THE Supreme Court (SC) banned the notorious Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), widely known as pork barrel, a decade ago. Yet, a new investigative report suggests that a mechanism functionally similar to it is thriving, deeply embedded within the national budget.
The recent finding that Cebu’s 11 incumbent and former district representatives were assigned a combined P55.77 billion in discretionary public works funds from 2023 to 2025 has reignited the debate over legislative influence on the budget process. This massive allocation — part of a nearly P1.2 trillion nationwide pool of funds — raises a critical question: In the post-PDAF era, how is Congress still able to command huge amounts of public funds for district-level projects, and what does this mean for transparency and accountability?
Quick recap of the fund allocation
Documents analyzed by the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) reveal that over three years (2023–2025), Cebu’s representatives received P55.77 billion in Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) “allocable” funds. These funds are part of a national system PCIJ labels as the present version of pork barrel.
The largest recipient among the Cebu districts was the 1st District’s Rhea Mae Gullas, with over P8.33 billion. The amounts for each district are calculated using a controversial “BBM Parametric Formula” and are predetermined before the General Appropriations Act (GAA) is finalized.
Context: The system that replaced PDAF
The controversy revolves around “allocable funds,” which are defined as district-level DPWH budgets assigned before the national budget is enacted by Congress.
What happened to the “pork barrel”
In 2013, the SC ruled the PDAF unconstitutional. That system allowed lawmakers to allocate funds after the budget was enacted (post-enactment intervention). The new “allocable” system is structurally different: the total amounts for each district are fixed by the executive branch (DPWH) based on the “BBM Parametric Formula” and itemized directly into the National Expenditure Program (NEP) and the subsequent GAA.
While the total amounts are set, representatives reportedly select specific projects from a departmental “menu.” This pre-enactment identification of projects by legislators is what critics argue still allows for the same influence and discretion historically associated with pork barrel.
The opaque parametric formula
The funds are pooled through the “BBM Parametric Formula,” a budgeting scheme created by former DPWH undersecretary Maria Catalina Cabral at the start of the Marcos administration. Past DPWH officials have described this formula as opaque and poorly disclosed, governing the agency’s budget since 2023.
Why the allocable system matters
The existence of a nearly P1.2 trillion pool of funds determined by a secret formula and channeled to specific legislative districts is crucial for several reasons:
• It undermines merit-based budgeting: When allocations are determined by a “parametric formula” and routed through representatives, it raises questions about whether projects are chosen based on genuine engineering need or on political influence.
• It blurs the separation of powers: The practice suggests that legislators are still executing a function — project selection — that is fundamentally an executive responsibility. This constant intermingling of roles weakens institutional checks and balances.
• It raises corruption concerns: PCIJ reported that even “non-allocable” projects — those supposedly based on engineering priorities — have allegedly been exploited by officials and contractors for a “free-for-all” of influence and alleged kickbacks.
Voices and perspectives on the allocable funds
The key tension lies in whether these pre-determined funds truly constitute pork barrel or are legitimate allocations for local infrastructure.
The Defense: Not pork barrel, it’s pre-enactment
• Former Cebu 3rd District Rep. Pablo John “PJ” Garcia strongly rejected the “pork barrel” label. He argued that the SC defined pork barrel as a lawmaker intervening after the budget is passed
(post-appropriation).
• Garcia’s Stance: “Pork barrel… is when congressmen have participation and involvement in the identification of projects post-appropriation, or after the GAA has been passed.”
• His Counter-Argument: Garcia stated that for his district, the amount passed in the GAA was substantially what the DPWH submitted in the NEP, and any project changes were DPWH-initiated, not lawmaker-initiated. He contended his district’s budget was “exactly what the DPWH submitted.”
The benefit: Local impact
Rep. Peter John Calderon (Cebu 7th District) emphasized the projects’ positive impact on his constituents, noting that the “allocables” are “local in nature” and have been implemented.
• Calderon’s Examples: He specified that these projects include “concreting of barangay and municipal roads, water systems and multi-purpose buildings,” with the DPWH acting as the implementing agency.
What happened in the budget process
The process starts with the DPWH using the “BBM Parametric Formula” to assign fixed amounts — the “allocables” — to congressional districts. These amounts are then integrated as line items into the NEP (the President’s proposed budget) and passed into the GAA (the final law). The issue isn’t the amount itself but the lawmaker’s ability to influence the choice of projects within that fixed amount before the GAA is enacted, thus bypassing the constitutional prohibition on post-enactment intervention.
How it connects to larger issues
This system connects directly to the decades-old struggle for budgetary transparency and accountability in the Philippines. By embedding discretionary funds deep within the executive’s proposed budget using a non-public formula, it makes legislative intervention less overt but potentially just as powerful. It essentially moves the point of discretion from the post-budget phase to the pre-budget preparation phase, creating a system that is constitutional on its face but highly questionable in its application.
What’s next
Despite the PCIJ findings, Congress retained the core of the allocable system in the preparation of the 2026 budget, simply by shifting a portion of the funds from flood-control items to other project types.
The scrutiny suggested by former Representative Garcia — a line-by-line comparison between the NEP and the final GAA for each district — remains the most revealing audit method, especially in light of recent Senate hearings alleging insertions in flood-control items.
Forward-looking ending
The debate is now focused on the constitutional spirit, not just the letter of the law. As watchdogs and lawmakers continue to scrutinize the DPWH budget, the public must watch whether the “BBM Parametric Formula” will be made public and whether the executive and legislative branches can clearly define a firewall that prevents elected officials from unduly influencing the technical allocation of public works funds. The outcome will determine if the Philippines has truly moved past pork barrel or simply given it a more complex, pre-enactment disguise. / EHP