Oink, Oink
Oink, oink
Updated 07:42am (Mla time) Aug 29, 2004
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A14 of the August 29, 2004 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
LOOK who’s standing up to defend the pork barrel? Once (and future) street parliamentarians from the Bayan Muna party-list group, who say they have found a “pro-people” way of spending their Priority Development Assistance Fund.
Pointing to the example of a three-story “student activity center” at the Polytechnic University of the Philippines that their party-list group funded in part, Rep. Teodoro Casiño explained why they were not for abolishing the pork barrel, only for reducing it: “This project is one logical reason why the pork barrel need not be abolished, despite the raging fiscal crisis.” The PUP project shows “how these funds can be effectively tapped for the direct benefit of the people.”
We expect traditional politicians, such as two-termer Rep. Rozanno Rufino Biazon of Muntinlupa, to rise to the defense of the pork barrel system, as he did last Thursday. But street militants? The “use of congressional allocations for social services” help “make life a little less unbearable for our people," Biazon said. His words could have come straight from Casiño’s mouth.
The assumption behind Biazon’s argument, and Casiño’s too, was made explicit by the new Deputy Speaker for the Visayas. “We know our constituents best,” said Rep. Raul del Mar of Cebu City.
But the issue is not whether some uses of the pork barrel fit the need of the times. There is no question that legislators have used their PDAF money in the past to fund any number of projects “for the direct benefit of the people,” from schools to farm-to-market roads. But it is precisely these projects which give all those who dip into the pork barrel the luxury of a clear conscience.
How many new school-buildings, how many artesian wells, have been used to justify the graft-stained use of the rest of the pork barrel?
The real issue -- it is time to remind our honorable senators and congressmen -- is whether there should be a pork barrel in the first place.
It is the duty of the executive to do the literal part of nation-building: to construct new markets, to repair old bridges, to bring potable water and cheap electricity to the remotest barangay. In policy terms, the issue can be quickly reduced to a simple question: Why should the legislature do the work of the executive?
The argument that legislators know their constituents best is not an answer; it is a rationalization, ill-disguised as a principle. A congressman’s constituency overlaps with that of the mayor, sometimes with the governor’s, arguably with those of all the senators, and certainly with that of the President.
In realpolitik terms, of course, the issue is anything but simple. A senator or a congressman may need his pork barrel to recover his campaign expenses or to redeem his campaign promises, to directly employ assorted supporters or to directly influence local politics. It is no exaggeration to say that -- even above congressional immunity or the congressional power to launch investigations in aid of legislation -- the pork barrel is the main source of power for most legislators.
In realpolitik, too, constituency is a flexible term: it can, for instance, mean those who invested in one’s campaign. This flexibility leads us to understand the true nature of the pork barrel: it is discretionary. While in theory, legislators can only pick priority projects from a basket of possibilities prepared by the budget department, the reality is it is the senators and congressmen who choose. They have virtual control over which projects to fund, and by how much.
This discretionary nature is why other legislators have rounded on the President, labeling the President’s Social Fund her personal pork barrel. (In truth, the President’s Social Fund is the net income of the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corp. It is what is left over, after Pagcor meets all its obligations under the law. The irony is that, as this paper has reported more than once, the Social Fund has become markedly smaller under this administration because of the practices of the Pagcor management this administration itself put in place.)
To be sure, even if the entire pork barrel were abolished, the government would save only about P20 billion, a little over 2 percent of next year’s proposed budget. But the exercise of political will is what we need, and every single peso helps.
Updated 07:42am (Mla time) Aug 29, 2004
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A14 of the August 29, 2004 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
LOOK who’s standing up to defend the pork barrel? Once (and future) street parliamentarians from the Bayan Muna party-list group, who say they have found a “pro-people” way of spending their Priority Development Assistance Fund.
Pointing to the example of a three-story “student activity center” at the Polytechnic University of the Philippines that their party-list group funded in part, Rep. Teodoro Casiño explained why they were not for abolishing the pork barrel, only for reducing it: “This project is one logical reason why the pork barrel need not be abolished, despite the raging fiscal crisis.” The PUP project shows “how these funds can be effectively tapped for the direct benefit of the people.”
We expect traditional politicians, such as two-termer Rep. Rozanno Rufino Biazon of Muntinlupa, to rise to the defense of the pork barrel system, as he did last Thursday. But street militants? The “use of congressional allocations for social services” help “make life a little less unbearable for our people," Biazon said. His words could have come straight from Casiño’s mouth.
The assumption behind Biazon’s argument, and Casiño’s too, was made explicit by the new Deputy Speaker for the Visayas. “We know our constituents best,” said Rep. Raul del Mar of Cebu City.
But the issue is not whether some uses of the pork barrel fit the need of the times. There is no question that legislators have used their PDAF money in the past to fund any number of projects “for the direct benefit of the people,” from schools to farm-to-market roads. But it is precisely these projects which give all those who dip into the pork barrel the luxury of a clear conscience.
How many new school-buildings, how many artesian wells, have been used to justify the graft-stained use of the rest of the pork barrel?
The real issue -- it is time to remind our honorable senators and congressmen -- is whether there should be a pork barrel in the first place.
It is the duty of the executive to do the literal part of nation-building: to construct new markets, to repair old bridges, to bring potable water and cheap electricity to the remotest barangay. In policy terms, the issue can be quickly reduced to a simple question: Why should the legislature do the work of the executive?
The argument that legislators know their constituents best is not an answer; it is a rationalization, ill-disguised as a principle. A congressman’s constituency overlaps with that of the mayor, sometimes with the governor’s, arguably with those of all the senators, and certainly with that of the President.
In realpolitik terms, of course, the issue is anything but simple. A senator or a congressman may need his pork barrel to recover his campaign expenses or to redeem his campaign promises, to directly employ assorted supporters or to directly influence local politics. It is no exaggeration to say that -- even above congressional immunity or the congressional power to launch investigations in aid of legislation -- the pork barrel is the main source of power for most legislators.
In realpolitik, too, constituency is a flexible term: it can, for instance, mean those who invested in one’s campaign. This flexibility leads us to understand the true nature of the pork barrel: it is discretionary. While in theory, legislators can only pick priority projects from a basket of possibilities prepared by the budget department, the reality is it is the senators and congressmen who choose. They have virtual control over which projects to fund, and by how much.
This discretionary nature is why other legislators have rounded on the President, labeling the President’s Social Fund her personal pork barrel. (In truth, the President’s Social Fund is the net income of the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corp. It is what is left over, after Pagcor meets all its obligations under the law. The irony is that, as this paper has reported more than once, the Social Fund has become markedly smaller under this administration because of the practices of the Pagcor management this administration itself put in place.)
To be sure, even if the entire pork barrel were abolished, the government would save only about P20 billion, a little over 2 percent of next year’s proposed budget. But the exercise of political will is what we need, and every single peso helps.
posted by Dante at 12:09 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home