After all, the pork barrel isn't really dead
Yesterday traffic was extremely bad or congested along A.S. Fortuna Ave. for the simple reason that whoever is in charge of the road reconstruction has begun digging on both sides of the road. Add the fact that Mandaue's traffic enforcers were practically invisible in the area, and of course the unusual traffic volume, and traffic got congested than it should be. What I hate the most is that the road contractor dug on both sides of the road, and left it unattended for many weeks without working on it.
During our days at the Regional Development Council and the Metro Cebu Development Program 1, 11 & 111, we made sure that road contractors were allowed to dig only half a kilometer of road and force them to finish that segment before they are allowed to dig further into the street. Obviously this is not being done in Mandaue City.
No doubt, we submit to that old adage… "Before things get better… things have to get worse." I believe that when the contractor finishes this road… there would be less congestion along that part of Mandaue City. However, since they started those road works on both sides of the street, the contractor has been taking his sweet time, while the general public who pays for that road works is punished by his incompetence! So we ask Mayor Jonas Cortes, is it wrong to ask if you could crack the whip and give a warning to whoever is the contractor of the road works in Mandaue City?
***
Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago once again scored the Legislative Branch accusing our legislators that the 2015 proposed national budget is not only pork-laden, it is also unconstitutional because it allows the President to transfer an appropriation from one agency to another anytime of the year. Sen. Santiago disclosed this in a privileged speech delivered before the plenary where she revealed having received information that legislators will have control of P37.5 billion worth of projects allocated to five government agencies in the 2015 budget. Mind you, this is a very serious allegation coming from Sen. Santiago and we dare anyone to say that she is wrong!
Sen. Santiago further added that during the second half of 2014, congressmen and women were asked to submit lists of projects they want to endorse for their districts, but the forms distributed to the members of Congress did not bear any letterhead. She questioned this saying, "Why should anyone distribute a piece of paper and ask representatives of the [House of Representatives] to write down their projects? That's the very essence of "pork barrelism." So we were right after all, Congress is clearly violating the recent ruling by the Supreme Court that declared the Priority Development Assistance Program a.k.a. pork barrel as unconstitutional a year ago!
Santiago revealed that P37.5 billion was allocated to the Department of Public Works and Highways, Department of Health, Department of Social Welfare and Development, Department of Labor and Employment, and the Commission on Higher Education. Of these government agencies, the DPWH got the biggest share with P18.369 billion for Land Infrastructure Program.
Sen. Santiago continued her privilege speech saying, "It seems to be very much reminiscent of the old pork barrel practices and if that is the case then they are getting ready to institute the same pork barrel practices under the 2015 budget." She further questioned the new definition of the term "savings" in the 2015 budget for being "over-broad" and "vague." Again this goes against the very grain that made the pork barrel unconstitutional because supposedly all projects initiated under the 2015 national budget must have a clear use and purpose. But as she exposed this during the plenary session, there are vague and over-broad items inserted in that budget, which can be easily be "hijacked" by some unscrupulous congressman for his own use or should I say… misuse. So the Pork Barrel isn't really dead as we thought it to be when the SC ruled it as unconstitutional!
Sen. Santiago further explained in her privilege speech that under the old definition, savings are unused funds either from discontinuance or abandonment of the work, activity or purpose for which the appropriation is authorized, while the new definition talks simply of discontinuance or abandonment at any time, which means it could be during the first month, first quarter, or first half of the year. She pointed out clearly that "The old definition of savings was better. It allowed savings only after final discontinuance or abandonment of the work, activity or purpose. The new broader definition allows savings during discontinuance or abandonment at any time."
It is for this very reason why we created the National Transformation Council to force the national leadership to do immediate political reforms that would benefit the whole nation, not just a few ugly politicians whose sole purpose of being in Congress is to steal the people's money.
- Latest
