Not entitled
Not entitled
Updated 01:34am (Mla time) Dec 06, 2004
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A14 of the December 6, 2004 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer.
TO BE certain, Senate President Franklin Drilon's appeal to his fellow legislators to give up part of their pork barrel funds in favor of the many flood and landslide victims seemed not a little gimmicky-as though he were in part playing to the gallery.
But there is so much wrong with House Majority Leader Prospero Nograles' terse reply to Drilon's challenge that we can overlook the senator's grandstand play.
What, exactly, did the gentleman from Davao City say?
"We have already given up our pork. Did anyone give up their pork when we were bombed in Davao and for the war in Mindanao? So many people died there, too, right?" Nograles said last Friday, in a text message he sent the Inquirer.
Strictly speaking, congressmen have not given up their pork-only a portion of it, and if continuing delay forces the reenactment of the present budget, not even that. But Nograles' imprecision is telling, because it reveals the sense of entitlement that underlies our lawmakers' attitude to the pork barrel.
To mistake sacrificing a portion for the entire sum is to emphasize, not what is given up, but the one doing the giving up. It's as if Nograles-and on this matter he is truly the majority leader, because he speaks for most congressmen-begrudged the reduction in funds so much that he thinks he has practically lost the entire pork barrel. He is rather like a salaried employee who, after withholding taxes are deducted from his pay, melodramatically complains that the government has taken everything!
The employee has grounds for feeling that way; he must believe, after all, that he is entitled to all the fruits of his labor. But Nograles and other congressmen? Why would they feel that way about giving up part of the pork barrel, if they did not feel similarly entitled to ALL of it?
Nograles also seeks to draw a parallel between the recent tragedies and the wave of terror that swept certain parts of Mindanao. Did anyone give up their pork then, he asks? But back then there was no fiscal crisis, no national soul-searching over the use and abuse of the pork barrel. Back then, giving up the pork barrel wasn't even being discussed.
But we are in the middle of one such crisis now. Contrary to President Macapagal-Arroyo's startling announcement last month, the country is still very much on the road to default. According to the economists from the University of the Philippines, that terrible milestone may be only two or three years away. And for all the hue and cry that followed the President's admission last August that a budget crisis did in fact exist, none of the eight revenue measures needed has yet been passed. There is some movement, yes; but just because things are in motion does not mean, as the President took it to mean last month, that the crisis is in fact over.
Nograles' reply also assumes the basic fallacy that legislators now take for granted: that they bear part of the executive branch's responsibility for their respective districts. This attitude is transparent in Rep. Juan Miguel Arroyo's reply to Drilon.
"May I stress that senators do not have direct constituencies, unlike congressmen who are answerable to their districts," the President's eldest son said. The young Arroyo was not propounding a novel theory of the separation of powers; that is beyond his ken. He was simply repeating the rationalization congressmen use to justify their greater need for the pork barrel; that is, that they have a direct constituency, that they are answerable to their districts.
Nonsense. In our system of government, all elected officials have a direct constituency; just because a senator is elected at large does not make his constituency any less direct. And, contrary to the young Arroyo's view, all government officials-not just congressmen-are answerable to the public.
The problem is, Nograles, Arroyo and most other congressmen define being answerable in another way. We do not mean to be facetious, but if the pork barrel is truly the answer, what in heaven's name is the question?
Updated 01:34am (Mla time) Dec 06, 2004
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A14 of the December 6, 2004 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer.
TO BE certain, Senate President Franklin Drilon's appeal to his fellow legislators to give up part of their pork barrel funds in favor of the many flood and landslide victims seemed not a little gimmicky-as though he were in part playing to the gallery.
But there is so much wrong with House Majority Leader Prospero Nograles' terse reply to Drilon's challenge that we can overlook the senator's grandstand play.
What, exactly, did the gentleman from Davao City say?
"We have already given up our pork. Did anyone give up their pork when we were bombed in Davao and for the war in Mindanao? So many people died there, too, right?" Nograles said last Friday, in a text message he sent the Inquirer.
Strictly speaking, congressmen have not given up their pork-only a portion of it, and if continuing delay forces the reenactment of the present budget, not even that. But Nograles' imprecision is telling, because it reveals the sense of entitlement that underlies our lawmakers' attitude to the pork barrel.
To mistake sacrificing a portion for the entire sum is to emphasize, not what is given up, but the one doing the giving up. It's as if Nograles-and on this matter he is truly the majority leader, because he speaks for most congressmen-begrudged the reduction in funds so much that he thinks he has practically lost the entire pork barrel. He is rather like a salaried employee who, after withholding taxes are deducted from his pay, melodramatically complains that the government has taken everything!
The employee has grounds for feeling that way; he must believe, after all, that he is entitled to all the fruits of his labor. But Nograles and other congressmen? Why would they feel that way about giving up part of the pork barrel, if they did not feel similarly entitled to ALL of it?
Nograles also seeks to draw a parallel between the recent tragedies and the wave of terror that swept certain parts of Mindanao. Did anyone give up their pork then, he asks? But back then there was no fiscal crisis, no national soul-searching over the use and abuse of the pork barrel. Back then, giving up the pork barrel wasn't even being discussed.
But we are in the middle of one such crisis now. Contrary to President Macapagal-Arroyo's startling announcement last month, the country is still very much on the road to default. According to the economists from the University of the Philippines, that terrible milestone may be only two or three years away. And for all the hue and cry that followed the President's admission last August that a budget crisis did in fact exist, none of the eight revenue measures needed has yet been passed. There is some movement, yes; but just because things are in motion does not mean, as the President took it to mean last month, that the crisis is in fact over.
Nograles' reply also assumes the basic fallacy that legislators now take for granted: that they bear part of the executive branch's responsibility for their respective districts. This attitude is transparent in Rep. Juan Miguel Arroyo's reply to Drilon.
"May I stress that senators do not have direct constituencies, unlike congressmen who are answerable to their districts," the President's eldest son said. The young Arroyo was not propounding a novel theory of the separation of powers; that is beyond his ken. He was simply repeating the rationalization congressmen use to justify their greater need for the pork barrel; that is, that they have a direct constituency, that they are answerable to their districts.
Nonsense. In our system of government, all elected officials have a direct constituency; just because a senator is elected at large does not make his constituency any less direct. And, contrary to the young Arroyo's view, all government officials-not just congressmen-are answerable to the public.
The problem is, Nograles, Arroyo and most other congressmen define being answerable in another way. We do not mean to be facetious, but if the pork barrel is truly the answer, what in heaven's name is the question?
posted by Dante at 1:41 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home