Heñorga, Vince Emmanuel DR. Prof. Luisito V.

Dela Cruz
3CPL PUBAD02
Pork Barrel in the Philippines: A Balanced Approach Towards Its Unconstitutionality.

I.
In general, pork barrel refers to the legislative funds that are in a discretionary position of
how it would be spent, mostly, these funds are used for the development of projects on a local
basis. Accordingly, the persisting of Pork Barrel funds also establishes its way on the
Presidential Social Fund and the Malampaya funding. In American context, according to Collas-
Monsod (2013) in her article “Pork barrel: costs and benefits” of Inquirer.Net, the definition of
pork barrel are as follows: “A bill or project requiring considerable government spending in a
locality to the benefit of the legislator’s constituents; A government appropriation, bill, or policy
that supplies funds for local improvements designed to ingratiate legislators with their
constituents; And, the act of using government funds on local projects that are primarily used to
bring more money to a specific representative’s district.” Basically, the politician tries to benefit
his/her constituents in order to maintain their support and vote. Now, in the American legislature,
the concept of Pork Barrel empowers the decision-making of legislators, particularly on the
federal level, to direct these funds into their own judgement. Moreover, in a Westernized sense,
the Pork Barrel is stipulated as an appropriation bill designated to cover the funding of a certain
district of the deemed representative, because the United States of America is by its nature, a
federalist system. This original Westernized version is also similar to the concept of Pork Barrel
in the Philippines wherein senators and congressmen receive their funds every fiscal year,
through which they will appropriate it on initiatives and projects that deemed necessary, may it
be on educational, health & medical services, societal services, general welfare, road &
infrastructure, tourism aspects, etc.
On the historicity of the said system, the concept of Pork Barrel traces its origins from
Western lenses, through which black slaves are fed up with barrels of meat at the discretion of
Western masters which is a sign of humiliation for the slaves, but a sign of “generosity” for the
Western masters. In the Philippine lenses however, the PDAF or Pork Barrel system came from
the Public Works Act of 1922 which then took the name of Countrywide Development Fund
during Pres. Cory’s term, eventually, the PDAF as we know it, continued during the term of
Pres. Estrada and now it is still persisting in the bureaucracy of the Philippines in the form of
hidden lump sums as projected in future proposals of fiscal year budgets.
II.
In examining the magnitude and effects of the Pork Barrel System in the Philippines, it is
simply put that the senators will be given 200 million pesos and the House of Representatives’
members will be given 70 million pesos. Through these discretionary funds, it can be implied
that there is a great probability of systematized corruption, the persistence of traditional
politicians or trapos, patron-clientelism, and most of all, pocketing the money for the state
actor’s own interests. Collusions may happen between the state actors, the awarded contractors,
and government agencies through which they simultaneously do their roles in covering up the
flow of Pork Barrel funds into their own hands. On assessing the situational contexts in the
Philippines, the diversion of Pork Barrel funds into other petty projects seems to be usual,
examples of these are the discretions on putting the funds into road and widening projects instead
of adhering to fortuitous events such as calamities and disasters. It may be easy to cover up on
those road projects because the collusion between the state actor and the contractor may be easily
formed. Another one during 2009 is the Malampaya fund scam wherein certain individuals of
Department of Budget and Management, distinguished NGOs, and Department of Reform are
allegedly receiving kickbacks in the general amount of 900 million pesos Malampaya fund, the
said fund however, is designated for the casualty victims of typhoons that ravaged but this was
eventually diverted into malignant causes. In line with it, Janet Lim-Napoles also included
herself in the Pork Barrel scam on which she and other senators colluded in diverting the funds
into “ghost” NGOs. The said scam, was amounted to an immensely total of 10 billion pesos.
Moreover, this scam was exposed by a media personnel through which the said case developed
into a serious threat to the integrity of the Congress of the Philippines, the media personnel was
commended by the public in which anomalies like this should be publicized and scrutinized by
the general public. In addition, the importance of the media is in great extent as these factors
expose vital information that are not usually unearthed in the lenses of the public, they are the
mediums of communication through which the context of the Pork Barrel scam was eventually
unveiled. In other words, the media battles the lack of transparency and ensures the
accountability of public officials.
On the eruption of these kinds of scams, it disintegrates the integrity of the Philippine
government towards the general public, in the conduct of interviews of the GMA News, it shows
that the ordinary citizens have implications of distrust towards the state legislators and
lawmakers, stating that the legislators will only misuse the funds given to them by law into their
own bidding such as buying high-end cars, luxurious items, establishing of estates, and
circulating the money into their familial sphere. Also, according to Limpot (2021) in her article
“Explainer: What do you need to know about the PDAF scam” states that “The scandal
(regarding to Pork Barrel scam) sparked public outrage and triggered nationwide protests in
August 2013. Later that year, the Supreme Court declared all congressional pork barrel laws as
unconstitutional.” This has been alarming in a way that in the recent time, the 2021 budget of the
government of the Philippines had been traces of Pork Barrel lump sum. More recently, the
proposed 2022 budget quantifying up to 5.024 trillion pesos have been traces of the questionable
lump sum through which it was spotted on the Growth Equity Fund in the bracket of Local
Government Support Fund. It was discovered that the 10 billion pesos lump sum will be used for
unbranded projects of Local Government Units.
Further, vague websites of the government exhibits lack of transparency between the
general public and the state itself. Shallow information is only available in the World Wide Web
pertaining on participating contractors and government agencies. The absence or delay of such
vital data like audited reports are deemed inimical towards the integration of the public and the
government. This deficiency on transparency tempts the state legislators to further continue the
Pork Barrel scheme through inserting questionable funds that is in disguise of important funds
such as emergency, road & widening projects, scholarship programs, funds intended on NGOs,
medical & health, and such.
Taking its name as Priority Development Assistance Fund, its volatile nature in the eyes
of the legislators can further empower patron-clientelism and political dynasties. Patronage
politics emanates from where legislators and the president may influence each other, localities
will patronize these scheming legislators, Pork Barrel can be used into election funds that the
politicians can take utmost advantage of it, and awarded contractors during certain public works
and infrastructures may also engage in Patronage politics.
The most notetaking effect of Pork Barrel is it damages the economy and deprives the
general public of their needs. The supposed funding empowerments on the economic assets of
the country are diverted into the pockets of the legislators through which it results into
inefficiencies of these assets to generate profit and bolster the economic prowess of the country.
Meanwhile, on the deprivation of the general public’s needs, the pocketed funds by the scheming
legislators are actually designated for funding specific societal needs such as job-making
projects, housing projects for the poor and marginalized, better drainage system for hygiene and
sanitation, prioritization of healthcare for the impoverished, and certain infrastructures that
deemed helpful for the growth and development of the societies.
III.
Based on the researches that I have pondered and scrutinized, the Pork Barrel system
perceives detrimental traits on the Philippine governance particularly in manifesting good
governance. The system majorly manifests harmful detrimental factors in the Philippine
governance, but it also poses prioritization amongst subsidiarity on constituents and discretional
decision-making on certain proposed projects may it be soft or hard variants.
On against the Pork Barrel System
Opinionated articles of the media empowered the stand against the imposition of the
PDAF or Pork Barrel system. As the Supreme Court stipulated that the PDAF is unconstitutional,
there are noteworthy arguments that build up on what made this PDAF not fitted within the
adherence of laws. Firstly, the probability of collusions between the Executive and Legislative
branches is considerable, this can be done through scheming government agencies and legislators
that will eventually include external entities such as nongovernmental organizations,
corporations, and contractors. Second and related to the aforementioned, the principle of checks
and balances in the Philippine government is disregarded because of the two branches and its
institutions working together to cover up insertions and benefit the funds into their own hands.
On legal aspects, thirdly, according to the government website Commission on Audit in the
Supreme Court’s decision and conclusion, it states that “It (Pork Barrel System) has similarly
violated the principle of nondelegability of legislative power; insofar as it has created a system of
budgeting wherein items are not textualized into the appropriations bill, it has flouted
the prescribed procedure of presentment and, in the process, denied the President the power to
veto items.” In implicating the statement, the Pork Barrel System undermined the process of
budgeting & procurement, and displayed bad faith on the presentation of items adhered upon.
More so, the system also invites contemptuous acts that may be exhibited within the state
legislators, institutionalized entities, and the Executive branch of the government. Fourth, the use
of discretionary funds will only invite abuses and greed amongst legislators as I have seen in the
SAO report No. 2012-03 regarding PDAF and Various Infrastructures including Local Projects
(VILP), the figures from the years 2007-2009 shown that there were deficiencies on the majority
of legislators and how they budgeted their discretionary funds on soft and hard projects in their
districts and regions. There are implications that are the unused funds are maliciously
appropriated into the pockets of the legislators for empowering political influence particularly in
putting those funds for their future political campaigns or for their own enjoyment and lavish
lifestyles.
On for the Pork Barrel System
With the replacement of the original Pork Barrel system, the Aquino administration
implemented the Disbursement Acceleration Program that will immediately release funds in
terms of fastening government projects and programs by which the approval of the Legislative
department is not necessary. This program is also intended to circulate the money in head
starting and bolstering the economic improvement of the country, such of these are government
road projects, transportation projects, scholarship programs, and scientific and technological
improvements. But in more media and general public’s lenses, the DAP also garnered public
awareness because this program was widely linked to the Pork Barrel System, through which the
DAP enhances the powers of the executive, while the PDAF scam was done by the scheming
legislators and external entities. Moreover, in asserting the differences between the two
initiatives, according to Fr. Joaquin Bernas, he stated that “The accusation against the DAP is
constitutional, extravagance in the use of public money. The accusation against Janet Lim-
Napoles (the central figure of PDAF scandal) is criminal extravagance and corruption of the not-
so-innocent.” Moreover, Felipe Medalla, who is an economist, stated that “The main issue on the
Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) concerns questions on constitutionality; the main
issue on the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) concerns the crime of plunder.”
Later on, the proceeding months followed through which the Supreme Court ruled that the DAP
is not overall unconstitutional, but the two parts of it were declared unconstitutional and shall be
ruled out. The Supreme Court also recognized the program’s contribution in the economic
empowerment of the country. The Supreme Court, on its careful scrutinization, recognized and
administered the doctrine of operative fact through which it was applied to the program itself and
its architects. If it weren’t for the watchful media, its personnel, the voices of the masses, and the
decisions made by the Supreme Court, corruption such as malversation of funds and
contemptuous acts like grave abuse of discretion will continuously flourish in the internal system
of the Development Assistance Program in a concealed manner, and thus, another version of
direct Pork Barrel system will persist and may affect not just the Aquino administration, but the
continuous lingering of it for the other administrations that will govern the country.
IV.
In theory, the concept of the Priority Development Assistance Fund is to adhere and give
discretion to the state legislators by which in the lenses of good governance, they should exercise
good faith, be transparent within every initiative, transactions, and deals with external entities,
hold accountability in every discretional action that they will initiate, abide to the rule of law,
enact inclusivity within the citizens, and uphold the best interests of their constituents. In
application, however, the damage and public insecurities raised and dealt by the PDAF/Pork
Barrel System scam instilled to the citizens that discretionary funds are for the pockets of the
greedy legislators, which was proven to be true. These scheming legislators took utmost
exploitation over the discretionary funds and lump sums that also deemed advantageous for
them. The collusion of Napoles with other legislators proved that the idealistic view of the PDAF
may be easily corruptible and can resonate lack of transparency and accountability. As a Political
Science student and on positioning my stance in the Pork Barrel issue, I am absolutely against
the legislators and the external entities that they colluded, it is clear that the fundings that must
be appropriated to projects and reforms are put into the selfish interests of the politicians. On the
Pork Barrel system itself, its unconstitutionality clearly expressed that it can be easily exploited
too. But on the programs like the Disbursement Acceleration Program that was patterned on the
original PDAF framework by the lenses of the media and the masses, I scrutinized that this
program is essential on the socio-economic aspects of the country. With the ruling of the
Supreme Court, the program exhibited positive results on the bolstering of the economy and
adhering to urgent projects and reforms that needs to be initiated. In summarizing up, the concept
of the PDAF is essential for the augmentation of the economy as well as adhering to the
constituents in every region of the country as long as the long-standing governmental institutions
of the Philippines will also be reformed through which the continuous empowerment of civil
participation, removing and jailing corrupt officials with the hastened decisions of the Supreme
Court, adhering to the pillars of good governance, disregarding the pathology of patronage
politics, and the integration of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) for the faster
dissemination of data and information to the public. These factors will surely assist the nation-
state in addressing and mitigating corruption as well as cutting the long-persisting cycle of greed
and vested selfish interests of the politicians.
References:
International Budget Organization. (2016, October). Philippines’ Commission on Audit (CoA)
Key to Unearthing “Pork Barrel” Scandal. https://www.internationalbudget.org/wp-
content/uploads/ibp-audit-case-study-philippines-pork-barrel-2016.pdf
Commission on Audit (n.d.). III. History of Presidential Pork Barrel in the Philippines.
https://www.coa.gov.ph/phocadownload/userupload/ABC-Help/Jurisprudence_B/HPPBP.htm
Commission on Audit (n.d.). I. Pork Barrel: General Concept.
https://www.coa.gov.ph/phocadownload/userupload/ABC-Help/Jurisprudence_B/PBGC.htm
Commission on Audit (n.d.). Conclusion.
https://www.coa.gov.ph/phocadownload/userupload/ABC-
Help/Jurisprudence_B/Conclusion.htm
Department of Budget and Management. (n.d.). The Aftermath of the DAP.
https://www.dbm.gov.ph/wp-
content/uploads/Executive%20Summary/2016/C1a.%20Aftermath%20of%20DAP%20updated.pdf

SunStar (2013, September 5). Llanes: Pork barrel – Knowing the issue.
https://www.sunstar.com.ph/article/303386/llanes-pork-barrel-knowing-the-issue
CNN Philippines. (2021, February 14). EXPLAINER: What you need to know about the PDAF
scam. https://cnnphilippines.com/news/2021/2/14/PDAF-scam-what-you-need-to-know.html
The Manila Times. (2019, February 4). Pork race in Congress: P7B per senator, P160M per
congressman. https://www.manilatimes.net/2019/02/04/opinion/editorial/pork-race-in-congress-
p7b-per-senator-p160m-per-congressman/506404
CNN Philippines. (2017, December 8). Sandiganbayan raffles off P900-M Malampaya Fund
scam case. https://cnnphilippines.com/news/2017/12/08/sandiganbayan-malampaya-fund-
scam.html
Inquirer.Net. (2013, July 20). Pork barrel: costs and benefits.
https://opinion.inquirer.net/56945/pork-barrel-costs-and-benefits
Inquirer.Net. (2021, September 6). P10-billion pork ‘variant’ in 2022 budget bared.
https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1483790/p-10-b-pork-variant-in-2022-budget-bared
Inquirer.Net. (2013, October 28). DAP vs PDAF: The big difference.
https://opinion.inquirer.net/64243/dap-vs-pdaf-the-big-difference
YouTube. (2012, July 17). BT: Ano nga ba ang pork barrel?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y35qSoM833Q