In defense of my lawmaker’s role in the PDAF process
My lawmaker—congressman and senator alike—is openly accused of misusing or misallocating funds—more specifically, his Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) allocations. Nothing is more disturbing than being accused of something one is not accountable for.
In the General Appropriations Act and the guidelines provided by the Commission on Audit are the rules for the release of the PDAF. The PDAF is not personally handled or distributed by my lawmaker. Neither does he implement the project for which the PDAF is used. His authority and accountability are limited to identifying the projects and designating the beneficiaries on a priority list.
The implementation of the project is left to the appropriate government agency, referred to as the “implementing agency,” which is tasked to determine the legal standing of the nongovernment organizations (NGOs) and peoples’ organizations (POs) that seek to become partners of the government in nation-building, before accrediting them. In other words, in accrediting NGOs and POs it is the responsibility of the implementing agency to make sure they have a legal personality and the officers responsible and accountable for their operations.
My lawmaker is not responsible for accrediting NGOs or POs. Under present rules, he only determines the project or beneficiaries of his PDAF, say, a certain indigenous group. The agency, in turn, looks for an accredited NGO or PO to implement the project which may even have to go through a public bidding before it is awarded.
After accreditation, a mechanism for the release of the PDAF is used—through a special allotment release order (Saro). This is a public document that authorizes the release of an allocation for specific programs and projects, including the conditions for the use of the funds. It is the Department of Budget and Management that issues the Saros to the agency when the requirements for the fund release have been met. Otherwise, the Saro is withheld.
As to whether an NGO or PO is bogus or nonexistent, and whether the PDAF was wasted or illegally pocketed, my lawmaker should not be blamed. The fault does not lie in the fellow whose good intention was to help the beneficiaries but in the faulty system that allowed the accreditation of the liable NGO or PO and the release of funds without the legal requirements, and the failure to properly audit the same. There is no fault in the identification of the projects and the beneficiaries of his PDAF. There is also no fault in having good intentions to address the need of a group of identified beneficiaries.
It would be different if my lawmaker had obtained kickbacks, misused or abused the funds in complicity with others. Once there is an indictment, it would no longer be in defense of my lawmaker, but “in defense of the accused.”
—CRIS ASPIRAS, [email protected]
