Misdefining pork

This time, the typically vigilant and characteristically incisive debt watchdog seemed to have gotten its messages mixed. As aggressively zealous as the watchdog is, caution and prudence still seem to be the best practices in any endeavor, including the most passionately purposed special-interest group. 

The Freedom from Debt Coalition (FDC) needs to get its act together and redeem the competence, credibility and reputation that we knew it had for incisiveness long lost. Since the changing of its guards some years back, redemption should have been easy, given the competence, or its abject absence, in the last administration. However redemptive route is chosen, reckless charges, however, are not the way to go.

Recently, the FDC accused the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) under the new administration of attempting to insidiously conceal within its debuting budget substantial amounts of pork-barrel allocations far beyond what had been inserted during the Aquino administration. Characteristic of previous episodes when the FDC stumbled in its rush to judgment, its internal problem seems to be a simple matter of terminologies and definitions.

It would not be the first time the FDC faltered as it once failed to include the issuance of bonds as among the total debt liabilities of a borrower state, including those instruments that carried un-subordinated sovereign guarantees. It also seemed to have gotten it wrong when a good number of its members, some with law degrees, whether as individuals or as coalesced NGOs, threw their blind support behind a failed, lazy and inept administration.

The definition of a pork barrel is simple enough. It is a lump-sum allocation granting full control of its use to politicians and is invested to induce patronage politics. It would be good to remember the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) and the presidential Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) – both struck down as illegal by the Supreme Court.

Money or control over money is transferred from the Executive to the legislative branch, specifically to select solons of the latter. Under such, the control and disposition is surrendered, effectively transferred and ceases to fall under budgetary scrutiny, debate and the typical prudence and fiduciary responsibility that money should be subjected to, especially when this is comprised of our hard-earned taxes. This distinction is important.

Recipients are free to do as they please with the funds under their control. This underlies the concept of ownership. That it will be seen as his by his constituents underlies the concept of patronage politics relayed first from the Executive and then upon passing the baton to the legislator perpetuated and institutionalized. This is important. When control remains with the Executive, then there is no transfer. Technically the recipient is merely an agent.

Now let us revisit the FDC’s criticism of the DBM. Analyze and discern. What the former sees as pork is not pork because following the DBM’s new protocols under the Duterte administration, solons are simply heard as they simply suggest.

Capped at P80 million per legislator, it is only, and solely, the Executive through the DBM that judges, determines and ultimately decides whether to include these suggestions as budgetary line and not lump items within the budget by judiciously applying economic productivity and inclusion criteria. The DBM then unilaterally decides whether to deny or approve its inclusion, which will, further in the congressional mill, be once more subject to hearings and public debate.

As all control and effective proprietary rights over the funds remain completely with the DBM and not the legislators, then absolutely nothing is surrendered to Congress at the point of the fund’s origination. Not only does this new protocol guarantee that there will be no political quid pro quo but it also warrants the absolute absence of political patronage as might be feared by the FDC.