Actually, President Aquino can, by his lonesome, abolish the pork barrel—if he wants to. A people’s initiative to outlaw pork or amending the Constitution so it will outlaw pork are good moves to finally free us from the shackles of government corruption. But they are long, complicated procedures that politicians can delay or even block. And, as the Inquirer editorial pointed out, a law today banning pork can be repealed by a shameless and corrupt Congress next year.
But if President Aquino is sincere about stamping out corruption, he can abolish pork with one phone call. And not only the evil Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) but also all lump-sum appropriations which turn into pork.
“Hey Butch,” he can direct the budget secretary even by a mere phone call, “no more pork in the budget ha!”
And the budget secretary, even if he hates to do it (after all, he is a former congressman who benefited from pork), will have no choice but to remove the pork from the proposed national budget to be submitted to Congress. Members of Congress, much as they love to fatten on pork, cannot put it there. They have no power under the Constitution to do that. They can only adjust or reduce the budgets proposed by the executive department.
But that would be good for only one year. The pork can be resurrected in the next budget proposal. But if the President is sincere about stopping corruption, he will not allow any pork in the budget proposals.
But that is good only for as long as Aquino is the president. What about after 2016 when we would have elected a new president? The new president may have promised the politicians who helped him get elected that should he become president he would restore the pork. That is why we should be very, very careful in choosing our next president. Don’t be fooled by the campaign hoopla. Look into the background of the candidates. Was he accused of involvement in any form of corruption in the past, while he was still mayor, for example?
The fastest and surest way to stop the pork permanently is for the Supreme Court to declare it unconstitutional. That way, the pork would be permanently dead and buried. The word “permanently” is used here relatively. The Supreme Court can reverse itself sometime in the future.
In fact, we are not even sure if the present high tribunal will declare the pork barrel unconstitutional. Magistrates have the bad habit of resorting to technicalities even if the evil in the case before them is obvious, even if the people—from whom all powers, including that of the high court emanate—want to be rid of the pork system.
We are also not sure if P-Noy is sincere in abolishing pork and therefore lessening, at least, corruption. Why did he lie to the people by telling them that the PDAF had been abolished when, in fact, he abolished only the name but not the pork itself? In fact, the pork is hidden in various disguises in next year’s national budget, into which members of Congress can still dip their filthy hands.
P-Noy even defended the pork, asking what would happen to the scholars and patients that pork was helping, which was a very shallow excuse. Of course the executive department—the Department of Education and the Department of Health under him in particular—should continue to give them assistance. What is the problem there? Is the executive department under P-Noy so incompetent that it cannot help those who need help?
But why is P-Noy reluctant or afraid to abolish the pork, so afraid to the point of lying to the people? Because he has his own pork, billions and billions of pesos of it. He is afraid that if he abolishes the congressional pork, the lawmakers, in retaliation, will also abolish his own pork. That the lawmakers can do.
Besides, he uses pork to bribe lawmakers to do what he wants. He uses it as a carrot and stick. Cooperative lawmakers get their pork promptly, uncooperative ones don’t. He wants them to impeach and vote to convict the chief justice? Plenty of pork will convince them to do what he wants. He wants them to pass a certain bill, pork will help accomplish that.
And the Supreme Court, in earlier decisions declaring the pork barrel constitutional, called the pork the “great equalizer.” It said that rural areas forgotten or neglected by the national government were getting their needed projects through the pork barrel of their congressmen.
True, but we have seen the large-scale leakage and eventual loss of the people’s funds through the pork barrel system. Only about half of the budget for a given project goes to the project itself. The rest is stolen by lawmakers and their friends and cohorts.
In the case of the P10-billion pork barrel scam reportedly engineered by Janet Napoles, nothing, not even a peso, went to the projects. Everything was allegedly stolen by Janet and her lawmaker-partners.
And we have seen how easily it could be done, even with the alleged strict documentary requirements of the implementing agencies. According to whistle-blowers, Napoles had her staff do nothing but produce fake documents and forge signatures and submit project endorsements to the implementing agencies. Nobody in these agencies thought of verifying the documents and the signatures. She followed up the submissions with visits and phone calls to her partners in Congress.
Let’s all wake up and stop this kleptocracy.
* * *
KAPIHAN NOTES: Guests at today’s Kapihan sa Manila at the Diamond Hotel are former senator Panfilo Lacson and beleaguered Customs Commissioner Ruffy Biazon. Lacson was once head of the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force that successfully went after criminals, while Biazon is now besieged by organized smugglers in the Bureau of Customs.