8 reasons why the pork barrel funds and other

Presidential funds should be abolished

September 24, 2013
by Ilda
Rumor has it that there will be a campaign to try and convince the public that members of Philippine
Congress need the priority development assistance funds (PDAF) or pork barrel funds to help continue
the nationwide scholarship and medical assistance programs initiated by some members of Congress.
True enough, two of President Benigno Simeon BS Aquinos allies in Congress have filed a petition
with the Supreme Court to lift the temporary restraining order on the PDAF so they can access the
frozen funds allocated for the remainder of 2013.

Look whos got your pork: Umali (left) with Niel Tupas in 2012
The two Congressmen who think the Filipino people are stupid are Eastern Samar Rep. Ben Evardone
and Oriental Mindoro Rep. Reynaldo Umali. To refresh everyones memory, Umali was infamous
for lying about getting damning but bogus information from a little lady during the impeachment
trial of former Supreme Court Justice Renato Corona. He probably thinks his credibility is still in tact.
You have to hand it to these two clowns for risking the wrath of the public. They have no problem
showing their eagerness to receive the funding amidst the scandal and criminal investigations currently
gripping the nation involving the use of bogus NGOs to siphon the funds. Where do they get their kapal
ng mukha? Where else but from BS Aquino. Because they belong to the same political party as the
President, Malanacang is more than willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. If they were from a
different political party, Malacanang would be the first to say these two are so callously corrupt.
Obviously, most of the congressmen are of no real use to the Filipino people. They only ran for
congress because of the privileges attached to the office. Other than that, some of them only manage
to craft bills such as the renaming of an airport or major road after another member of the Aquino
family. Some of them are always absent from the sessions. Senate President Franklin Drilon was on to
something when he proposed the abolition of Congress as well. They seem to be a total waste of time
and space anyway.
Malacanang mouthpieces and propagandists will be busy in the next weeks trying to distract the public
from the pork barrel scams and attempt to call for the retention of the funds for humanitarian
reasons.

A message lost on Filipinos honorable congressmen
For the sake of those who are still not convinced, here are reasons why the pork barrel funds or any of
the other funds allocated to both legislative and executive branches of government should be
scrapped:
1) Members of Congress, both the upper and lower houses will be forced to do their jobs, which is the
crafting and deliberating of laws if they are not distracted by having to deal with NGOs in allocation of
their pork barrel funds.
2) Removing the pork barrel funds from among tasks managed by members of Congress will free up
their time for more important things like the simple task of attending sessions in Congress instead of
lunching/meeting with bogus NGO founders.
3) Abolition of the pork barrel funds and other funds currently allocated to the office of the President
will level the playing field during elections. This means ordinary citizens who are better qualified but
do not have funds to campaign will have a better chance of getting elected to public office. Think
about it. Part of the reason members of the same clan keep winning during election is because they
have access to tax payers money, which they use for vote buying. This is the reason why
Congresswoman Lani Mercado had to warn the public not to ask them for money if and when they lose
their access to pork barrel funds and its various incarnation.
4) There really is no reason why monetary assistance, scholarship and medical assistance have to be
coursed through the members of Congress. There are departments that exist like the Department of
Education, that can take over the so-called projects the Congressmen supposedly have for their
constituents.
5) Instead of allocating funds to members of Congress, the budget for improvement of education and
public hospitals should be increased. This has a better chance of reaching the public and improving
millions of lives.
6) Removal of pork barrel funds allocated to Congress means members of the legislative branch of
government can act more independently from the executive branch. The President of the Philippines
will have very little chance of strong-arming the members of congress into doing what he wants. In
other words, the checks and balances in our countrys institutions may have a better chance of
working. Leaders like BS Aquino will have to use their charm in stating their case.
7) Without the allocation of pork barrel funds, mediocre leaders like BS Aquino will be forced to resign
and allow someone who has better diplomatic and persuasive skills to take over the sensitive post. The
only reason a vindictive person like BS Aquino can bully his way around is because members of Congress
who should be scrutinizing his decisions have to kiss his ass. Not doing so could mean they will miss out
on the allocation of funds for their projects.
8) Finally, with the abolition of the pork barrel funds, Filipinos might just vote for public servants who
can offer solutions to the countrys problems instead of someone who can give them few hundred bucks
or goods money funded by the taxpayers.
BS Aquino may have said, It is time to abolish the pork barrel funds three days before the million
people march but the President may have had singer Adele in mind who sang just cause I said it, it
dont mean I meant it. Hes probably realized that it would be hard to control congress without giving
them pork barrel funds.
History has proven that BS Aquino is not above deceiving the public for his own gain. Recent reports
have alleged that the Presidents stimulus funds were used to buy some of the Senators who convicted
Corona during his impeachment trial. Indeed, BS Aquino is very fond of pulling a fast one on his
bosses with the aid of his bottomless Presidential funds.

http://getrealphilippines.com/blog/2013/09/8-reasons-why-the-pork-barrel-funds-and-other-
presidential-funds-should-be-abolished/
The abolition of PDAF
By MANUEL L. QUEZON IIIAugust 31, 2013 4:39pm
776 194 7 1894


Tags: Bantay Kaban
The Constitution tells us that Congress exists to enact laws. In the enactment of laws, members of
the House of Representatives bring the interests and concerns of specific local districts to the table;
members of the Senate represent a national perspective because they are elected at large. Every
year, the most important law enacted by Congress is the General Appropriations Act, or the National
Budget. This is what funds the operations of the entire national government for a given fiscal year,
Jan. 1 to Dec. 31.

The process begins with the President, as Chief Executive (the one tasked with administering the
departments of the national government, and who implements laws enacted by Congress)
submitting a proposed budget to Congress (Art. VII, Sec. 22). According to the Constitution,
Congress is obliged to act on this proposed budget: they can only subtract items from it, and not add
to it (Art. VI, Sec. 25, I).

Furthermore, the budgetary process in Congress must begin with the House of Representatives (Art.
VI, Sec. 24) , which has what is called the power of the purse, on the principle that as the
representatives closest to the people, since they represent local districts, they are best qualified to
authorize government expenditures.

Congress both houses, first the House, then the Senate conducts budget deliberations through
its sitting committees and in plenary (or as a whole for each chamber) exercises oversight, which is
why budget hearings are conducted, in which departments and agencies are quizzed about the
previous years activities and what they plan to do for the coming year.

Once approved in committee, the proposed budget is then debated in plenary; then passed by that
chamber. The process is repeated in the other chamber. If there are differences in the versions
adopted by each chamber, the differences are resolved in the Bicameral Conference Committee
(this is part of the internal checks and balances within Congress itself). Then, upon referral and
approval by the respective chambers, the General Appropriations Act is submitted to the President
for his signature.

The President, as part of the principle of checks and balances, has a unique form of veto when it
comes to the national budget or laws involving tariffs or revenues. So he can disapprove specific line
items in the budget, in what is called a line-item veto (Art. VI Sec. 27, 2). When it comes to other
laws, a President who disapproves of a proposed law must veto the entire thing, returning it to
Congress, which, if it is unable to override the veto (overriding requires 2/3 majority in each
chamber), must accept that the law is killed (Art. VI Sec. 27, 1). Congress can choose to override the
Presidents line-item vetoes, or accept them. Once everyone House, Senate, President are OK
with the proposed budget, then it becomes a law, known as the General Appropriations Act. And the
government has funds to operate for that fiscal year.

Let me repeat: Congressmen and Senators make laws; and the most important law they enact each
and every year, is the national budget.

Unlike the United States, our Constitution also says that if for whatever reason, a General
Appropriations Act isnt passed in time for the new fiscal year, then the previous years budget is
automatically reenacted (Art. VI, Sec. 25, 7). And this is where our discussion of the pork barrel and
the changes announced by the President today, begins.

Consider the needs of your community. If it is a small 4th-Class Municipality. As an LGU, it has its
own revenues, whether from business permits and other fees, and its proportional share of the
revenues of the national government. But still, it can still lack the revenues to fund all the needs of
those who live there: scholarships, for example. This is where the national government can, and
should, step in. This is done through national programs carried out in local areas, including services
and infrastructure.

Again: all these programs, ranging from services to infrastructure, require funding. And they can only
be funded by means of the national budget, which funds the fixed programs of the national agencies,
and which also provides for funds that can be used for certain contingencies, such as calamities.
And it is Congress composed of the House and Senate that authorizes the funding.

These are the operating principles of government, ideally, how things work. As they say, the devil is
in the details. Which brings us back to the Constitutional provision on reenacting the budget, and
how this is a good way to kick off discussions on the pork barrel.

As the President mentioned in his Statement today, in 2007, Congress managed to pass the national
budget in April of that year, when it should have been enacted by December 31 of the previous year.
Since there was no new budget when 2007 began, the 2006 budget was automatically reenacted to
tide over the government.

Here is the first opportunity for mischief that the President, then a Senator, identified: if, say, the
2006 budget had allocated funds in a province, but by 2007 the bridge had been built, the
automatically reenacted 2006 budget would still contain a provision to build a bridge that had already
been built. Since it existed, the government could then declare the redundant fund as savings, which
means it could then be spent on something else.

The second opportunity for mischief was pointed out by then-Senator Aquino, as the 2007 budget
was nearing passage in April of that year: shouldnt the 2007 General Appropriations Act be minus
the basically fixed expenses (salaries, etc. being a prime example) that had already been paid for,
by the reenacted 2006 budget, for the months January to April?

He was ignored on both counts, and so voted No to the budget. The amounts concerned were
nothing to sneeze at: 36 billion pesos. And he had to ask, where did that money go?

As we have seen with just one example of mischief the Napoles issue it takes a long time to do
the detective work required, to figure out where public money went, under such a chaotic system
with so many opportunities for mischief. COA Chairperson Grace Tan mentioned, during her press
conference last week, that the spadework on the Special COA Report released last Friday, began in
2010, with the new administration. And as the President mentioned during the Q&A after he
delivered his statement today, the Napoles revelations came to light, because it had the earliest, and
most solid leads but that theres more to be uncovered.

The Presidents example about the two opportunities for mischief in reenacting a budget is, of
course, different from the Napoles scam but what they have in common, what both required, is
something the President pointed out: you need a conspiracy to get away with all these scams.
Normally, the Constitutional checks and balances within Congress (between its two chambers),
between the Legislative (Congress) and the Executive (the President, and the departments under
him), and watchdog institutions such as COA and the Ombudsman should work to make violating
both the spirit and the letter of our laws difficult to escape. But if all conspire together, whether
actively, or by turning a blind eye, or being timid, then you can get away with fiscal murder.

I wont go into the grisly details of the Napoles scheme, but will only point out that it required not just
willing accomplices but also a lot of other criminal activity, from forging documents (letters from
LGUs) to creating dummy NGOs, etc. But the whole Napoles scam brings us to PDAF itself and we
need to look at a little history.

In the first place, most people wonder why, if the job of Congress is to pass laws (but dont forget
oversight!) what business do representatives or senators have, in identifying projects? The simple
answer is that it is part of their function as lawmakers as they determine the provisions of the
national budget during their vetting of the proposals of the Executive branch for projects and
programs.

In the past, projects and programs in specific parts of the country were itemized that is, they
appeared as line items in the national budget. If you look at this excerpt from the General
Appropriations Act for 1937 (here is the section on Public Works and the National Assembly, the
unicameral legislature at the time: Prewar GAA for National Assembly and Public Works) programs
of the government were enumerated item by item; even individual employees were enumerated.

This meant that members of Congress would all come to the table with their proposals for their
localities, and these would be threshed out within Congress and with the Executive, and the final list
laid out in the national budget, for implementation in that budget. But this involved a tremendous
amount of discussion, and negotiations, resulting in Congressional earmarks in the budget. But as
the population grew, and the size of Congress grew,and the funds involved grew, shortcuts became
more and more tempting. Instead of line item appropriations, lump-sum appropriations started
featuring (the difference say, between enumerating every bridge to be built in every barangay in
every province in every region, and simply saying x million pesos is appropriated for bridges in
Luzon).

Furthermore, if some areas have less clout for whatever reason party affiliation, or simply less
effective representation some areas might get more than others.

Solution? PDAF, which set aside minimum lump sums for each representative and senator, to use
for projects. As weve seen, this system has been abused because being broadly defined, and, until
2010, open-ended (that is, with a minimum quota, so to speak, for each legislator but no cap on what
each could get), and furthermore, requiring the participation of the legislator not just in the
determination of the budget, but in the execution of projects, it fostered collusion between legislators,
friends in the private sector, and obliging bureaucrats.

So, PDAF has to go. Again: Napoles is just the best-laid-out case. There are others being
investigated. You cannot wait for all the cases to be rolled out because there is now hard evidence
of how obscene the scams have become.

So what is the solution? Two: first, find, prosecute, and punish those who broke the law. Second,
stop the flawed system, and replace it with a new system that actually addresses the needs of the
public instead of filling the pockets of officials. Any solution, just as a reminder, must conform to the
Constitution and the role given to legislators and the Executive; and it is all laid out in the national
budget, the most important law enacted by Congress each year, based on the proposals submitted
by the President.

Which is why the President, with the Senate President and Speaker flanking him, laid out what the
system will be henceforth, taking into account innovations introduced since 2010, and lessons
learned from the findings of COA (which, by the way, is part of a joint task force which is
investigating, and prosecuting, cases involving PDAF).

The innovations since 2010 include the Department of Budget and Management reporting, as data
comes in, disbursements of the PDAF. The disbursements for 2009, for 2010, for 2011, for 2012,
and for 2013 (to date) are online, searchable by legislator/party list representative. By the way, the
COA itself publishes its Annual Report on Allotments, Obligations, and Disbursements of National
Government Agencies. It also included making the allocations, even if lump-sum, more transparent
by enumerating them in the budget (for a crash course in making sense of the budget, see Budget
101in fact). Third, by limiting the categories under which the funds can be spent. You can explore
the budget by visiting Budget ng Bayan.

Here is a handy infographic on the new system.

The ultimate check and balance on government as a whole is public opinion. And here it follows a
pattern. A good example is how, in 1945, Congress, which hadnt even convened during the entire
Japanese Occupation, paid itself back wages. The public, in disgust, voted members of Congress
out of office wholesale. The result was a purge: and then the new crop, over the following two
decades, hit upon staggering benefits paid out to themselves, by instituting something unheard of
before World War II: the system of Congressional allowances. Yet, by the eve of martial law, public
disgust had mounted to the extent that when Guadencio Antonino, campaigning on an anti-
allowances platform, died on the eve of elections, the national electorate voted his widow into office.

This is what were seeing taking place in terms of the PDAF. What started out as an arguably
improved way to ensure an equitable allocation of resources to all areas, became a giant honey trap.
So now its been scrapped, and in a sense, having proven that too much leeway or discretion leads
to wrongdoing, that discretion has been taken away from members of Congress and bureaucrats
who may be willing to oblige racketeers. Politics is like Newtons First Law of Motion: an object is at
rest unless acted upon by outside force.
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/324453/opinion/the-abolition-of-pdaf
Makabayan branded hypocrites for using pork
funds, then calling for its abolition
By Gil Cabacungan
Philippine Daily Inquirer
10:03 pm | Sunday, September 15th, 2013
73 3215 2145

Bayan Muna Rep. Neri Colmenares. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO
MANILA, PhilippinesWhat do you call a group opposing the retention of the pork barrel system in the proposed
2014 after pigging out on P852 million in Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) under the Aquino
administration?
Hyprocrites, say two lawmakers.
Cavite Rep. Elpidio Barzaga Jr., a member of the National Unity Party, said the Makabayan bloc, composed of
militant party-list groups, should stop its charade of pushing for the abolition of the pork barrel because it did not
abstain from partaking of pork when the group was given access to the fund in the 15th Congress.
You just cant say pork is bad or good when it suits your propaganda. They all claimed that their pork went to good
causes, without graft and corruption, when they used it from 2010 to this year. So, why did they suddenly brand it evil
now just because its the fashionable thing to say? Where is the conviction? Where is the integrity? Can you blame
people for calling them hypocrites or two-faced? said Barzaga.
He also supported the abolition of the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), the official name of the pork
barrel of lawmakers, but he refused to actively push for the scrapping of the pork barrel system because he still
believed in its merits if properly implemented.
I think that they have lost the moral high ground to preach on the pork barrel issue because they were free to say
`no to pork then, Barzaga said of the the Makabayan bloc.
The proposed P2.268-trillion budget for 2014 is the first national budget in a long time that would not contain the lump
sum PDAF.
Last week, the House of Representatives agreed to realign Congress P25.2 billion and the Vice Presidents P200
million pork barrel to the Department of Education, Commission on Higher Education, Department of Health,
Department of Labor and Employment, Department of Social Welfare and Development, and Department of Public
Works and Highways.
Lawmakers could refer their beneficiaries of scholarships, medical assistance and the like to the concerned
departments. As for infrastructure projects, they would still be able to propose these, but would have to identify them
early for inclusion in the budget as a line item.
Isabela Rep. Rodolfo Albano III, a member of the minority group just like the Makabayan bloc, said he found it the
height of irony that the same people who were silent when they spent their pork in the last three years would be
the loudest in Congress in pushing for the abolition of pork.
They are my peers in the minority. But I believe that they missed a chance to continue accessing their pork because
they could have put it to good use, said Albano. Now, they have nothing to do but count the rainwater dripping from
the ceiling of Batasan.
In a text message, Bayan Muna Rep. Neri Colmenares said that just like the public, the Makabayan bloc was angry
at the abuse and not the use of pork.
But because of (Janet Lim) Napoles, the call for the abolition of pork even for those who merely used it but did not
[mis]use it was legitimate. So, even if we did not abuse, we believe its but proper for the people to call for its
abolition. Were just supporting the peoples call now, said Colmenares in a text message.
Napoles is believed to be the mastermind in the P10-billion pork barrel scam that involved the channeling of 28
lawmakers lump sum funds to bogus NGOs in exchange for kickbacks in 10 years.
Benhur Luy, a former employee of Napoles, testified in the Senate last week that lawmakers, including a few
senators, got kickbacks equivalent to 50 percent of the project cost.
Based on a Department of Budget and Management report on the use of pork barrel, the party-list lawmakers
collectively known as Makabayan Neri Colmenares (P151.341 million) and Teodoro Casio (151.675 million) of
Bayan Muna; Luzviminda Ilagan and Emi de Jesus (P105 million each) of Gabriela; Antonio Tinio (P105 million) of
Alliance of Concerned Teachers (ACT); Raymond Palatino (P84.995 million) of Kabataan; and Rafael Mariano
(P148.845 million) of Anakpawis were granted a total of P851.856 million in PDAF from 2010 to the first half of
2013.
In the first six months of the Aquino administration, all seven lawmakers received P35 million each, half the P70
million annual PDAF allocation.
In 2011, when then Chief Justice Renato Corona was impeached, each Makabayan representative received the full
P70 million allocation except for Palatino who got P49.995 million.
In 2012, only Colmenares (P35.996 million), Casio (P46.675 million), and Mariano (P32.5 million) were given pork
allocations while the rest got zero.
In the first half of this year, only Colmenares (P10.375 million) received pork among his Makabayan peers. Curiously,
Mariano (P14.55 million) managed to get pork among the Makabayan members in 2009 despite the the Arroyo
administrations zero pork release policy for her critics in Congress.
Nearly half or P391.856 million of their pork allocations were spent on soft projects in state universities, local
government units and hospitals.
Despite the scrapping of the lump sum Priority Development Assistance Fund and its realignment to agencies, pork
barrel questions would continue to hound the proposed 2014 budget, which has scheduled for plenary deliberations
in the House of Representatives starting on Monday (Sept. 16).
Some lawmakers doubt that the re-channeling of Congress PDAF to the agencies would remove the pork barrel
system that has been criticized for breeding patronage politics. They intend to raise this matter during the session
But Bayan Muna Rep. Neri Colmenares noted that Congress would still be able to exercise some form of control and
discretion over the funds.
Entitlement to nominate is what transforms a fund into pork, said Colmenares, who disclosed that the Makabayan
bloc would challenge in the plenary the claim that the pork barrel has been truly abolished.
Under the new plan, operators who cook up schemes to pocket pork could now shortcut the process and go directly
to the departments, he said.
ACT Teachers Rep. Antonio Tinio, one of those critical of the move, planned to point this out in the plenary.
I will first of all inquire as to how the appropriations committee intends to amend the general appropriations bill to
insert their proposed changes, then proceed to establish through questioning that the pork barrel system for
legislators will remain intact despite the so-called abolition of the PDAF, he said yesterday.
Tinio earlier said that while the PDAF allocation had been unbundled and realigned to other agencies, the key
features of the pork barrel were still in place.
According to him, these include the earmarking of specific amounts, the lawmakers exercise of individual discretion
to provide for local infrastructure projects and the recommendation of beneficiaries to the executive agencies.
The Makabayan lawmakers also plan to call for the abolition of other lump sum funds in the budget, including the
Presidents own. The use of these funds had often escaped scrutiny.
Without eliminating the lump sums in the budget which constitute presidential pork, the use of public funds for
corruption, abuse, and patronage politics will not be abated, Colmenares said.
He said the fight against all forms of pork barrel must continue.
The people must not get distracted by attempts to deodorize pork now that we have the chance to deliver that fatal
blow to the pork barrel system.
The first day of plenary budget deliberations is reserved for the sponsorship speech, the debate on the general
principles and provisions of the budget, and the allocations for the Department of Finance, National Economic and
Development Authority, and the Legislative-Executive Development Advisory Council.
There is also a period allotted to discuss lump sum funds in the proposed 2014 budget. This is scheduled for Sept.
27, the last day of plenary deliberations.


Read more: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/488167/makabayan-branded-hypocrites-for-using-pork-barrel-funds-then-
calling-for-its-abolition#ixzz2hEJ6z6K5
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/488167/makabayan-branded-hypocrites-for-using-pork-barrel-funds-then-
calling-for-its-abolition
Abolish Pork Barrel
There must be an alternative program to abolish pork barrel in the Philippines to make
sure Congress doesn't have enough reasons to say no.
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Abolish Pork Barrel in the Philippines
ABOLISH PORK BARREL IN THE PHILIPPINES

WHAT IS A PORK BARREL?

ANG PORK BARREL AY PUNDO NA INILAAN NG NATIONAL GOVERNMENT PARA SA MGA
MAMBABATAS NG PILIPINAS TULAD NG KONGRESO AT SENADO. MINSAN ITONG TINAWAG NA
CDF O COUNTRYWIDE DEVELOPMENT FUND AT MINSAN DIN ITONG TINAWAG NA
CONGRESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FUND. SA KASALUKUYAN, ITO ANG TINATAWAG NA PDAP O
PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE FUND.

ANG PANGALANG PORK BARREL AY SUMIKAT ITO NONG PANAHON NI DATING PRES. CORAZON
AQUINO. TINAWAG ITONG PORK BARREL DAHIL ITO DAW ANG NAGPAPATABA NG MGA
MYEMBRO NG KONGRESO AT SENADO SA PAMAMAGITAN NG KICKBACK O COMMISSION.

SA MADALING SALITA, ITO ANG TINATAWAG NA MILKING COW NG MGA MAMBABATAS. AYON
SA PAGSUSURI NG PCIJ OR PHILIPPINE CENTER FOR INVISTIGATIVE JOURNALISM, UMABOT
MULA 20 - 40 % ANG COMMISSION NGA MGA MAMBABATAS GALING SA MGA CONTRACTOR NA
SYANG NAKAKAKUHA NG KONTRATA SA BAWAT PROYEKTONG PINAGLAANAN NG NASABING
PUNDO.

AYON DIN SA NASABING PAGSUSURI, ANG GANITONG KALAKARAN AY KAUGALIAN NA NG
BAWAT MAMBABATAS LALONG LALO NA SA MGA MEMBRO NG MABABANG KAPULUNGAN O
KONGRESO. DITO DAW BUMABAWI ANG MGA NASABING CONGRESSMAN SA KANILANG
GINASTOS SA BAWAT ELECTION NA SILAY KUMANDIDATO.

NONG PANAHON NI DATING PRES. CORAZON AQUINO, UMABOT SA 25 MILLION PESOS ANG
BUDGET BAWAT DISTRITO O KADA CONGRESSMAN. SA PAGLIPAS NG PANAHON SA KABILA
NG MGA BATIKOS AT AKUSASYON DAHIL SA LAGANAP NA KURAPSYON, AY MAS LALONG
TUMAAS PA ITO.

SA MGA NAKARAANG ADMINISTRAYON, UMABOT ITO HANGGANG 70 MILYON PESOS BAWAT
DISTRITO O KADA CONGRESSMAN AT TIG 200 MILYONG PESO NAMAN BAWAT SENADOR AT
HINDI PA KASAMA DITO ANG TINATAWAG NA CONGRESSIONAL ISERTIONS.

AYON SA DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET, UMABOT SA HALOS 20 BILYON PESOS ANG KABUUANG
PORK BARREL NA NATANGGAP NG ATING MGA MAMBABABATAS NONG 2011.

KONG MAY BASIHAN ANG PAGSUSURI NA GINAWA NG PCIJ NA UMABOT HANGGANG 40 % ANG
KICKBACK NG MGA CONGRESSMAN SA BAWAT PROYEKTO, IBIG SABIHIN, AABOT SA 8
BILYONG PESO SA KABUUAN ANG NAWAWALDAS NA PERA NG TAONG BAYAN KADA TAON.

KONG SA BAWAT DISTRITO NAMAN ANG PAG UUSAPAN, KAHIT SABIHIN NATIN NA 20 % LANG
ANG KICKBACK NI CONGRESSMAN SA BAWAT PROYEKTO NITO, AY MAKAKAKUHA PA RIN SI
CONGRESSMAN NG COMMISSION NA HINDI BABABA SA 14 MILYON PESOS BAWAT TAON. SA
LOOB NG KANYANG 3 TAONG TERMINO AY AABOT NG 42 MILYON PESOS ANG PERANG
NAPUPUNTA SA BULSA NI CONGRESSMAN NA DAPAT SANA AY PARA SA MGA PROYEKTO AT
PROGRAMA. SAPAT NA ITO PARA PAMBAWI SA KANYANG NAGASTOS SA NAKARAANG
ELECTION O PANGGASTOS PARA SA KANYANG REELECTION.

ABOLISH THE PORK BARELL

ANG IMPORMASYONG ITO AY SAPAT NANG DAHILAN KONG BAKIT MARAMI ANG NANAWAGAN
NA DAPAT NANG I ABOLISH ANG PORK BARREL. NGUNIT SA HALIP NA MATUGUNAN ANG
NATURANG PANAWAGAN O PANUKALA AY MAS LALO PANG NADAGDAGAN ANG NATURANG
PUNDO.


AT KUNG BAKIT, AY MARAMI ANG DAHILAN

1. BAWAT PANGULO NG PILIPINAS AY KAILANGAN NIYANG SUYUIN ANG SUPORTA NG BAWAT
MAMBABATAS PARA MAITAGUYOD NIYA ANG KANYANG NATIONAL AT PERSONAL AGENDA.
SA MADALING SALITA, ANG PORK BARREL AS ISANG SUHOL NG MGA MYEMBRO NG KAMARA
KAPALIT ANG SUPPORTA NG PALASYO. KATUNAYAN NITO AY ANG PAGPILI NG SPEAKER OF
THE HOUSE NA TAUHAN NG NAKAUPONG PANGULO.

2. AYON SA ATING SALIGANG BATAS, MAY KAPANGYARIHAN ANG KONGRESO NA MAG
IMPEACH NG PANGULO TULAD NG NANGYARI KAY DATING PANGULO JOSEPH ESTRADA
NOONG 2001. PWEDE DIN ITONG MAG IMPEACH NG ILANG OPISYAL NG GOBYERNO NA HINDI
KAALYADO NG PANGULO TULAD NG NANGYARI KAY OMBUDSMAN MERCEDITAS GUTTUIREZ AT
CHIEF JUSTICE RENATO CORONA.

3. KARAMIHAN SA MGA MYEMBRO NG KAMARA, AY MYEMBRO DIN NG COMMISSION ON
APPOINTMENTS NA SYANG MAGBIGAY CONFIRMATION SA MGA PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTEES
TULAD NG MGA CABINET SECRETARIES.

4. LAGING DINADAHILAN NG MG CONGRESSMAN NA MAHIRAP TANGGALIN ANG PORK BARELL
DAHIL ITO DAW AY PARA DIN SA KANILANG SA MGA CONSTITUENTS AT MARAMI DIN DAW ANG
NAKINABANG NITO. KATULAD NG PAGPAPAGAWA NG BASKETBALL COURTS, WAITING SHADES,
FLY OVERS OR OVERPASS, HEALTH CENTERS, PAMUMUDMOD NG PHILHEALTH CARDS AT IBA
PANG PROGRAMANG PANGKABUHAYAN.


SA LOOB NG MATAGAL NA PANAHON AY PARANG TANGGAP NA NG ATING MGA KABABAYAN NA
ANG PORK BARREL AY BAHAGI NA NG ATING SISTEMANG POLITIKAL.

ALTERNATIVE

ANG TANONG NGAYON, AY ANO ANG ATING ALTERNATIBONG SOLUSYON KONG I ABOLISH
NATIN ANG PORK BARREL?

ANG SABI NANG ILANG POLITICAL OBSERVERS, ANG PROBLEMA DAW SA MGA KUMUKONTRA
NG PORK BARREL AY WALA RING MAIBIGAY NA ALTERNATIBONG PROGRAMA PARA NAMAN
HINDI MAIPAGKAIT SA MGA NASABING CONSTITUENTS ANG MGA BIYAYANG NAIBIGAY NG
KANILANG MGA CONGRESSMAN.

KAYA MULA PO SA AKING SIMPLENG PAG IISIP, AKO POY NAKAHANAP NG ISANG PARAAN PARA
MATUGUNAN KONG PAPA ANO NATIN MA ABOLISH ANG NASABING PORK BARELL NA HINDI
NAMAN MA PURWESYO ANG MGA NASABING CONSTITUENTS NA SYANG BENIFICIARY NITO.
DAHIL ITO ANG PALAGING GINAGAMIT NA DAHILAN NG MGA MAGAGALING NA CONGRESSMEN
NATIN. ITO PO ANG TINATAWAG NA BARANGGAY DEVELOPMENT FUND.


BARANGGAY DEVELOPMENT FUND

ANO PO BA ANG IBIG SABIHIN NITO? ANG BARANGGAY DEVELOPMENT FUND AY ANG PUNDO
GALING SA NATIONAL GOVERNMENT NA INILAAN SANA PARA SA MGA MAMBABATAS NA KONG
TAWAGIN AY PORK BARREL. SA MADALING SALITA, TATANGGALIN NATIN ANG PORK BARREL
GALING SA MGA MAMBABATAS AT ILAAN ITO DERETSO SA MGA BARANGGAY AT MAGIGING
BAHAGI NA ITO SA PUNDONG PAMBARANGGAY.

MAAARING ANG UNANG TANONG NA PAPATAK SA ISIPAN NATIN AY KONG ANO ANG MGA
ADVANTAGES AT DISADVANTAGES SA NASABING PROGRAMA.


1. THE PRINCIPLE OF CHECK ANG BALANCE

SA PORK BARELL, IISANG TAO LANG ANG NAGDEDESISYON KONG ANONG KLASENG
PROYEKTO O PROGRAMA ANG DAPAT UNAHIN AT ITOY SI CONGRESSMAN LAMANG.
SAMANTALANG KONG ITOY MAPUPUNTA SA BARANGGAY, AY MAS MARAMI ANG MA INVOLVE
SA DECISION MAKING. SA BAWAT BARANGGAY AY MAY ISANG CHAIRMAN AT MAY WALONG
MYEMBRO NG KONSEHO KASAMA NA ANG SK CHAIRMAN NA SYANG MAGDEDESISYON O
DADAAN SA ISANG DELIBERATION. SA MADALING SALITA, 9 NA BARANGGAY OFFICIALS
LABAN SA ISANG CONGRESSMAN AY MAS MAIBSAN ANG TENTASYON NG KURAPSYON O
ANOMALIYA DAHIL MAS MARAMING MATA ANG NAKATOTOK SA BAWAT PROYEKTO O
PROGRAMANG PINAGLAANAN NG PUNDONG ITO.

2. VISIBILITY AND AVAILABILITY OF OUR LEADERS

MULA LUNES HANGGANG BYERNES, SI CONGRESSMAN AY NASA KONGRESO PALAGI AT
MALAYO SA KANYANG MGA NASABING CONSTITUENTS. SAMANTALANG SI CHAIRMAN AT ANG
KANYANG MGA KAGAWAD AY HALOS ARAW ARAW MAKIKITA SA BARANGGAY HALL KONG
SAAN SYA NAG OOPISINA. ANG IBIG SABIHIN, MAS ALAM NG MGA BARANGGAY OFFICIALS
NATIN ANG PROBLEMANG PAMBARANGGAY KAYSA SA ATING MGA MAGAGALING NA
CONGRESSMAN NA NASA MAYNILA PALAGI.

3. DECENTRALIZATION OF POWER

SA LOOB NG MATAGAL NA PANAHON, ANG KAPANGYARIHAN SA PAGDEDESIYON AY LEMITADO
LAMANG SA MGA TAONG NASA ITAAS AT MAKAPANGYARIHAN. ANG BAWAT CONGRESSMAN
SA KADA DESTRITO AY NAGMISTULANG MGA HARI AT ANG MGA BARANGGAY OFFICIALS
NAMAN AY NAGMISTULANG MGA ALIPIN O PULUBI. HALOS LULUHOD AT MAGMAKAAWA SA
KANILANG CONGRESSMAN PARA LANG MAKAKAKUHA NG BIYAYA O PROYEKTO GALING SA
PUNDONG PORK BARREL. MALIMIT GINAGAMIT NI CONGRESSMAN ANG KAPANGYARIHANG
ITO PARA SA KANYANG PERSONAL AT POLTICAL INTEREST.

4. EQUAL DISTRIBUTION OF RESOURCES

KARAMIHAN SA MGA PROYEKTONG GALING SA PORK BARREL AY NAPUPUNTA SA MGA
WALANG KWENTANG PROYEKTO AT WALANG KAPAKIPAKINABANG SA TAONG BAYAN.
HANGGANG NGAYON MAY MGA BARANGGAY PA NA HINDI NAKATIKIM NG BIYAYA GALING SA
NASABING PUNDO DAHIL UMANOY KALABAN SA POLITIKA NI CONGRESSMAN ANG CHAIRMAN
NG BARANGGAY. KARAMIHAN SA MGA PROYEKTONG ITO AY NAPUPUNTA LAMANG SA MGA
LUGAR KONG SAAN AY KAALYADO NI CONGRESSMAN ANG MGA BARANGGAY OFFICIALS. SA
MADALING SALITA, MAY FAVORITISM AT HINDI PANTAY ANG DISTRIBUTION NITO.

5. BIG FISH VS. SMALL FISH

ALAM NG LAHAT NA MAHIRAP TALAGANG HULIHIN ANG MALALAKING ISDA KAYSA MALILIIT.
KONG SI CONGRESSMAN ANG MAGKASALA, MAHIRAP DAW ITONG MAIPAKULONG DAHIL SA
LAWAK NG KANYANG KAPANGYARIHAN AT CONNECTIONS. KAYA DAW NITONG PAIKUTAIN
ANG BATAS. MAY KASABIHAN TAYO NA THE BEST LAWMAKER IS OFTENTIMES THE BEST
LAWBREAKER. SAMANTALA KONG SI CHAIRMAN O SI KAGAWAD ANG MAGKASALA AY MADALI
ITONG MAIPAKULONG DAHIL MGA PIPITYUGIN LANG ITO.


POLITICAL IMPACT ON THE NATIONAL LEVEL

SABI NG MGA POLITICAL ANALYST, WALANG PANGULO SA PILIPINAS ANG MAGPUPURSIGE NA
ISULONG ANG NATURANG PANUKALA DAHIL ISA ITONG POLITICAL SUICIDE. MAHIRAP DAW
KALABANIN ANG KONGRESO AT HANGGANG KAMATAYAN HINDI DAW ITO BIBITAWAN NG MGA
MYEMBRO NG KAMARA. MAARI DAW ITONG MAKAKALUSOT SA SENADO PERO NEVER SA
MABABANG KAPULUNGAN DAHIL DITO NANGGAGALING ANG KANILANG PINAGKAKITAAN NG
PUNDO PARA SA KANILANG REELECTION.

MAY KASABIHAN TAYO NA ANG PULITIKA AY NUMBERS GAME. KONG SINO DAW ANG MAS
MARAMI AY SYANG MANANALO.
MAYROON LANG TAYONG 250 CONGRESSMEN SAMANTALANG MAY HUMIGIT SA 42,000 ANG
BARANGGAY SA BUONG KAPULUAN.
KAYA ITO PO AY ISANG SIMPLENG KALKULASYON LAMANG PARA SA TAGA MALACANANG.
SINO PO BA ANG MAS MARAMI, ANG MGA KONGRESISTA O ANG MGA BARANGGAY OFFICIALS?

NATURAL LAMANG SA ISANG PANGULO NA MAG DALAWANG ISIP NA GAGAWIN ITO DAHIL ITOY
ISANG MALAKING SUGAL SA KANYANG POSITION. SINO PO BANG PANGULO ANG GUSTONG
MALAGLAG SA PWESTO KONG PWEDE NAMAN ITONG MAIPAGPATULOY NA WALANG
KAPAGODPAGOD.

LAGING BINABANGGIT NG MGA KANDIDATO ANG KATAGANG SILAY PARA SA MAHIRAP.
NGUNIT PAGKATAPOS NG ELECTION, KARAMIHAN SA KANILANG GINAGAWA AY TALIWAS SA
KANILANG MGA PANGAKO. KAYA HINAHAMON KO ANG KASALUKUYANG ADMINISTRATION NA
ITO NA ANG TAMANG PANAHON NA TUPARIN NYO ANG INYONG MGA PANGAKO.

SIMPLENG SUHESTYON LANG PO GALING SA ISANG SIMPLENG MAMAMAYAN. KAHIT AKO POY
NASA IBANG BANSA NA, PILIPINO PA RIN ANG AKING PUSO.

MARAMING SALAMAT PO.

NEIL EDWIN WAGAS
CALIFORNIA, U.S.A.
http://nwagas.blogspot.com/2012/04/abolish-pork-barrel-in-philippines.html