With nearly all the justices of the Supreme Court in agreement, the fate of the congressional pork barrel is sealed. Some lawmakers may grumble that the SC had previously upheld the legality of the Priority Development Assistance Fund and that the pork barrel was set to be abolished anyway in the 2014 annual appropriation. But it didn’t look that way to those who asked the SC to scrap the PDAF.
Lawmakers may challenge the authority of the judiciary to step into Congress’ function in appropriating public funds. Considering public outrage over the pork barrel, however, it is prudent for lawmakers to instead make sure the abolition of the PDAF by 2014, as promised by President Aquino and congressional leaders, would not be a mere change of name.
Among the measures promised was the abolition of lump sum appropriations whose utilization is subject to lawmakers’ full discretion. Legislators also committed to stop funneling funds to non-government organizations, and earmarking consumables such as fertilizers and medicine for state funding.
The Constitution allows certain public officials to keep discretionary funds, but these must be disbursed “only for public purposes to be supported by appropriate vouchers and subject to such guidelines as may be prescribed by law.†If such laws were ever passed, certain individuals apparently found a way to go around them. The interpretation of “public purposes†also appears to have been widely stretched to benefit private interests.
The scandal over the pork barrel should pave the way for transparency and accountability in the use of people’s money, and a redefinition of government officials’ discretionary powers over public funds. Congress should be working on these reforms for full implementation by 2014. Turning back is not an option; the SC ruling makes it harder to do so. No public official should have the right to treat state coffers as his own piggy bank.