BY MALOU MANGAHAS AND KAROL ILAGAN MONDAY, OCTOBER 7TH, 2013 First of Four Parts HOW DO you square a circle? That’s a puzzle that has perplexed geometers for centuries. Yet Malacañang and Congress say they have found a way to square the circle of abuse and misuse of pork: a bundle of tentative, broad strokes of a “new mechanism” to expunge the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), by name at least, in the 2014 General Appropriations Act. A month after President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III announced his intention to abolish PDAF, however, this much-hyped “new mechanism” for disbursing pork barrel funds in lieu of the deletion of the PDAF by name is evidently still a work in progress. Part 1: Abuse, misuse of PDAF linger under ‘Daang Matuwid’ Part 2: Same, same bad pork: ‘Chop-chop’ contracts, duplicate projects, etc. Sidebar: Pork mess toll: 5 state firms, 283 civil servants Part 3: PDAF wins elections, favors political parties Part 4: ‘New mechanism’ = pork insertions in budget of 6 implementing agencies Sidebar: Blessed LGUs Even senior lawmakers and the heads of executive agencies that will implement pork-funded projects next year at best invariably offer a guarded prognosis about whether the new pork system could finally be free of politics, patronage, and corruption. In separate interviews with PCIJ, several legislators and government officials say that a few administrative reforms in the disbursement of pork have been outlined. Lawmakers could still get to endorse infrastructure projects for funding, as well as recommend “recipients” for “soft” projects like medical assistance, scholarship, and employment and training for pork funds that will now be downloaded direct to implementing agencies. It is not clear, however, how the new mechanism will prevent lawmakers from lobbying or negotiating with executive agencies come implementation time — the very part of the pork process that has always been controversial. Then again, this should be no surprise. After all, the evils of the pork system that President Aquino and Congress now want to wipe out are the very same evils that have marked their record of disbursement of PDAF money in the last three years. A PCIJ review of data disclosed by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) shows that under the Aquino administration, P60.4 billion of PDAF had been released for 85,534 pork-funded projects of 21 senators and 284 congressmen of the 15th Congress, from July 2010 to June 2013. PCIJ Part 1 Table 1. THE PORK PIE The review also shows that the same problems that the Commission on Audit (COA) had raised in its special audit of pork disbursed from 2007 to 2009 under then President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo linger still under Aquino’s “Daang Matuwid” government. Interestingly, too, while lawmakers have argued that the abolition of pork would put indigent scholars and medical patients in peril, PDAF records covering the last three years showed that they got just morsels from the billions of pork pesos spent by the country’s legislators. In fact, PCIJ’s review shows that livelihood projects, scholarships, and financial assistance to indigent patients each took about P3 billion only, or six to eight percent each of the total pork released from July 2010 to June 2013. The construction of school buildings and classrooms made up five percent or P2.3 billion of the total PDAF during that period. A total of P1.7 billion was also spent on various social services projects that include medical, transportation, and burial assistance, among others. These PCIJ estimates are validated by the actual amounts lodged under the budgets of the implementing agencies identified on the DBM website. Vanity projects The latest version of pork may only serve up the same. By many indications, it is designed to introduce only modest administrative reforms while keeping pork as a purse to fund projects that could project the name and political stock of lawmakers — and scoring them vanity points. Indeed, the new mechanism rolled out weeks ago with the submission by lawmakers to the Speaker of the House of Representatives of their individual lists of projects to be funded with pork, according to a shorter menu of projects listed by Malacañang. The House members’ wish lists have not been disclosed but each one will reportedly be allowed to pitch at most five infrastructure or “hard” projects worth P2 million at least, for a total of P24.5 million. Temporary, low-cost infrastructure projects, as well as “consumable” goods and supplies, are now supposedly off the list. PCIJ Part 1 Table 2. _CONSUMABLE_ ITEMS_ OKAY BEFORE, BANNED NOW Funds for four other project types — medical aid, scholarship, employment and training, and crisis assistance — will now be lodged within the budgets of the designated implementing agencies of the Executive branch. For these “soft” projects, lawmakers may reportedly nominate recipients only, but not endorse specific projects. The senators have yet to start deliberations on the proposed 2014 national budget and submit their list of projects for funding. Under the new mechanism, pork funds will be downloaded direct to six implementing agencies of the executive branch that will submit to open bidding all contracts for pork-funded projects. Lawmakers may no longer designate their favored contractors and nongovernment organizations as recipients of pork money. In the case of what used to be called “soft projects” such as livelihood and scholarship assistance, lawmakers may still recommend recipients but not projects under the new mechanism. The lawmaker’s role in pork disbursement will reportedly end once the budget is passed, according to Davao City Rep. Isidro T. Ungab, chair of the House of Representatives’ Committee on Appropriations and a member of Aquino’s Liberal Party. That, however, is as good as it gets. Other than these details, the implementing agencies will have to work out their own improvised arrangements for parrying the undue interference of lawmakers in rolling out the projects, or insisting on getting the funds to their chosen contractors and beneficiaries — much like during the days of the old pork order. There are no clear rules on whether the implementing agencies can say no to bad pork projects, or how they should deal with lawmakers who may react to the rejection of their wishes by threatening to have agency personnel reassigned or fired. There are also no procedures on how red flags can be raised to weed out commissions and kickbacks in pork. Online transparency At the very least, though, there have been some transparency initiatives involving PDAF, mainly through the online listing of pork projects that the administration started in late 2010 on the DBM website. Indeed, the online pork-project list proved crucial for PCIJ to conduct its review. For one, PCIJ derived estimates it made using data from the e-Fund Releases section of the DBM website. Yet while DBM’s database lists PDAF projects by legislator, it does not classify projects by kind. DBM also enrolls multiple name attributes for the same or similar projects (i.e. road repair, repair and rehabilitation of roads, road improvement, etc.), making it impossible to derive accurate estimates for all of the 85,000-plus project entries.
Posted on: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 00:20:03 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015