Pork by any other name

In the Philippines, it is known as PDAF, but “pork barrel” funding exists under other names in almost every country of the world. The practice is often called patronage politics.

I am skeptical about the moves to abolish PDAF because in other countries whenever pork barrel funds are abolished it resurfaces in some other form. It seems that politics, whether it is played in a democratic or dictatorial form of government, leads to some form of patronage.  While this is not ideal, this type of politics should not automatically mean corrupt or undesirable conduct.

A quick research on the internet yielded some very interesting information on pork barrel worldwide. In Finland, the term used is siltarumpupolitiikka or “culvert politics” in reference to national politicians concentrating on small local matters, such as construction of culverts and other public works in the politician’s home municipality.

The process of diverting budget funds in favor of a project in a particular constituency is called porcovani or “portioning the bear” in the Czech Republic. In Serbia, podela kolaca or “cutting the cake” refers to post-electoral distribution of state-funded positions for the loyal members of the winning party.

In Germany, there are two different terms. Wahlgeschenke or “election gifts” refers to campaign goodies distributed around election dates. Kirchturmpolitik or “church tower politics” refers to concentrating funding and reliefs to the home county of a politician. While the former is a technical term, the latter is derogatory which means that the scope of funding actions is limited to an area where the church steeple of the politician’s village can still be seen.

The term pork barrel originated in the United States during the 1870s. It has surfaced under different formulas. The last one was when it was called “earmarks” until this was abolished in 2011. There are now serious attempts to bring it back.

According to one study, directing money to a particular purpose is a core constitutional function of Congress. Moreover, if Congress does not make a specific allocation, the task falls on the executive branch and there is no guarantee that the allocation of funds by executive agencies will be fairer or more superior to that of Congress.

But the United States has had its own share of pork barrel similar to our own Napoles P10-billion fake NGO scam. One example was the “Bridge to Nowhere” in Alaska pushed for by Senator Ted Stevens, which provided $398 million. It would connect the island’s 50 residents to the Alaskan mainland.

There are several criteria by which spending, under any name, can be classified as “pork.” It is requested by a specific member of Congress for a specific location or entity. It is not specifically authorized, like an education or defense budgetary allocation. It is not competitively awarded. It is not specifically requested by the President and the executive branch. It is not the subject of congressional budget hearings like all other budgetary requests.

There is a need to reform the PFAF process. The objective is to eliminate fraud, waste and abuse. One immediate reform is to ensure greater transparency. Senators and congressmen should be required to publicly list, on their websites, the specific funding request at least 30 days before release of funds. The request should include the agency or the name of the recipient, the amount of fund allocated, and the specific purpose. This will allow legitimate NGOs and other watch groups to monitor all these pork barrel requests.

Second, all these PDAF requests should be subject to hearings. In this case I propose that the review should be conducted by the relevant executive branch. So funding for scholarships and classrooms should be reviewed by the Department of Education. Pork barrel requests having to do with medicine and other health care benefits should be done by the Department of Health. Perhaps, this will prevent another incident where Senator Sotto sent anti-dengue medicine to a town where there was no dengue outbreak.

All pork barrel benefits, including those for NGOs should be subject to competitive bidding and audit by the Commission on Audit. For example, the EMP medicine sent by Senator Sotto to cure dengue (where there was no dengue) should have been procured through competitive bidding.

I am sure the Senators and the House can think of other ways to make the PDAF process more transparent and protected from abuses by its members. But the more immediate call is to address the present scandal. The group called Former Senior Government Officials (FSGO) has issued a statement on this issue drafted by Fulgencio Factoran, Isagani Cruz and Edilberto de Jesus.  Here are excerpts:

“Alleged operators like Napoles may have devised the blueprint for raiding the PDAF, but the greater accountability rests with the Senators and Representatives to whom the funds were entrusted. It was their responsibility to ensure that the PDAF went only to reputable NGOs proposing priority projects and that these projects produced the promised benefits.

The Senators and Representatives who channelled funds to fake NGOs were not political neophytes. They, and we, were not born yesterday. Patronage of fake NGOs, particularly when repeated, provides ground for charging culpable negligence, if not complicity in corruption.”

The Napoles pork barrel scandal allegedly involves several senators including Enrile, Honasan, Revilla, Estrada, Marcos, Sotto and Lapid. Understandably, this poses a big challenge for the Senate.

I have been waiting to find out who will be appointed as the Chair of the Senate ethics committee. It is this body that should assume the challenge and provide the opportunity for the Senators to show they are not good only for investigating the executive branch or other citizens, but that they possess the same passion, courage and integrity to investigate fellow members of the Senate.

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]