September 29, 2013 Opening Statement on Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) or Pork Barrel Scandal Virgilio Solidum Clavel, MPM Auditorium, New Library, Filamer Christian University (FCU) The obscene, riotous misuse of the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), also known as Pork Barrel, determines the stability, if not the survival, of democratic governance in the Philippines. It has become a national scandal involving at least 3 senators, 5 congressmen and 30 other persons. Presently, the public outrage attending the corruption in the use of PDAF got worse by the Janet Napoles scandal. Many Filipinos believe that Napoles does not exist in isolation. Well-placed co-conspirators made the easy way to corruption to the tune of 40-60% grease money. PDAF items are considered as “soft projects” on education, health, livelihood, social services, financial assistance for propoor programs of the government, cultural projects and small infrastructure projects like irrigation, rural electrification, water supply, housing and forest management (Juliet Labog-Javellana, Philippine Daily Inquirer). In addressing the scandal, certain discourses kept on emerging as to how problems present themselves and to which diverse issues arise thereupon. These must be contextualized on the basis of i) the national budget, as well as on, ii) the political practices chosen by key players of the public fiscal management system. In this PDAF People’s Forum, may I invite you to kindly gaze at four discourses, namely, 1) the political reality discourse 2) authoritarian drift discourse; 3) public accountability discourse; and 4) reconfiguring fiscal administration discourse. I expect that the resource persons’ platforms or manifestoes will either be grounded or bear instruction on any or some of these discourses. On my part, I will lay or amplify my arguments and interests as the Forum discourse progresses. For any Forum to be productive and credible, terms or reference or basic concepts need to be defined and articulated. Onset, PDAF is by another name a pork barrel which may be provisionally defined as an “appropriation of government spending for localized projects secured solely or primarily to bring money to a representative district.” A pork barrel may also refer to government program expenditures the economic or service benefits of which are concentrated in a particular area (Wikepedia). The tax burden is generally spread among all taxpayers, regardless whether corruption money changes hands illegally at least in Philippine setting. At least one or any of the three criteria qualifies any budget appropriation as pork barrel, namely, i) a lump-sum in the National Expenditure Program that is vulnerable to corruption and political manipulation; ii) exclusivity of discretion by Philippine President as to the manner of allocation and disbursement, favoring select allies or districts; iii) little or no financial oversight over the use or disbursement of public funds as these are not reflected in the national budget (Kabataan Partylist, Prime Cuts: Dissecting the President’s Pork Barrel, Kabataan Partylist@gmail). The PDAF is included in the national budget as a budget item under Special Purpose Funds (SPFs) which are legislative “appropriations provided to cover expenditures for specific purpose for which recipient agencies/departments have not yet been identified during the budget preparation” (DBM). It is not of constitutional but of statutory origin. There is no such provision in the 1987 Philippine Constitution. Rather, Sec. 47, Chap 1, Bk. VI of the 1987 Administrative Code of the Philippines mandates the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) to administer the lump-sum fund or SPF appropriated in the General Appropriations Act, except as otherwise specified therein x x x as may be authorized by the President. PDAF is an unprogrammed budget expenditure item, a stand-by appropriation enabling legislators to use it in undertaking pro-active measures in urgent situation involving priority projects and/or projects but only in cases where extra revenues are collected within the fiscal year.” The use of PDAF has two conditions: i) passage of a special budget, and, ii) approval by the President. A Social Watch Philippines Study in 2006 disclosed that the DBM failed to submit regular reports on how the special purpose funds were spent in previous years. It was only in 2009 that the Commission on Audit (COA) issued a Special Purpose Funds Report, citing abuses in the use of these funds. A year later, the 2010 COA Report advised DBM to “refrain from transferring funds from one lump-sum/special purpose fund (SPF) to another, or utilizing the appropriation of one Fund for purposes of another Fund, otherwise the intentions of the appropriation law will be circumvented." In effect, it recognizes and reiterates the mandate given to the DBM by the 1987 Phil. Adm. Code. As manager of the SPF, specifically PDAF, is the DBM or Pres. Noynoy Aquino or both as guilty as those accused legislators and other suspected persons? Your discourse will determine your position on every issue. It will color the mess of troubling crisis which has already divided us as a people. At best, let your voice be heard. Be counted. And make a stand. This Forum is about to begin. God bless us all! Good day.
Posted on: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 19:24:12 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015