FIRST and, all right, foremost: the pork barrel or money the National Government gives to local governments in the form of projects is not illegal.
What the Supreme Court struck down five years ago as illegal and unconstitutional was the procedure in appropriating and disbursing the money. Lump sums and “discretion” of lawmakers: euphemism for their control in identifying the project, picking the private supplier of goods or services, and pocketing kickbacks.
Two months or so ago, House Speaker Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo admitted that each congressman or congresswoman will get P60 million and each senator P200 million in projects for their districts. That, after talks circulated that the “pork barrel” was back.
Pork barrel aids LGUs
A confusion of meanings. Pork barrel is confused with the scandal in the massive thievery of public funds given to local governments.
“Pork barrel” in its original and pristine meaning has always been there. Under a democratic government, the central government helps LGUs through projects that build roads, bridges and irrigation systems, set up mass transport, repair ports and highways, and the like. Political patronage necessarily comes with it. But the stealing is not, must not be, a component.
The public condemned the flawed procedure that resulted in loss of at least P10 billion in public funds granted to legislative districts through their respective House members. The high court disabled the law on PDAF (deceptively called Priority Development Assistance Fund) and two presidential decrees that allowed the president to use royalties from Malampaya for projects other than non-energy activities. The high court did not, repeat did not, abolish aid to LGUs by way of projects.
Ping charges, Andaya denials
Even Sen. Panfilo Lacson, who has singlehandedly battled the feasting on public funds through congressional action, fails to distinguish pork barrel (the assistance to LGUs) from the system (the laws that facilitated the looting). Thus, the misperception about pork barrel.
House Deputy Speaker Rolando Andaya insists that the lower Congress religiously followed the SC interpretation of the law. Meaning, all the appropriations for each district are listed in the budget bill and members of Congress would have no “discretion” in identifying the projects, choosing contractors, and releasing funds. No “post-enactment” participation by legislators.
But how come House members, mostly political allies of the speaker, get a lot more for their districts?
Disparity in shares
Disparity between pork slices of the speaker’s friends and those of lesser House occupants staggers belief. The figures are not out but Senator Ping gave a glimpse of it when he said the amounts for districts of the speaker and her second-in-command totals more than P3 billion.
Assume that Andaya was being honest. And all appropriations were line items, meticulously and diligently listed, project-by-project in the GAA (General appropriations Act). But they were discovered and tagged as last-minute insertions, meaning they were not passed by the House as enrolled bill in plenary session but smuggled in afterwards.
Is discretion back?
The House initiates appropriation measures; it has the “power of the purse,” thus its capacity to dictate the amount and manner of spending. If Lacson is right, it’s not the law that is flawed; it is the tampering of the law that is the problem.
What the nation may want to know is whether House members, whose districts benefit from the bill, are given the discretion that the SC took away five years ago. That meddling in how the slices of pork are consumed was what made the pork barrel of old stink.