Under the pork barrel system, legislators are given the authority to distribute public funds to address the development needs of a specific group of people or place which they themselves identify.
One of the cardinal rules in good governance is accountability. This is in line with the time-honored precept which says that any exercise of authority has a concomitant responsibility.
Once a legislator authorizes the release of funds from his pork barrel, it becomes his sole responsibility to see to it that these go to the intended beneficiaries. It cannot be delegated to other people. Otherwise, in the event of any irregularity, there would simply be endless finger-pointing.
Care should be exercised in selecting the implementing entities. Direct verification should be done with the intended beneficiaries and the submission of receipts of the purchased “deliverables” should be required.
Otherwise, we will always be facing serious mishandling and squandering of public funds similar to what the Inquirer has been reporting. Apparently after the release of their pork barrel funds, the legislators named in the report did not bother to check the implementation of the projects.
The anomalous transactions spanning a decade seem to confirm a basis for the public perception of a “sharing arrangement” among all the “players,” including the lawmakers.
While the Commission on Audit has the mandate to look into project implementation, once shenanigans are uncovered the question arises: Who should be held accountable? Nobody else except the one who authorized the disbursement.
In not touching their pork barrels, former senators Ping Lacson and Joker Arroyo must have been aware of the serious responsibilities required in their use. If legislators could not take on these responsibilities, the pork barrel system should be scrapped.
—CARLOS C. TAN, Philam Homes, Quezon City