Pork, potholes go together
The road tax is on the same level as flood control contracts as a favored source of pork barrel funds.
Daily TribuneThe road tax is on the same level as flood control contracts as a favored source of pork barrel funds.
To extract a pork barrel for the midterm elections, leaders of the bicameral conference committee (bicam) turned to something they were familiar with — the road user’s tax, also known as the motor vehicle user’s charge (MVUC).
Davao City Representative Sid Ungab, erstwhile chairperson of the House appropriations panel, said that among the spurious amendments in the bicam — which assumed powers that went beyond its mandate to reconcile conflicting provisions in the budget bills of the two chambers of Congress — was increasing the special road fund allotment by more than double.
The legislator, who divulged the bicam blank items scandal, said the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) appropriation from the special road fund was raised from P16.756 billion to P34.74 billion, an increase of P17.992 billion.
The fund is collected under a provision of Republic Act 8794, as amended by Republic Act 11239, that abolished the notorious Road Board and provides for the disposition of the MVUC that is automatically collected from motorists.
The road tax, like flood control contracts, is a favored source of pork barrel funds.
The MVUC fund is intended for the public benefit, but its allocation, through another law, allows for political distortions.
Pork barrel allocations, like the discredited Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), have become usual fare for legislators.
The MVUC is earmarked for the construction, upgrade, repair, and rehabilitation of roads, bridges, and drainage in the annual General Appropriations Act.
This year’s targeted MVUC revenue of P16.75 billion under the National Expenditure Program was jacked up.
The additional P17.992 billion was sourced not from the special road fund’s balance, but from pooled funds raised through the realignment of other agencies’ allocations.
According to Ungab, the increase to the special road fund may raise legal and constitutional questions.
“The main legal and procedural concern is whether Congress, through the bicam, can increase the amounts in the special road fund beyond what is supported by the program for expenditure from the earmarked revenues,” according to the House budget watcher.
“The main issue here is whether the special road fund can be augmented from other sources of appropriations in the General Appropriations Act. It is explicit in the law that the source of funds for the special road fund shall come from the MVUC collection,” Ungab stressed.
The legislator said that if actual collections from designated revenue sources do not support the increase in the appropriation or if the law does not provide for this, these adjustments “may be legally questionable and vulnerable to a constitutional challenge.”
President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. vetoed P26 billion worth of DPWH projects. Still, the special road fund increase earned a mere note from the President in the general observations portion of the veto message.
The Commission on Audit, in its recent audit of the DPWH, criticized the lack of a robust impact monitoring system for MVUC-funded projects.
It said that only a fraction of the projects had clear metrics to evaluate their effectiveness, making it difficult to assess whether the funds were used for the public’s benefit or diverted to politically driven initiatives.
Consider the poor condition of our roads and the substandard materials used to build and repair them despite the billions that motorists pay yearly to ensure safe travel.
The audit flagged irregularities in project implementation, such as incomplete and substandard road projects funded through the MVUC. For example, some projects did not comply with technical standards.
The conspiracy to manipulate the road tax to feed the pork-craving reptiles in Congress during the crucial midterm elections was perfected in the bicam.