What happens when pork barrel goes?

Long have I been challenging Catholic leaders’ preoccupation with chastity instead of charity. In exclusive Catholic high school I debated with priests to teach more about love for fellowman than to proscribe masturbation. Up to recently, in a Jesuit philosopher’s talk about “Sin”, I fretted as most of the parents dwelt on their teenagers’ petting and premarital sex. For me there were bigger sins that needed examining: stealing from government, cheating on taxes, ignoring the needy.

I could get no meaningful answers from Church hierarchs. They said we should just obey doctrine, if we want our souls saved. Part of dogma, they claimed baselessly, is that condoms abort. I remained a Catholic, though a very doubting one, as bishops lied recently that the Reproductive Health Law would teach fourth graders sexual intercourse. I was angry inside about what I believed was wrong teaching. I knew many felt the same way.

Today I feel so elated. No less than Pope Francis is twitting the Church’s “obsession” with issues like abortion, homosexuality, and contraceptives —over healing and love.

“The church sometimes has locked itself up in small things, in small-minded rules,” Francis said in an interview by an Italian Jesuit magazine. “The people of God want pastors, not clergy acting like bureaucrats or government officials.”

Reportedly Francis’ words have jolted Catholic commentators worldwide. Judging by reactions in social media, disenchanted Catholics are finding new hope in the Church. Feeling vindicated, many are talking too about returning to the flock.

Striking as his thoughts were, Francis did not declare any changes in Catholic dogma, only a refocus: “We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage, and the use of contraceptive methods.” Instead of arguing doctrine, he said, the Church should prioritize helping the poor and disenfranchised, the dominant message of his papacy so far.

Like any earthly organization, the Church has had its rises and dips. Vatican reforms like John XXIII’s back-to-basics and John Paul II’s humanism, sometimes are followed by conservative reconsolidation. Then come more rethinking, like that of Francis, the first Jesuit pope and non-European in 1,300 years.

*      *      *

In last-ditch defense of the congressional pork barrel, two points are being raised. One, abolition of the pork would leave direct individual beneficiaries in a lurch. Two, it would deprive poorer districts of equal funds as the rich to develop their people and infrastructures.

The arguments boomerang on the frantic defenders. Congressmen claim that their pork-funded college scholars would be unable to take the final exams in Nov. or enroll in the next semester. Too, medical recipients would be deprived of life-saving weekly kidney dialyses or scheduled heart surgeries. Such lines only show how insecurely dependent the beneficiaries are on the three-year-term representatives. What if the rep dies in mid-term or loses in reelection? Then the scholar, who has racked up honors in the first three years of college, suddenly must drop out of senior year; the patient must forego treatment. There’s no guarantee that the replacement would retain the existing pork beneficiaries, much more the types of pork projects.

Clearly the congressman has no business using a yearly P70-million pork for constituents’ educational and hospital care. Given directly to the state college or hospital, the fund would be used by the right bureaucrat for ensured graduation and complete treatment. No more politics.

As for the supposed removal of equal chance for development, the opposite would in fact happen once the pork system is scrapped. Giving each congressman P70 million already is unfair. It pre-supposes that every district needs the same amount. Ignored are geography and demographics that affect each district’s needs. As economists Toby C. Monsod and Emmanuel S. de Dios recently wrote, a district’s stormier climate and bare terrain could spell big differences. Like, more serious diseases needing costlier treatment, or longer school disruptions that entail careful catch-up. Truth to tell, the pork system has hardly lifted the poorest provinces from where they were two decades ago, precisely because funds for them “equally” were allotted to progressive ones.

Once the pork barrel is gone, thinking up and implementing projects will shift to local officials, specifically provincial. The capitolios are better equipped than senators and reps to determine what needs more of the P27.5-billion annual congressional pork. With genuine NGOs they can execute “bottom-up budgeting” to pinpoint exactly which student needs a grant, which patient needs treatment, which family needs shelter, which barrio needs a footbridge, which road needs repair.

Devolving budgeting and development duties to provinces would also lessen corruption. Local watchdogs can monitor the capitolio better than the Congress in faraway Manila. Through social media they can exchange info on what is happening on the ground (eg., the Citizens Action Center for Accountability, featured in Gotcha, 5 July 2013).

A shift to provinces would make Congress see the unevenness of growth and resources, says former economic secretary Solita C. Monsod. The Philippine Human Development Report, which she helped publish, shows two glaring examples. Provinces get 25 percent of the internal revenue allotment, yet bear 37 percent of the cost of projects and administration. Cities, separated from the old province because of higher revenues, also get 25 percent of the IRA but cover only five percent of the costs. If left uncorrected, rural hinterlands will stay poor and neglected, forcing migrations to urban centers.

*      *      *

Catch Sapol radio show, Saturdays, 8-10 a.m., DWIZ, (882-AM).

Gotcha archives on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Jarius-Bondoc/1376602159218459, or The STAR website http://www.philstar.com/author/JariusBondoc/GOTCHA

E-mail: jariusbondoc@gmail.com