You are on page 1of 1

PDAF in its current form was only established during the administration of Corazon Aquino with the creation

of the Countryside Development Fund (CDF) in 1990. With 2.3 billion in initial funding, the CDF was designed to allow legislators to fund small-scale infrastructure or community projects which fell outside the scope of the national infrastructure program, which was often restricted to large infrastructure items. The CDF was later renamed the PDAF in 2000, during the administration of Joseph Estrada.[7] Since 2008, every member of the House of Representatives usually receives an annual PDAF allocation of 70 million, while every senator receives an annual allocation of 200 million.*8+ The President also benefits from a PDAF-like allocation, the President's Social Fund (PSF), worth around 1 billion.*9+ Contrary to public belief, however, PDAF allocations are not actually released to members of Congress. Rather, disbursements under the PDAF are coursed via implementing agencies of the Philippine government, and are limited to "soft" and "hard" projects: the former largely referring to noninfrastructure projects (such as scholarships and financial assistance programs, although small infrastructure projects are also considered "soft" projects), and the latter referring to infrastructure projects which would be coursed via the Department of Public Works and Highways.[7] The PDAF has proven to be very unpopular, with numerous calls for its abolition. In 1996, the Philippine Daily Inquirer published an expos on systematic corruption in the CDF, with an anonymous congressman (since identified as Romeo D. Candazo of Marikina) elaborating how legislators and other government officials earned from overpricing projects in order to receive large commissions. Public outrage over the misuse of the CDF was instrumental in the enactment of reforms which led to the formation of the PDAF.[12] The constitutionality of the PDAF has also been challenged in the Supreme Court. In 1994, the constitutionality of the CDF was challenged by the Philippine Constitution Association, arguing that the CDF's mechanisms encroach on the executive's power of implementing the budget passed by the legislature, but the Court ruled the CDF constitutional under the legislative's "power of the purse".[13] This ruling was reaffirmed in 2001, when the PDAF was challenged again in the Supreme Court.[7] Legislators themselves are torn on the abolition of the PDAF, with some supporting total abolition, others supporting increased regulation to minimize abuse of PDAF disbursements, and others opposed to it.[14]