Is the end of pork barrel near?

PerryScope
By Perry Diaz

The Philippine Supreme Court, in a move that caught administration officials by surprise, issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) last September 10 stopping further releases of funds from the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) and the President’s Social Fund (PSF). Also covered in the TRO are releases from the Malampaya Fund, which President Benigno Aquino III had used in projects that had nothing to do with “financing energy resource development and exploitation programs and projects of the government” as required by law.

The TRO was in response to three citizens’ petitions that asked the court to declare as unconstitutional the lump sum allocations under the PDAF and the PSF, and the misuse of the Malampaya Fund. The petitioners are former senatorial candidates Greco Belgica and Samson Alcantara, and former Marinduque Board Member Pedrito Nepomuceno.

The respondents include Executive Secretary Paquito “Jojo” Ochoa, Department of Budget and Management (DBM) Secretary Florencio “Butch” Abad, Senate President Franklin Drilon, and House of Representatives Speaker Feliciano Belmonte.

Mockery of the Constitution

In his petition, Alcantara said: “The pork barrel system allows the perversion of taxation by providing opportunities for the members thereof to gorge themselves in funds collected pursuant to tax legislation they have enacted purportedly for the public good.”

He called the pork barrel system a “mockery” of the constitutional mandate on “accountability, honesty and integrity of public officers.” He said that the President could end up “controlling” the lawmakers because the system allowed him to release or withhold the funds, which is in violation of the constitutional separation of powers.

It’s interesting to note that while the respondents indicated that they would comply with the TRO, Speaker Belmonte raised an issue. “To abolish it 100 percent, to reform it, to do anything with it, it is my position that it’s a political question which under our system of government belongs to Congress,” he told the media.

Unconstitutional provisions

Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio

But Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio seems to support the petitioners’ arguments. During the hearing for the oral arguments on the petitions last October 8, he said that the PDAF “on its face is unconstitutional” because the President cannot share the power to utilize public funds with the legislative branch. He said that the power to utilize public funds lies solely with the President; therefore, any power-sharing is unconstitutional. He said that the PDAF is “riddled with unconstitutionality.”

Carpio also said that while the Constitution allowed the President to realign savings, he couldn’t delegate that authority to Cabinet secretaries.

Carpio also said that another unconstitutional provision is the power given to Congress to concur with the realignment of funds, and the privilege given to lawmakers to identify their projects. He said that these provisions circumvent the “power of the President to veto.” “It violates the right of the President to veto projects. It destroys the check and balance when it comes to the executive and legislative branches of government,” he said.

There is a groundswell of support for the abolition of the pork barrel system, which many believe is the source of massive corruption. Indeed, a citizens’ movement for the abolition of the pork barrel system is spreading like wildfire.

Another EDSA?

An EDSA “people power” revolution might be welcome to the suffering poor. However, oligarchic forces – like those behind EDSA 1 and EDSA 2 — usually lead this kind of revolution, which is actually anti-revolutionary intended to preserve the oligarchy, albeit with a new set of players. But the people are now tired of “people power” revolutions where “change” is nothing more than re-invented slogans and recycled trapos (traditional politicians).

It is therefore in this context that a “judicial interference” is, imperatively, the only instrument for real change. This is because the executive and legislative branches of government have abdicated from their core responsibility of implementing laws that are consistent with not only the letter of the law but, more importantly, the spirit of the law. And what a better time to do it than now!

Speaker Belmonte can continue to argue that the abolition of pork barrel is the prerogative of Congress and that the Supreme Court should stay out of congressional business. But how can the high magistracy of the land stay out of it when there are – right now! — three valid petitions filed before it? Simply put, the Supreme Court may not have any alternative but to rule on the constitutionality of the pork barrel system. After all, its job – and solemn duty – is to make sure that any law enacted by Congress, if challenged, must be within the purview of the Constitution.

To avoid the death knell for the pork barrel system, Congress must act to reform it and to institute controls to prevent anyone – particularly the lawmakers – from raiding the people’s treasury. But wouldn’t this be akin to the Mafia policing itself to prevent the Mafiosi from committing crimes? For this reason, the only branch of government that can institute real reforms to the pork barrel system and avoid its abolition is the Judiciary.

In reforming the pork barrel system, the high court should be cognizant that lawmakers thrive on pork barrel. Indeed, pork barrel is to Philippine lawmakers as ambrosia was to the Greek gods. It’s their food. Deprive them of their food and they’d wither away.

It would not then come as a surprise if the members of Congress – with collaboration from the executive branch – were to lobby the 15 justices of the Supreme Court to uphold the constitutionality of pork barrel. It is a fight not only for their livelihood but also to save their political lives. In other words, it’s all about self-preservation.

End game

DBM Secretary Florencio Abad and President Benigno Aquino

President Aquino is now at the crossroads of his presidency. Would he heed the wishes of his “boss,” the people, or would he pander to the corrupt political establishment? It shouldn’t be a hard choice to make; however, there were times when “political expediency” had taken precedence over good governance. And by the looks of it, Aquino seems like he is bent on maintaining the status quo, with some “reforms” to keep everybody happy… except the people.

Last October 14, the House of Representatives announced that the P27-billion PDAF would be scrapped from the proposed P2.268-trillion national budget for 2014. But the PDAF and PSF (President’s Social Fund) are just small portions of the President’s P450-billion Special Purpose Funds (SPF). If you add the SPF, the Unprogrammed Funds, and the Funds Under the President’s Control, you’re looking at a huge pork barrel totaling P1.33 trillion! Does it seem like Aquino’s allies in the House are sacrificing the tiny PDAF to preserve the obscenely humongous presidential pork barrel? However, Malacañang insists that these are not pork barrel. What is it then?

Ultimately, the people will be the final arbiter, which brings to mind the question: Is the end of pork barrel near or is it here to stay? A wise man once said, “The more things change, the more they stay the same.” Yes, indeed.

(PerryDiaz@gmail.com)