Reform or remove
The recent initiative of the Department of Budget and Management to make the pork barrel system more transparent and, at least, less vulnerable to corruption, if not totally corruption-free, may not outright achieve its goal, but is in step with good governance. Public expenditure should be as open and transparent as it can be. This basic democratic principle applies to the executive branch as it should to the judiciary, and the legislature should not be an exception.
It is no secret—in fact it is the general perception—that the pork barrel, despite the sugarcoat of an urgent-, progressive- and benevolent-sounding official name, Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), has long been a source of corruption for unscrupulous officials, from the DBM and implementing departments on to public auditors, local and barangay officials, even private contractors, but, most of all, members of Congress. The PDAF allocation is currently P200 million a year for each senator, and P70 million for each House member.
Based on official statements, the new guidelines will align PDAF projects with the administration’s thrusts and priorities and prevent the fund’s misuse—or abuse—especially with the 2013 midterm elections fast approaching. For example, a new requirement for a PDAF project’s approval is that it should conform to the priority list or standard design prepared by the implementing agency, and only one realignment would be allowed, with the replacement project remaining under the same implementing agency and the same category as the original purpose.
President Aquino’s spokesperson Edwin Lacierda has expressed Malacañang’s support for “the position taken” by Budget Secretary Florencio Abad and added, for good measure: “[W]e are all for transparency and accountability. [I]t’s more to ensure that the funds are properly used.”
How can one argue against that statement? But Lacierda himself subsequently did. Instead of erasing public doubt that the changes may be just a ploy to make it easier for Malacañang to manipulate Congress according to its wishes, he told reporters: “There are those who are like [Zambales Rep.] Mitos Magsaysay. She is against administration, she is against the policies. Our concern is, if you’re not helping us in our programs, in our policies, we might as well go straight to your constituents [in helping them].” Translation: “You don’t toe the line, no pork for you.”
Magsaysay, a staunch ally of former President Gloria Arroyo and an archcritic of President Aquino, said the DBM-initiated reforms indicated that Abad did not trust even Mr. Aquino’s allies. “It’s an insult,” she said.
The fact is, the Aquino administration is not the first to use the pork barrel as a squeeze weapon to push its agenda. We need not look far back in history. Everyone and his uncle knew that then Speaker Jose de Venecia could not have been effective in stopping the impeachment complaints against Arroyo without the pork barrel. Proof of Palace control of the House—and there couldn’t be many as brazen—was De Venecia’s utter helplessness in thwarting his own ignominious ouster from power by the machinations of Arroyo’s sons, themselves House members.
But again it is not just Malacañang that sees the pork barrel as a negotiation chip. Let’s hear it from Navotas Rep. Toby Tiangco: “How can we gain any leverage from Malacañang when we need something from them if we give up our powers so effortlessly when we do not need anything from them? The budget secretary has really emasculated [Speaker Feliciano Belmonte] this time.”
Kabataan Rep. Raymond Palatino sees the DBM initiative as a deathblow to Congress’ independence: “It’s a Marcos-era legacy when the Palace, through the DBM, asserts its control in the chamber. This policy reflects the undemocratic budget process, proof of how difficult it is for even the Speaker to assert his independence from the Palace…” Sounds like the judiciary defending its “fiscal independence” from public scrutiny.
It’s a shame that this latest debate on the pork barrel mouths practically the same dated, hypocritical lines, concerned more about preserving a superficial quid pro quo arrangement rather than addressing the issue’s inconvenient truths. But if the members of the House are really serious about ensuring their independence from the Palace, that wouldn’t be too difficult to do. They can easily remove the one thing that time and again has made them succumb to Malacañang’s dictates—the pork barrel.
