This week’s title is not referring to a social soiree but to the pork-fest (babuyan in the vernacular?) instigated by the latest round of investigative exposés. Pork barrel is one of the oddest terms to have entered into our political lexicon. Apparently it is also one of the oldest. The term originates from a pre-Civil war practice in 19th century America of making slaves compete for shares of salted pork in a barrel. As a reward for a hard day’s work, slave drivers would roll out these barrels across the plantations and, either for sheer laziness or their own dark amusement (probably both), they would watch the slaves fight over the meat like dogs rather than distribute the food humanely. Nowadays, the term generally speaks of legislative appropriations for certain districts or interest groups. It also has been used to reward loyal constituents who provided either votes or campaign contributions.
In the US, it is the Federal government that appropriates funds for projects within a state as opposed to letting the state government choose the project (although the latter has its own pork barrel as well). Oftentimes, these types of projects will be tucked into the appropriation bill in order to attract less scrutiny (also called a “riderâ€). But be it in the US or in the Philippines, pork barrel has become a derogatory term. It connotes political patronage, excessive spending, horse trading and of course, corruption.
Pork barrel allocations (also called “earmark spendingâ€) have long been a subject of heated debate in the US. Examples of controversial projects include the $9.5 million that went to “wood research†in 2003. In 2004, $50 million was appropriated for an “indoor rainforest†in Coralville, Iowa. In 2005, US$223 million was earmarked to build a bridge to connect an Alaskan town of 8,900 to an island with a population of 50, saving a short ferry ride. Dubbed “the Bridge to Nowhereâ€, it created an uncharacteristic uproar in the Senate and had to be removed from the spending bill. In 2006, $13.5 million was allocated for the “World Toilet Summitâ€. In 2009, $1.9 million and $1.8 million were spent on a water taxi service to Pleasure Beach, Connecticut (with a population of zero) and “swine odor and manure management research†(sound familiar?) in Ames, Iowa, respectively.
Since our Constitution and system of government was mainly taken from the US, it is not surprising that the practice is alive and well in our jurisdiction. In the '90s, I remember that the terms being used were Countrywide Development Fund (CDF) and Congressional Initiative Allocation (CIA). But when these names became too controversial, the system was re-christened the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF). The logic is that officials who have earned an electoral mandate are in the best position to determine what their constituents’ wants and needs are.
Under the PDAF system, each district and party list representative gets to identify P30 million of “soft†projects (education, health and other social services) and P40 million of “hard†or infrastructure projects while each senator may choose P100 million of “soft†and another P100 million of “hard†projects.
The scuttlebutt is that the commission received by erring legislators ranges from 20% to 30% for hard projects (so if you see potholes in our roads, you have an inkling where the money went) and 60% to 70% for soft projects as evidenced by the ghost foundations that are the target of the current exposé.
* * * *
The current set-up, however, is far from ideal. Even under an assumption of perfect nobility (a more than generous assumption), problems with PDAF abound. By its very nature, PDAF encourages a transactional mindset: if you support me in this election, I will give a project for YOUR needs as opposed to those who vote for my opponent. To a certain extent, this is the nature of democracy — elected officials pandering to their electoral base. Yet many would see this arrangement as akin to the crime of bribery. And that is why we need to elect leaders who are able to transcend political realities, balance the needs of minorities and think of long term projects for the good of society.
To investigate each transaction and to prove that there was theft can be difficult. We are all aware that corruption exists yet it is nearly impossible to gather the evidence required to prosecute. Pleas of ignorance of losses or mistaken overspending on projects make it easy to dodge liability. And as demonstrated by the latest scam, the key to any successful investigation is a whistleblower who, more often than not, is a disgruntled co-conspirator. After all, it isn’t the evidence that is out there which is important; it’s what you can eventually prove in court that counts.
The PDAF scheme leaves much to be desired, but the reality remains that it fulfills one of the core functions of government which is to spend on projects that will promote the general welfare. The key reform lies in improving regulatory mechanisms in identifying projects and the release of funds by increasing transparency and openness in the process. A live-update system via government website whereby citizens may log in and review the PDAF expenditures is, to my mind, neither unreasonable nor far-fetched. In the end, the pork barrel is a tool and, as is the nature of all tools, it may be used for good or nefarious purposes.
* * * *
Legal-fest: The gurus of legal education will converge in Cebu City next week-end for the 2013 Legal Education Conference. Jointly sponsored by the Legal Education Board chaired by Justice Hilarion Aquino and the Philippine Association of Law Schools led by Dean Ernest Maceda, this year’s conference theme is “Philippine Legal Education and the Profession: Preparing Our Students for the Practice of Law and Leadership in Society†Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno and Justices Arturo Brion and Roberto Abad who were long time professors before being appointed to the high court will be speaking during the conference. Those interested in attending may contact Dean Joan Largo of the University of San Carlos through joanlargo@yahoo.com.
* * * *
“One man’s transparency is another’s humiliation.â€
– Gerry Adams
Email: deanbautista@yahoo.com