All for show?
All for show?
Updated 09:05pm (Mla time) Sept 13, 2004
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A12 of the September 14, 2004 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
NORMALLY the announcement of House leaders that they have agreed to abolish the pork barrel starting with the proposed 2005 national budget would have been greeted with applause and cheers. But it is a measure of the low esteem in which the House as a body is being held that its announcement was met with jeers and sneers.
One of the critics is not an opposition leader who would automatically issue critical remarks just to get media exposure. He is a high-ranking Senate leader who should know whereof he speaks because he has had many years of experience in whipping into final form the annual general appropriations bill.
The Senate official said that House members were merely changing the pork barrel from a lump-sum appropriation to specific items in the budget. In other words, instead of being lumped together in one large barrel, the pork will be inserted in small chunks all over the budget bill. A similar observation was made by Gov. Ben Evardone of Eastern Samar who said
Print this story
Send this story
Write the editor
View other stories
that the pork barrel funds might be preserved through "congressional insertions" in the budget.
It has been said that the abolition of the pork barrel would not have much effect in the solution of the fiscal crisis that the government is facing. Yes, the abolition of the pork barrel would mean savings of only P20 billion, about one-tenth of this year's projected budget deficit of more than P200 billion, but it would be a loud political and moral statement. It would set an example in self-imposed austerity and might set off a snowball effect in the rest of the government.
If the House members finally decide to abolish the pork barrel, they would be taking the high moral ground from which they can demand that executive officials, beginning with the President, also do away with the pork barrel in their own budgetary allocations. The congressmen can demand that officials of government-owned and controlled corporations, like the notorious National Power Corp., reduce their astronomical salaries and scrap their huge allowances, perks and privileges. They can also sound a general call for austerity throughout the government bureaucracy.
But first, as many grizzled editors always advise young reporters who want to improve their copy, "Show, don't tell." Honorable congressmen: Show us, in black and white in the final budget bill, that you have honestly deleted your pork barrel from the budget and then we'll believe you and applaud you.
True colors
AT FIRST, it appeared that Rep. Antonio Diaz of Zambales was resigning for a high-minded reason: he no longer wanted to be a member of a chamber that had become useless and disreputable. But later, the man who was once called "the Furusato congressman" showed his true colors. He said in a radio interview that he was resigning because he was not named one of the House deputy speakers and because he had not obtained his pork barrel funds.
Diaz's announced resignation has raised some questions. One is, can an elected congressman simply resign by submitting a letter of resignation to House officials? If he has to resign at all, should he not submit his resignation to the people in his congressional district who elected him?
Another question is whether he may be held criminally liable for refusing to discharge an elective office without a legal motive. Because, if a congressman would be allowed to resign just on a whim or caprice, then theoretically, all congressmen can abandon their posts without suffering any punishment or penalty. (Theoretically, we said, because, after clawing his way to a "very enriching office," a congressman would be a fool, indeed, to just resign and give up a source of power, privilege and pelf.)
We've viewed Diaz's supposed resignation with suspicion from the very beginning because of his past actions in the House. In 1993, the Senate blue ribbon committee found that Diaz engineered the construction of a P216-million dike in his hometown of San Marcelino in such a way that his mansion would be protected by a one-half-meter thick concrete armor. Later, he was found to have eaten--if his expense accounts were to be believed--307 times at the expensive Furusato restaurant over a four-month period, spending tens of thousands of pesos of the people's money for the purpose.
Now, this "show-piece" resignation. If the people of his district have the power to accept his resignation, we strongly urge them to do so.
Updated 09:05pm (Mla time) Sept 13, 2004
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A12 of the September 14, 2004 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
NORMALLY the announcement of House leaders that they have agreed to abolish the pork barrel starting with the proposed 2005 national budget would have been greeted with applause and cheers. But it is a measure of the low esteem in which the House as a body is being held that its announcement was met with jeers and sneers.
One of the critics is not an opposition leader who would automatically issue critical remarks just to get media exposure. He is a high-ranking Senate leader who should know whereof he speaks because he has had many years of experience in whipping into final form the annual general appropriations bill.
The Senate official said that House members were merely changing the pork barrel from a lump-sum appropriation to specific items in the budget. In other words, instead of being lumped together in one large barrel, the pork will be inserted in small chunks all over the budget bill. A similar observation was made by Gov. Ben Evardone of Eastern Samar who said
Print this story
Send this story
Write the editor
View other stories
that the pork barrel funds might be preserved through "congressional insertions" in the budget.
It has been said that the abolition of the pork barrel would not have much effect in the solution of the fiscal crisis that the government is facing. Yes, the abolition of the pork barrel would mean savings of only P20 billion, about one-tenth of this year's projected budget deficit of more than P200 billion, but it would be a loud political and moral statement. It would set an example in self-imposed austerity and might set off a snowball effect in the rest of the government.
If the House members finally decide to abolish the pork barrel, they would be taking the high moral ground from which they can demand that executive officials, beginning with the President, also do away with the pork barrel in their own budgetary allocations. The congressmen can demand that officials of government-owned and controlled corporations, like the notorious National Power Corp., reduce their astronomical salaries and scrap their huge allowances, perks and privileges. They can also sound a general call for austerity throughout the government bureaucracy.
But first, as many grizzled editors always advise young reporters who want to improve their copy, "Show, don't tell." Honorable congressmen: Show us, in black and white in the final budget bill, that you have honestly deleted your pork barrel from the budget and then we'll believe you and applaud you.
True colors
AT FIRST, it appeared that Rep. Antonio Diaz of Zambales was resigning for a high-minded reason: he no longer wanted to be a member of a chamber that had become useless and disreputable. But later, the man who was once called "the Furusato congressman" showed his true colors. He said in a radio interview that he was resigning because he was not named one of the House deputy speakers and because he had not obtained his pork barrel funds.
Diaz's announced resignation has raised some questions. One is, can an elected congressman simply resign by submitting a letter of resignation to House officials? If he has to resign at all, should he not submit his resignation to the people in his congressional district who elected him?
Another question is whether he may be held criminally liable for refusing to discharge an elective office without a legal motive. Because, if a congressman would be allowed to resign just on a whim or caprice, then theoretically, all congressmen can abandon their posts without suffering any punishment or penalty. (Theoretically, we said, because, after clawing his way to a "very enriching office," a congressman would be a fool, indeed, to just resign and give up a source of power, privilege and pelf.)
We've viewed Diaz's supposed resignation with suspicion from the very beginning because of his past actions in the House. In 1993, the Senate blue ribbon committee found that Diaz engineered the construction of a P216-million dike in his hometown of San Marcelino in such a way that his mansion would be protected by a one-half-meter thick concrete armor. Later, he was found to have eaten--if his expense accounts were to be believed--307 times at the expensive Furusato restaurant over a four-month period, spending tens of thousands of pesos of the people's money for the purpose.
Now, this "show-piece" resignation. If the people of his district have the power to accept his resignation, we strongly urge them to do so.
posted by Dante at 9:32 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home