Pork refuses to die

In 2013, the nation hailed the Supreme Court for declaring as unconstitutional the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), the legislative pork barrel, raising hope the yearly budget would be spent judiciously.

The Tribunal, voting 14-0, with Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr. abstaining due to his son being an incumbent congressman, declared the entire 2013 PDAF article in the General Appropriations Act (GAA) unconstitutional, along with all provisions of past pork barrel laws, such as the Countrywide Development Fund (CDF).

It also voided “all informal practices of similar import and effect” deemed as grave abuses of discretion.

It turned out to be a short-lived victory for the people as legislators, scheming as they are, found ways to resurrect their discretionary funds in the yearly appropriations.

In the 2025 budget, the resurrection of the pork barrel scheme occurred through projects inserted into the budget after the allocations of key departments were reduced.

All the agencies engaged in essential services, such as the Department of Education, Department of Social Welfare and Development, and Department of Health, had considerable cuts made to their 2025 budgets.

The flagship anti-poverty program, Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps), which has a structured implementation and is supported by a law, was defunded by P50 billion. The free tuition law suffered a considerable reduction in the Department of Education’s budget.

The argument presented at the bicameral conference committee, where the funds were reallocated, was that these agencies had a poor absorptive capacity.

In exchange, the Department of Public Works and Highways’ budget was padded by P288 billion that went into “hyperlocal projects,” which did not have detailed engineering designs and a program of works. The projects were inserted at the last minute, free of any form of scrutiny.

In the past years, the bicam has had a preference for flood control projects, multipurpose halls, small drainage projects, and local roads and bridges. These were the typical projects that comprised the outlawed PDAF.

These were complemented by “soft projects” or ayuda-type programs, which are doles intended for poor Filipinos.

The Ayuda para sa Kapos ang Kita Program (AKAP), for instance, was haphazardly inserted into the 2024 budget.

“It did not exist in the National Expenditure Program of the Executive, but Congress created a line item for that,” budget analyst Zyza Suzara said.

Another project that seemed to emerge unexpectedly was a medical assistance scheme for indigent individuals under the Department of Health, introduced in addition to the existing institutional health insurance programs of the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth).

The Department of Labor and Employment also created the Tulong Panghanapbuhay sa Ating Disadvantaged/Displaced Workers (TUPAD).

All of the aid programs required legislative intervention to be implemented.

“That conveniently skirts the Supreme Court’s ruling prohibiting the post-enactment authority of Congress over the budget,” Suzara explained.

Over the past few years, approximately 20 percent of projects in the budget required the influence of members of Congress to be implemented.

“All of the budget increases that we saw after the NEP went to hard infrastructure and soft projects of legislators,” she said.

The bicameral insertions were separate from the projects that were given space during the drafting of the NEP in collusion with the Department of Budget.

Instead of a sacred document, which is how governments treat their national budget, the yearly General Appropriations Act is used to wipe the stink off the behinds of congressmen and senators.