy.blogspot.com/2011/07/pork-barrel-and-philippine-politics-and.htmlhttp://philippine-democracy.blogspot.com/2011/07/pork-barrel-and-philippine-politics-and.htmlhttp://ph.news.yahoo.com/blogs/the-inbox/pork-name-140158329.htmlhttp://ph.news.yahoo.com/blogs/the-inbox/pork-name-140158329.htmlhttp://ph.news.yahoo.com/blogs/the-inbox/pork-name-140158329.htmlhttp://ph.news.yahoo.com/blogs/the-inbox/pork-name-140158329.htmlhttp://philippine-democracy.blogspot.com/2011/07/pork-barrel-and-philippine-politics-and.htmlhttp://philippine-democracy.blogspot.com/2011/07/pork-barrel-and-philippine-politics-and.html