CITY OF SAN FERNANDO, Philippines—A review by a lawmaker of a pioneering budget reform measure of the Aquino administration has shown huge amounts of pork barrel inserted into the proposed P2.6-trillion budget for 2015.

“It is disappointing that what was originally intended as a consultative method of funding for poverty reduction projects has been turned into a vehicle for traditional patronage politics,” Pampanga Rep. Juan Pablo Bondoc, House deputy majority floor leader, told the Inquirer on Thursday.

ADVERTISEMENT

He was referring to the grassroots participatory budgeting process (GPBP), which replaced the bottom-up budgeting (BUB) for the 2015 budget preparation for the needs of poor communities.

The GPBP involved 12 national government agencies and the National Electrification Administration (NEA) coordinating with cities and towns hosting big poor communities.

Budget Secretary Florencio Abad denied Bondoc’s claim, saying the projects that needed funding were listed in the proposed budget.

“Not true … GPBP projects are listed in detail in the budget. But we will look into it,” Abad said in a text message to the Inquirer on Thursday.

Funds for BUB projects more than doubled from P8.397 billion in 2013 to P17.554 billion in 2014, copies of the national expenditure program showed. For 2015, GPBP has a total of P20.899 billion.

As envisioned, GPBP calls for local communities to identify projects before these are funded, according to Bondoc.

“That the projects are found with lump sums and for postnational budget enactment shows no consultation took place, defeating the reform purpose of GPBP,” he said.

The Supreme Court declared unconstitutional lump-sum budgeting and postenactment of budget when it ruled on how the pork barrel or the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) was budgeted.

Specific singular purpose

ADVERTISEMENT

The high court said “an item of appropriation must be an item characterized by singular correspondence—meaning an allocation of a specified singular amount for a specified singular purpose, otherwise known as line item.”

“What beckons constitutional infirmity are appropriations which merely provide for a singular lump-sum amount to be tapped as a source of funding for multiple purposes,” the court said.

“It’s like a parent asking a child, ‘What do you need?’ and the child answered, ‘Computer.’ This is what should be funded, not giving amounts for unknown projects,” Bondoc said.

He said the Department of the Interior and Local Government alone, which sought P5.732 billion for GPBP projects, had P1.715 billion for items identified only as “various projects.”

He said the Local Government Support Fund, which was allotted P2.789 billion, had items marked as “projects to be identified,” “projects to be determined,” “to be determined” and “to be identified.”

“I call on my fellow legislators as well as Cabinet secretaries to carefully scrutinize the budget to be able to follow President Aquino’s order of daang matuwid (straight path),” Bondoc said.

Read Next

EDITORS' PICK

MOST READ