Scrap the pork barrel

Calling a spade
Business World, 21 August 2013

That was a bombshell, the CoA report released last Friday (also available on the CoA Web site), and the entire commission (special mention to the audit team headed by Susan Garcia) should be congratulated for this no-holds-barred, damn-the-torpedoes-full-speed-ahead document.

I read the report over the weekend, and then again during our enforced vacation. And there are some findings which perhaps haven’t sunk in yet, or which should be emphasized/clarified in the retelling.

The first point: let’s make sure that we understand that the amount of pork — the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) and the so-called Various Infrastructure and Local Projects (VILP) — that was subjected to the CoA audit, constituted only 35% of the amount of pork that was actually released from 2007 to 2009 (amount released was 116 billion, while the amount audited was 41 billion).

Which means that while we are already aghast at the magnitude of the waste pointed out in the CoA report, we have to remind ourselves that what it revealed is only a fraction of the actual waste and corruption that took place during that period (and that still takes place). One can only imagine what a complete picture would show regarding the already excessive allocations that certain senators and congressmen received.

Why was the CoA unable to audit only a fraction of what was released? We know what the report said: the [present] Department of Budget and Management was unable to provide CoA with the list of releases by legislator. And why not? Is it because the DBM was “protecting” the administration legislators while “exposing” the opposition?

The explanation appears to be more mundane: during the period under consideration, the DBM was still in the manual mode, and wasn’t into posting (in real time) releases to the legislators in its Website. This has changed of course. Nevertheless, I still think that the DBM with some more effort, can provide us with a more complete picture. How about it, Sec. Abad?

But the inability to pain the whole picture of the pork releases is not the only problem. There may be an at least equally serious problem that the CoA discovered. It points out that while the appropriated funds for VILP for the period amounted to 51 billion, what was released amounted to almost double that amount: 102 billion, which is a blatant violation (by the executive) of the law and the Constitution.

How did this happen? Abad offers a possible explanation: the Reader will remember that Congress during the Arroyo administration could never pass the budget on time, and therefore had to have a “reenacted budget,” meaning to say that the previous year’s budget was followed. Well, when the new budget for the year finally got passed, somebody conveniently forgot to deduct from it what had already been spent in the interim. Which resulted, in 2007 alone, in an expenditure excess over the approved budget of 36 billion. Apparently, the late Emy Boncodin (who was an excellent budget secretary), pointed this out in December 2007, but nobody paid any attention, least of all the Ombudsman (see why the chosen Ombudsman should never be partisan?)

The second point that must be emphasized is that it appears that there was more corruption surrounding the “soft” pork or PDAF, than that surrounding the “hard” pork or VILP. What indicates this? Only consider: Of the 8 billion of the PDAF releases audited (out of a total release of 14 billion), 6 billion went to 82 NGOs which were of dubious origin (non-existent or false addresses, etc.), with more than 2 billion (or of the whole amount) going to only four NGOs. That means that 75% of the PDAF expenditures lined the pockets of the rich at the expense of the poor.

Compare that figure with the irregularities reported with respect to the VILP: If I read the report properly, it would seem that of the 32 billion in audited VILP releases, only around 5% were shown to be excessive or deficient as the case may be, or improperly utilized — including building infrastructure on private property and infrastructure which was unused because it was not what the locals needed/wanted).

This is a finding which goes against the conventional wisdom that it is in the “hard” projects where most kickbacks occur — ranging from 20% to 40%. It is also “common knowledge” that similar to what happens with the “soft” pork, where the legislator “endorses” an NGO as the implementor of the soft project, he/she also gets to name the contractor who will carry out the hard/infrastructure project. The difference is that in the case of the soft project, the endorsement has to be formal (which is why we all know which legislator chose which NGO), while in the hard project, the endorsement is informal — just a phone call will do.

In any case, I would appreciate it if the CoA can hazard a guess as to why the VILP seems to be accompanied by less corruption than the PDAF (by the way, in the Aquino administration, the VILP term has disappeared, everything is now considered PDAF, which explains why, between 2010 and 2011, the PDAF more than doubled, which prompted critics to say that Aquino’s pork barrel is much larger than Arroyo’s). Or Maybe I just read the figures wrong.

The third point that has to be made is that putting excessive blame on rogue NGOs does not reflect either the letter or the spirit of the CoA recommendations at all. While blacklisting NGOs who are underperforming or are mere fronts is definitely indicated (and the easiest thing to do), we cannot allow the issues to be obfuscated: the responsibility for the abuses, the corruption, the waste, lies much more not only in the hands of the legislative, but the executive as well, as pointed out by the CoA.

Which means that charges should be filed not just against fictitious NGOs but on the legislators who endorsed them and the government agencies/corporations who released money to them. If the pork barrel has given rise to a criminal syndicate, as business columnist Tony Lopez asserts, that criminal syndicate does not include only Congress, but the executive as well. They scratch each other’s backs.

At the expense of we, the people. Which is why we should all go to the Luneta (Quirino Grandstand) on August 26 (National Heroes Day) at 9:00 a.m. — or, outside of Metro Manila, to a preselected location of our choice. To demand that the pork barrel should be scrapped. To show that we are mad as hell and won’t take this highway robbery by our so-called leaders anymore.

I read the report over the weekend, and then again during our enforced vacation. And there are some findings which perhaps haven’t sunk in yet, or which should be emphasized /clarified in the retelling.

The first point: let’s make sure that we understand that the amount of pork — the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) and the so-called Various Infrastructure and Local Projects (VILP) — that was subjected to the CoA audit, constituted only 35% of the amount of pork that was actually released from 2007 to 2009 (amount released was 116 billion, while the amount audited was 41 billion).

Which means that while we are already aghast at the magnitude of the waste pointed out in the CoA report, we have to remind ourselves that what it revealed is only a fraction of the actual waste and corruption that took place during that period (and that still takes place). One can only imagine what a complete picture would show regarding the already excessive allocations that certain senators and congressmen received.

Why was the CoA unable to audit only a fraction of what was released? We know what the report said: the [present] Department of Budget and Management was unable to provide CoA with the list of releases by legislator. And why not? Is it because the DBM was “protecting” the administration legislators while “exposing” the opposition?

The explanation appears to be more mundane: during the period under consideration, the DBM was still in the manual mode, and wasn’t into posting (in real time) releases to the legislators in its Website. This has changed of course. Nevertheless, I still think that the DBM with some more effort, can provide us with a more complete picture. How about it, Sec. Abad?

But the inability to pain the whole picture of the pork releases is not the only problem. There may be an at least equally serious problem that the CoA discovered. It points out that while the appropriated funds for VILP for the period amounted to 51 billion, what was released amounted to almost double that amount: 102 billion, which is a blatant violation (by the executive) of the law and the Constitution.

How did this happen? Abad offers a possible explanation: the Reader will remember that Congress during the Arroyo administration could never pass the budget on time, and therefore had to have a “reenacted budget,” meaning to say that the previous year’s budget was followed. Well, when the new budget for the year finally got passed, somebody conveniently forgot to deduct from it what had already been spent in the interim. Which resulted, in 2007 alone, in an expenditure excess over the approved budget of 36 billion. Apparently, the late Emy Boncodin (who was an excellent budget secretary), pointed this out in December 2007, but nobody paid any attention, least of all the Ombudsman (see why the chosen Ombudsman should never be partisan?)

The second point that must be emphasized is that it appears that there was more corruption surrounding the “soft” pork or PDAF, than that surrounding the “hard” pork or VILP. What indicates this? Only consider: Of the 8 billion of the PDAF releases audited (out of a total release of 14 billion), 6 billion went to 82 NGOs which were of dubious origin (non-existent or false addresses, etc.), with more than 2 billion (or of the whole amount) going to only four NGOs. That means that 75% of the PDAF expenditures lined the pockets of the rich at the expense of the poor.

Compare that figure with the irregularities reported with respect to the VILP: If I read the report properly, it would seem that of the 32 billion in audited VILP releases, only around 5% were shown to be excessive or deficient as the case may be, or improperly utilized — including building infrastructure on private property and infrastructure which was unused because it was not what the locals needed/wanted).

This is a finding which goes against the conventional wisdom that it is in the “hard” projects where most kickbacks occur — ranging from 20% to 40%. It is also “common knowledge” that similar to what happens with the “soft” pork, where the legislator “endorses” an NGO as the implementor of the soft project, he/she also gets to name the contractor who will carry out the hard/infrastructure project. The difference is that in the case of the soft project, the endorsement has to be formal (which is why we all know which legislator chose which NGO), while in the hard project, the endorsement is informal — just a phone call will do.

In any case, I would appreciate it if the CoA can hazard a guess as to why the VILP seems to be accompanied by less corruption than the PDAF (by the way, in the Aquino administration, the VILP term has disappeared, everything is now considered PDAF, which explains why, between 2010 and 2011, the PDAF more than doubled, which prompted critics to say that Aquino’s pork barrel is much larger than Arroyo’s). Or Maybe I just read the figures wrong.

The third point that has to be made is that putting excessive blame on rogue NGOs does not reflect either the letter or the spirit of the CoA recommendations at all. While blacklisting NGOs who are underperforming or are mere fronts is definitely indicated (and the easiest thing to do), we cannot allow the issues to be obfuscated: the responsibility for the abuses, the corruption, the waste, lies much more not only in the hands of the legislative, but the executive as well, as pointed out by the CoA.

Which means that charges should be filed not just against fictitious NGOs but on the legislators who endorsed them and the government agencies/corporations who released money to them. If the pork barrel has given rise to a criminal syndicate, as business columnist Tony Lopez asserts, that criminal syndicate does not include only Congress, but the executive as well. They scratch each other’s backs.

At the expense of we, the people. Which is why we should all go to the Luneta (Quirino Grandstand) on August 26 (National Heroes Day) at 9:00 a.m. — or, outside of Metro Manila, to a preselected location of our choice. To demand that the pork barrel should be scrapped. To show that we are mad as hell and won’t take this highway robbery by our so-called leaders anymore.