Filtered By: Topstories

News

Pigging out on pork a la PNoy: Bailiwicks, not poor towns, grab slabs of House PDAF

By Karol Anne M. Ilagan, Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism

Published July 19, 2012 1:05am

Second of Five Parts

THE OFFICIAL name of the pork barrel – Priority Development Assistance Fund or PDAF – should already make it obvious what it is truly intended for.

Yet instead of primarily being a means of helping more people gain access to basic services that the government should have provided them in the first place, PDAF remains a political tool wielded by those in the legislature and the executive to serve their own interests.

For the executive, whom and when to give pork seem to be based partly on exacting what one high-level official calls “historical justice” on its critics, and partly on its own need to ensure cooperation from members of Congress to achieve its political goals.

For lawmakers, ensuring their lock on power by consolidating and expanding their constituencies guides much of their decisions on how to use their PDAF.

For some, this has meant funneling most of their pork into their own bailiwicks, and local government units and foundations usually led and controlled by their relatives and allies, even though there may be other areas in their districts that are more in need.

Indeed, in far too many cases, the congressmen’s craving to secure maximum “projection” and “visibility” through pork overshadows, and even negates cost-wise, the goal of public service in most areas.

Many have adopted various ingenious methods to put their personal stamp on their pork-funded projects that now include not just the usual tarpaulins, billboards, and stickers plastered at construction sites, but also multicabs, school bags, computers, relief goods, and most any other product dole-outs they distribute.

Other supposed acts of charity also become tainted with politics; some congressmen, for instance, for some reason specifically require applicants for scholarships to submit voter’s registration cards when other means of identification would presumably be acceptable.

Good pork, bad pork By Karol Anne M. Ilagan, Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism

ON ANY given day, the corridors of the East Avenue Medical Center (EAMC) in Quezon City leading to the Medical Social Service are filled with patients and their relatives seeking financial assistance through their congressman’s Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) or pork. Highly popular, the hospital’s Medical Social Service is open 24/7 to process charity applications, including PDAF assistance. “I can’t imagine not having the PDAF for these patients,” says one social worker. She adds that 90 percent or about 675 of EAMC daily volume of patients are charity clients, including those benefiting from legislative pork. The scene looks like a good example of pork, which is essentially taxpayers’ money, finally working the right way – providing services to those who need it the most. A closer scrutiny, however, often reveals strings attached as well. For medical assistance like those offered at the EAMC and various government hospitals, pork usually comes in the form of mock cheques and guarantee letters affixed with the congressman’s photo and signature, giving the perception that the funds came from his own pocket. PCIJ’s survey of PDAF projects in the last two years reveal that if “hard” or public works projects have been particularly notorious for corruption, “soft” projects like medical assistance and scholarship programs have become means for lawmakers to reinforce patronage between themselves and their constituents. Budget Secretary Florencio B. Abad, himself a former legislator and whose wife is a member of the current House, says soft projects tend to be more effective in favor a congressman who wants to get re-elected because these are more “personal” – unlike, say, constructing a road, which is targeted to benefit more people. He notes that scholarship money that is personally handed over to the parent or the child in cash is most politically effective because the recipient would think that the money came directly from the congressman. “The idea is indebtedness,” Abad says. “You want them to remember that it came from you. Elections (are) contests among who is the better patron, ‘di ba?” PCIJ had wanted to know if this may be among the reasons why Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas Jr. has taken a liking to using a sizeable chunk of his pork for scholarships. Upon his re-election in 2010, Tupas had continued his “Iskolar Sang Quinto” or ISQ program. In the past two years, he has so far allocated P36.3 million of his PDAF for scholarships for students of the Leon Ganzon Polytechnic College (LGPC) and the seven campuses of the Northern Iloilo Polytechnic State College (NIPSC). In a span of 13 months, three releases were made to the local government of Barotac Viejo, Iloilo – the congressman’s hometown – to fund scholarships for a cumulative total of 11,500 students in these colleges. Currently, about 700 of LGPC’s 1,200 students are scholars of Tupas. The Iloilo representative, however, declined to interviewed, citing prior engagements. In any case, his 2009 accomplishment report states that “direct benefits” are felt by the ISQ scholars because “the miscellaneous fees of high school students are given directly to their parents.” An official from one of the schools covered by the program also says that applicants for the scholarship are required to submit a copy or proof of his or her registration with the Commission on Elections (Comelec). It could well be that document is needed to check if the applicant really does belong to Tupas’s district. But that could also be determined through other documents such as a barangay clearance, a community tax certificate or cedula, or postal ID. Abad meanwhile recalls the case of one representative who swaps her PDAF allotment for hard projects for the soft-project funds of other lawmakers so that she can have as much as P70 million worth of pork for scholarships. Guidelines in the spending of PDAF provides that P40 million should be implemented on hard or infrastructure projects, while P30 million should be for the delivery of soft or education, health, and social services projects. Abad, who says “swapping” of projects is allowed for as long as the prescribed equation is still followed, says the legislator apparently believes “that’s how she wins the election.” Unfortunately, the budget secretary says, the beneficiaries themselves may be encouraging this thinking since they would want to make sure that the congressman who helped them would stay in power because their children, for example, are in school because of that congressman. As a result, scholarships along with medical assistance, are among the favorite soft projects for a sample set of 26 congressmen selected by PCIJ to find out how congressmen, oldtimers and newcomers, of different political parties, and cities and provinces in Luzon, the Visayas, and Mindanao, spend their PDAF. They include House leaders, committee chairpersons, party-list representatives, and lawmakers who have been in the news in recent months. These total P307.8 million and P255.9 million, respectively. For medical assistance, PCIJ has observed that some congressmen have become creative with the guarantee letters issued to indigent patients to allow them access to their PDAF. At the EAMC, the PCIJ found mock cheques with the photos and signatures of San Jose del Monte City Rep. Arturo B. Robes and Quezon City Rep. Winston Castelo, together with niece Quezon City Councilor Jessica Castelo Daza. At the Amang Rodriguez Memorial Medical Center, PCIJ found cash vouchers issued by Rep. Romero Federico S. Quimbo with the congressman’s photo. The vouchers also contain the name of the indigent patient, the amount “chargeable against my (Quimbo’s) PDAF,” and the congressman’s signature. Asked how he came up with the idea of the cash voucher, Quimbo says he “thought about it long and hard” and decided he wanted it to be a “benchmark.” He explains that the cash vouchers are tightly guarded and serialized to help ensure that it doesn’t get into the wrong hands. He says there has already been a case wherein about P1.5 million has been misused because of fake and duplicated guarantee letters. The lawmaker also clarifies that the document is not really a guarantee letter because he is not guaranteeing anything. “That is cash coming from the national government that is deposited in the coffers of the hospitals,” he says. If pork barrel funds will be used as a political tool, Quimbo himself says that congressmen could play around with their soft projects rather than the hard to ensure re-election. Hard projects even become a source of criticisms, he says. But Quimbo says that politicians who think PDAF is a blessing are mistaken. “It is a burden,” he says. “Whatever you do, you cannot satisfy the requirements of your district with the small amount that is given to you. It is not small, per se, but relative to the requirement, it is so insignificant.” “You try to carry it out in the best way possible where you think it will have an impact based on a set of criteria,” he says of pork projects. “The only burden is you need to be able to communicate it well with your constituents why you’re doing that.” For Deputy Speaker Lorenzo R. Tañada III, there are no guarantees that would ensure that PDAF does not result into an extension of patronage politics. Even with the reforms done by the DBM, i.e., setting of priority municipalities and sectors, he says people have a way of going around those rules. “The reality is, projects are delivered first and foremost in areas where the votes are actually delivered which coincidentally are vote-rich areas,” he says. Asked which type of projects that lawmakers should spend their PDAF on, Secretary Abad cites rural health units and water system projects as among those that should be prioritized. For Public Works Secretary Rogelio Singson, meanwhile, a farm-to-market road is a good example of a PDAF-funded project. DBM data however reveal a different set of priorities for the PCIJ’s sample set of 26 congressmen. Based on amounts spent, multi-purpose buildings, roads and bridges, and educational facilities were the top three projects chosen by the sample group. It’s possible, though, that these three types of projects had higher totals because they may cost more in the first place. Multi-purpose building projects, which could be a gymnasium, a relocation site, a barangay hall, or a covered court, among others, are at No. 1 with P682.9 million. Next are roads and bridges with P518.9 million, and educational facilities such as school buildings and classrooms with P181 million. Of the 26 congressmen, 11 allocated the highest amount of their fund for hard projects on multi-purpose buildings. The top three are Quezon City Rep. Banal with P60.8 million, Iloilo Rep. Niel C. Tupas Jr. with 54.3 million, and Davao City Rep. Karlo Alexei B. Nograles with P45.7 million. Meanwhile, projects on water system were allotted with P76.9 million, farm-to-market roads with P65.4 million, and health facility, P8.8 million. Just a few of the 26 congressmen allocated substantial amounts on water-system projects. These include Batanes Rep. Henedina R. Abad (P16.6 million), Quezon Rep. Tañada (P7.8 million), Bayan Muna Party-List Rep. Neri J. Colmenares (P7.4 million), Akbayan Rep. Bag-ao (P6.3 million), Cavite Rep. Abaya (P5.8 million), and Iloilo Rep. Tupas (P4.6 million). Cavite Rep. Jesus Crispin C. Remulla, Oriental Mindoro Rep. Reynaldo V. Umali, Batanes Rep. Abad, and Quezon Rep. Tañada meantime allotted fairly significant amounts on farm-to-market roads at P18 million, P10.8 million, P11.6 million, and P8.4 million, respectively. - With additional research by Jessa Mae B. Jarilla, PCIJ, July 2012

Additionally, for “hard” or infrastructure projects, lawmakers seek pork for numerous projects that sound all too similar or slight variations of what could be the same things. Year on year, for instance, many use their PDAF for the repair, rehabilitation, reconstruction, regravelling, concreting, retrofitting, upgrade, improvement, maintenance, and completion of roads. Pork-funded work on the pavement of some of the same roads follow the year after.

Multi-purpose buildings – usually roof-covered courts used for drying palay or for playing basketball – are a favorite among many congressmen. Thousands rise across the country every year, built on pork money with cost variance so wide – from P100,000 to P10 million per pop – or much more than the standard cost for such a project set by the Public Works department.

This is probably happening, according to Public Works and Highways Secretary Rogelio Singson, so lawmakers could enroll more projects for funding with PDAF.

Allies get more

These are among the findings gleaned by PCIJ from its survey of records on 45,353 PDAF releases to House members made by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) since President Benigno Simeon ‘Noynoy’ C. Aquino III assumed office on June 30, 2010.

(The PCIJ also reviewed an additional 3,000 PDAF release records covering the pork projects of the senators and Vice President Jejomar C. Binay.)

These data, which are culled from Special Allocation Release Orders or SAROs issued by the DBM upon approval of a congressman’s list of projects, are uploaded on the “e-Fund Releases” pages of the DBM website.

The PCIJ also conducted interviews with some lawmakers and pork beneficiaries themselves, as well as members of the Cabinet.

At first glance, it had seemed that the Aquino administration has been meeting its policy to spread the fat around so that no congressional district would have to do without pork.

For example: of the total P34.9 billion worth of pork released since June 30, 2010, the opposition Lakas-Kampi received 37 percent, the biggest share among the parties (including party-list groups). Lakas also came out with a decent average of P120 million of pork per member.

Some House members who ran under the Lakas-Kampi slate in May 2010 have since moved to other parties and joined the Liberal Party-led coalition majoriy.

Vice President Jejomar ‘Jojo’ C. Binay’s PDP-Laban party, meanwhile, shared the distinction of having the highest average of PDAF release per member – P140 million – with Kabaca and party-list groups COOP NATCCO, An Waray, Senior Citizens, ALAGAD and AGAP.

They were followed by the opposition Pwersa ng Masang Pilipino, which averaged P134 million per member.

By comparison, the ruling Liberal Party (LP) had an average of P124 million of pork per member.

‘Historical justice’

At the same time, though, the total received by some 101 members of the House or 36 percent have been between P70 million and P121 million each.

There also those like Negros Occidental Rep. Alejandro M. Mirasol, who replaced the late Rep. Ignacio ‘Iggy’ T. Arroyo and has yet to receive any PDAF, and seven others who have received less than P70 million of PDAF so far and are therefore at the bottom of the pork barrel.

Former President and current Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo leads the seven, who include her sons Camarines Sur Rep. Diosdado ‘Dato’ M. Arroyo and Ang Galing Pinoy Party-List Rep. Juan Miguel ‘Mikey’ M. Arroyo, and known allies Zambales Reps. Jun Omar C. Ebdane and Ma. Milagros ‘Mitos’ H. Magsaysay, Pangasinan Rep. Ma. Rachel J. Arenas, and Iloilo Rep. Augusto L. Syjuco Jr.

Records also show that both Dato Arroyo and Magsaysay last received pork money in 2010 – with the younger Arroyo receiving P35.5 million and Magsaysay a flat P35 million. This is probably why Gloria Arroyo later decided to share her PDAF with son Dato and Magsaysay in 2011.

Budget Secretary Florencio ‘Butch’ Abad says this is allowed, with both lawmakers agreeing to the sharing of pork bounty between their congressional districts.

For sure, the reasons why some House members have been receiving much less pork than others is because they may have submitted a shorter list of projects. It could also be that the approval for their projects is pending or the issuance of the SARO for these is still under way.

Yet Abad himself says the situation is “part of politics” and refers to “historical justice” at play.

He says that “there were some that really got a lot before” while others did not get any PDAF “so of course you need to help them catch up.” But he also refers to Magsaysay, a strident critic of President Aquino, as a “special case.”

“She says a lot of things,” Abad remarks.

A political tool

But this may not be the only example of how the executive has used pork as political tool.

According to some legislators, pork has been dangled by the Aquino administration in the last two years to rush the approval of the national budget, to deflect criticism of the P23-billion increase in the 2011 budget for the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program, as well as to move the impeachment complaints against then Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas N. Gutierrez and then Chief Justice Renato C. Corona.

At the very least, in the last two years, bigger PDAF releases were made on dates that coincided with of the impeachment votes in the House (Corona) and the approval of the General Appropriations Act.

Records show that the PDAF releases of the DBM flowed more abundantly on certain dates, in particular, May 2012, April 2011, October 2010, December 2011, and November 2011. More than half or P18.9-billion of the total PDAF released in the last two years had these “notice of release” dates.

For the House prosecution team, the biggest amounts of PDAF were released on Dec. 6, 2010, Nov. 9, 2011, Nov. 24, 2011, and Dec.12 and 13, 2011. The House of Representatives impeached Corona on Dec. 12, 2011.

Prosecutors busy?

Asked why the House prosecutors got the bulk of their PDAF on Dec. 12 and 13, 2011, Abad says it may have been possible that House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. had requested him to allow the prosecutors quick release of their pork because they would be busy in the succeeding months.

(The PCIJ tried to verify Abad’s explanation with Belmonte but the Speaker has not responded to PCIJ’s request for interview and comments.)

Abad says that on a typical year, the bulk of the SAROs are usually issued in March to April for the first semester, and in September to October for the second semester.

He says that the Aquino administration does not have to control the release of pork since it gets the cooperation it needs. According to budget secretary, there may be lawmakers who still believe that their pork could be held hostage by the executive based on past experience when those who voted for the impeachment of then President Arroyo received no PDAF.

But Abad says, “In our case, we don’t have to do it… like in the case of Mercy, like in the case of the Chief Justice.”

Some congressmen who voted against the impeachment of Gutierrez and Corona are in fact in the top rung of pork recipients with more than P140 million each, among them Albay Rep. Al Francis C. Bichara of the Nacionalista Party, Alagad Party-List Rep. Rodante R. Marcoleta, and Siquijor Rep. Orlando B. Fua of Lakas-Kampi.

Pasukan, Pasko

Abad says that what matters the most to congressmen are domestic events like Christmas in December and the school opening in June when financial dole-outs from congressmen would be most sought after, and best remembered by their constituents.

And just to make sure the beneficiaries do not forget where the dole-outs come from, some legislators have taken to putting their pictures on mock checks or cash vouchers that act as guarantee letters.

A less noticeable yet apparently politically savvy use of pork, though, has been to invest slabs of it in one’s bailiwick, and preferably where a relative is an incumbent local official.

Abad says this is just plain “political logic.” He points out, “Ideally, while you’re able to help the most needy in your community, you’re also able to improve your political stock in the place. So, naturally, you would favor the incumbent in your districts who are your allies.”

Then again, this only means that the allocation is not driven by pressing needs but by partisanship. With such a practice, even those pinpointed by the government as priority beneficiaries of pork can be overlooked.

For instance, lawmakers are advised to prioritize the 4th - and 6th-class municipalities in their districts and then the sectors (quintiles 1 and 2) that have been identified by the National Household Targeting Survey (NHTS). Yet it seems to be an advice that has gone unheeded.

Tupas’s pork

Of the 11 towns in the 5th district of Iloilo, which is represented in the House by Niel Tupas Jr., one belongs to the 5th class (Batad) and two (Lemery and San Dionisio) to the 4th class. Tupas, however, chose to release more than a third or P41.7 million of Rep. Niel Tupas Jr.’s pork has been released to the local government of Barotac Viejo as the implementing unit of various programs and projects in the fifth district of Iloilo.

Barotac Viejo’s incumbent mayor is the congressman’s brother Niel C. Tupas III. It is a 3rd-class municipality, according to the National Statistical Coordination Board. Fariñas's pork

Up north, in the 1st district of Ilocos Norte, nearly all of the LGUs have received a share of the PDAF of Rep. Rodolfo C. Farinas, including five 4th- and 5th-class municipalities in the last two years. But the biggest chunk of projects – worth P18 million in all – went to Laoag as the implementing unit, a 3rd –class city whose mayor happens to be the congressman’s nephew, Michael V. Fariñas.

Fariñas has yet to respond to PCIJ’s requests for comment relayed in letters sent on July 12, 2012. Citing prior engagements, Tupas has declined PCIJ’s request for an interview.

Abaya’s pork

For his part, Cavite Rep. Joseph Emilio A. Abaya assigned more than half or P43.7 million of the PDAF released to him to his hometown Kawit, Cavite, as the implementing unit of various social service programs in the first district of Cavite. Kawit’s incumbent mayor is Reynaldo ‘Tik’ Aguinaldo, Abaya’s uncle and Liberal Party co-member.

No projects were assigned to the local government units of Cavite City, Rosario, and Noveleta, the other three LGUs in Abaya’s district. The three towns in the first district of Cavite do not belong among the 4th- to 6th-class municipalities. Kawit and Rosario are both 1st-class municipalities, and Noveleta, 3rd class. Cavite City, meanwhile, is a 4th-class city.

Abaya’s chief of staff, Bernard Odron, says there are no restrictions as to where the PDAF can be coursed through when it comes to LGUs. A lawyer, Oldron adds that Abaya selected Kawit for “expediency” and because the third-term congressman has developed a working relationship with Kawit, where he has also located his district office.

Odron also says Abaya has had difficulties working with other LGUs who are “not friendly” and “not cooperative,” but the congressman supposedly tries to find ways to go directly to the people through the barangays or homeowners’ associations.

Odron said the projects implemented in Kawit are not just for Kawit, but for the entire district. He conceded, however, that those who live in other towns would need to go to Kawit to apply for assistance.

It’s hard to strike a balance between pork as a political and development tool, Odron agrees, but says Abaya does not distinguish between those who voted for him and those who did not, in his selection of scholars and PDAF assistance beneficiaries.

In time, according to Odron, those who did not vote for Abaya are even “converted” to his side because of the “goodwill” that the latter’s pork projects have created. – With additional research by Jessa Mae B. Jarilla, PCIJ, July 2012

Tags: porkbarrel, congress