By Amado P. Macasaet
The wise saying is “look before you leap.” The protesters against the pork barrel did not look before they mindlessly leaped.
The first consideration to remember in the pork case is the fact that the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional. Since the ruling of the Court – right or wrong – becomes part of the law of the land, it is presumed that the 2015 General Appropriations Act does not contain a provision for pork.
Yet, it is entirely possible Congress and the President or both may insert provisions in the national appropriations allowing pork disguised as a different item. . One is the provision about lump sum appropriation completely under the control of the President.
The release of lump sum budget is processed by the Department of Budget and Management. Before the Court declared the pork as violating the Constitution, the funds are released to the lawmakers through a document called SARO – special allotment and release order.
Congress and the President will violate the ruling of the Supreme Court if the lawmakers get their SAROs. Therefore, if there is pork in the budget disguised as another item, the release of the money will be extremely difficult if not impossible to justify in a document.
Before they mounted the Monday rally at the Rizal Park, the group that claims there is pork funds in the budget should minutely scrutinize the General Appropriations proposal and point out which provision in the budget is in fact pork.
Nobody did anything like that.
The best assurance pork barrel funds may no longer be included in the national budget is to force the President and Congress to abolish the lump sum appropriation. The use of the lump sum must be clearly identified so the money may not be used for other purposes, including pork.
The President has huge discretionary funds. He also gets hundreds of millions from Pagcor. The disbursement of the money is at his sole discretion. State-owned corporations, including the Bangko Sentral remits money to Malacañang when they make a profit.
The amounts are not part of the national budget. They can also be spent for other purposes including pork. It is therefore necessary for Malacañang to issue an executive order requiring such remittances to be turned over to the National Treasury, not to the President.
No one in government is allowed to spend money whose purpose is not clearly identified in the General Appropriations Act. Remittances to the President of profits of state-owned or controlled corporations do not have a specific purpose.
Therefore, the President can use it anyway he wants it used including pork.
If the money is given to lawmakers under another classification, it is still pork. Pork barrel that originated from the United States is reward for political patronage. The use of the funds is presumed to be for public welfare since it is taxpayers’ money.
The anomaly here is pork, by any other name, duplicates the functions of the Department of Public Works and Highways if the money is used for infrastructure.
The pork funds as reward for political patronage is justified by the claim that as representatives of the people, the lawmakers they elect know best what is good for them.
However, it must be clearly understood the only duty of lawmakers is to make laws, not to help the Executive Department make the economy grow by having cash for the purpose.
The presumption that lawmakers know best what their constituents need is best accomplished by enacting laws that benefit the constituents of the lawmakers.
The reality, as proven in what Janet Lim Napoles allegedly did to the pork funds is that taxpayers money disguised as pork goes to the pockets of the lawmakers. There are testimonies and documents proving that pork funds were channeled through fake non-government organizations but actually ended up in the pockets of lawmakers.
The other big problem with pork is the sitting President’s belief members of the opposition party do not give him political patronage. Of course they don’t. We have a multi-party political system.
While the national budget provides equal sums to all lawmakers although senators get bigger amounts, members of the Opposition party are denied the pork precisely because its release is at the complete discretion of the President.
The group opposing the pork, in spite of declaration of unconstitutionality, should move for the deletion or removal of the anomaly of the President having full discretion over money in lump sum appropriations and over funds remitted to him as profits of government corporations.
It is in this regard that the pork will stay in spite of prohibitions by the Supreme Court. The flaw is in vague provisions of the General Appropriations Act and in the fact that profits are remitted to the President instead of sending these to the National Treasury.
Even if there had been no allegation on the P10 billion theft of pork funds, the money given to lawmakers for political patronage should be withdrawn. There is too much graft and corruption over pork funds.
To begin with the public bidding for the construction of a project is almost always rigged. The specifications in construction of farm-to-market roads are not complied with. The normal thickness of a concrete road is 4 to 5 inches. This specification is by and large complied with.
However, if say one square meter of cement road requires five bags of cement, the contractor will use only four or less. He has to save money for the lawmaker whose pork funds are used for the road.
* * * *
Email: amadomacasaet@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment