Sei sulla pagina 1di 13

10 BILLION PORK BARREL FUND SCAM RELATED ARTICLES Pork Barrel, Philippine Politics and the Economy By Adrian

M. Tamayo Pork barrel defined Pork barrel has its origin in the American history. Prior to the civil war, the slaves in the Southern part of America were traditionally provided salted pork as a gift to enjoy on holiday. The slaves would run into frantic for the barrel . Kawanaka cited Evans that the onrush of the legislators to get a subsidy was evocative of the stampede of the slave of the pre American Civil war. Pork barrel formally defined as the appropriations of public funds for projects that do not serve the interests of any large portion of the countrys citizenry but are nevertheless vigorous promoted by a small group of legislators because they will pump outside taxpayers money and resources into the local districts these legislators represent ; an effective legislation and use of pork barrel results into the legislator being re-elected. As defined by a Civil Society group in the Philippines, PDAF Watch, pork barrel funds are those allocated to politicians such as congresspersons and senators, to be used, based on their decision, to fund programs or projects in their districts . Keeping the pork thin or thick? In a position paper of Nograles and Lagman to decry the scrapping of PDAF , it was brought into the fore the origin of the pork barrel and how was it used in the Philippine fiscal activity. It described the American colonial accent with the keeping of central leadership of the ruling party with the pork barrel as spoiling incentives for the legislators. Towing the line would mean an increased access to the fund without contest of use or misuse during the martial law era. This offensive taking of the government fund by the legislators resulted into a mechanism after the famous EDSA of the 8th Congress that will ensure fund will make the unequal equal by setting up parameters, equal apportionments, built-in accountability and transparency (Nograles and Lagman). However, the current system provided a system where funds are included in the general appropriations act (GAA) but as an independent item without mention of definite project. Also, the GAA includes items where each legislator is given a definite monetary value which is reflective of the projects that can be made out from the amount. Kawanaka described the system vividly in lieu of the appropriation and the legislators control of the fund as: .legislators have been given items, namely the Priority Development Fund Assistance Program (PDAF) and the budget of the Department of Public Works and Highways. While an appropriation act is prepared in congress, no specific projects need be listed, since these lump sum allocations. A legislator is given a free-hand to identify her pet projects, programs within budget, and requests the concerned departments to implement them, after a general appropriation act has been promulgated. The above statement signifies the space accorded to the legislator to determine the socially acceptable project in order to indicate bringing the pork to the level of the constituents as demands are effectively meet by the legislators. Such provision of the public good will be in competition with the executive branch with its implementing agency working along the line of a systematic and sustainable development. As it was noxiously termed, pork barrel was changed into an innocuous Countrywide Development Fund in 1990 where which the intention is to fast-track development. However, it evolved itself in 2000 into an even milder which up to present holds it name, the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) . The Philippine Constitution describes the separation of the powers between the Legislative and the Executive departments with the former having the power of the purse and appropriation while the latter has the power to implement or veto the Congress resolution. With the Executive department directly engaged in the operation of the government being apprised by the bureaucratic office of every agency down the-line up, the Executive holds a better vantage than the Legislative department on the priority needs of the whole nation, thus information of the

important projects, programs which can significantly re-structure the economic status of the poorest of the poor. This will therefore place the Legislative department in a comparable insufficient situation for project or program implementation. But with the intention of the separation of powers, the check-and-balance mechanism will indicate the need for the later to determine the priority needs of the whole nation thus allocation of fund, the monitoring and monitoring of the same being the representative of the general public. Such mechanism will ensure that the resource allocation is a constitutional public spending and taking out of the purse mean thickening of the pork of the legislators. Types of Pork barrel Kawanaka (2007) described two types of pork barrel. The first type refers to the pork-barrel that focuses on the discretion of the national leaders. This emphasizes the tow the line principle as it highlights the control of the leader over the members of the legislative. The second looks at the characteristics of the legislators. This means that the legislators stay in congress, position in the legislative branch, and expertise are factors that settle distribution of the fund. The first type tells that the legislators who are members of the ruling party are given share of the government share in abundance as a mode of tapping the shoulder for supporting the priority programs, initiatives and development projects of the Executive department. The second type will stress the discriminating aspect of seniority, positions in the committee to distribute the fund. The Speaker of the House, the House leaders will have a greater piece of the pork. The Pork barrel and its many influences In Philippine politics, the manifest of legislated pork barrel includes construction of waiting shed, single school room construction/re-painting of schoolrooms , road pavement, local health spending, training centers, purchase of chairs,tables, computers, scholarships, construction of overpass, livelihood programs and many other geographic-specific projects which would benefit a constituency residents of the political districts. Of equally interesting case is the pork barrels legislation practices of the senators who are elected nationally. In order to avail of the rent-seeking benefits, these politicians will spend on a specifically defined geographic district that can assure of high voters turn-out. Normally, these are political districts found in highly urbanized cities/provinces with dense population catering into immediate remedies done through legislative spending. Pork barrel is the misuse of the peoples money for the purpose of gaining political advantage over a location-oriented accruing of benefits using a national budget. The pork barrel legislation will cut expected efficiency of public finance. Rossi and Inman (1998) described pork barrel as having a distributive nature of public goods citing Lowi with benefits concentrated within an identifiable constituent group using general taxation of government borrowing . This would mean, the whole society will pay for the project which full benefit accruing to a small portion of the public. Allowing the legislators to fund the local projects using a nationally legislated resource using the national governments revenue will further thin out the slices of the pie thus pressing the depressing conditions of the not politically aligned constituency even more poor. The Rossi and Inman paper theorized that if the demands of the constituents were echoed by the elected representatives, and that, it leaves no spillover effects to non-constituents will result into inefficiency of public spending on the distributive goods, with the elected officials crying for an increased budget for the constituencys needs while the constituents share of paying in the form of tax declines. This is attributable to the non-zero elasticity of demand. This will lead into Harberger triangle which is an indication of the problematic political economy, and a consequent reduction in the benefit of the public spending. The planned expenditure of the government will be hampered as a result of the PDAF as the

governments limited resources were used to fund locally-beneficial programs, leaving national agencies deficit of budget of its carefully planned spending using the most appropriate formula to address systematic perils of the society like hunger, criminality and the chronic poverty and hunger. Also, it is hard to dissociate the impressions of corruption in the dealings of infrastructure projects which leads into usurping the DPWH with its notorious tag as the most corrupt agency, scholarship programs with DEPED officials dirty hands and many other agencies. Proven or not, the impressions of the public remained glaringly suspicious. As earlier stated, the fund is a lump-sum allocation of the appropriations act, but with the full discretion of the legislator on the amount, is an inviting scene for corruption. Parreno(1998) described in a report for the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism on the rates that a Congressman will be receiving as a cuts, kickbacks, commissions, rebates and discounts are robbery done on the very poor. The report mentioned that the contractors have to provide 3050% discount or rebates to a legislator for granting the contract. This will lead into reducing by 20% the cement on a road project making it substandard the poor thus paying the high cost. On the one hand, the PDAF is a representation of an effective leadership of a peopl es representative. If the districts needs for bridges, roads, bridges are meet due to the PDAF or initiative of the Congressman. If the social benefit is higher on the benefit of congressional project such as providing scholarship to students for training or formal education belonging to a poor family but wanted to learn, the social and personal benefit will be higher than the social cost as these individuals will contribute productively in the society thus, reducing the risk of potential criminals and societys menace. Also, the PDAF brings the government into the small units in the community who were away from the short but caring arms of the State. The PDAF supports the small important projects that will directly enjoyed by the district constituents hence, providing an opportunity for democratic and productive practices towards economic development. In Conclusion The Pork barrel, PDAF or CDF in any of its moniker has its Janus face indicating its sullen past and its likely future. 1. It had perennially showed that it will undermine the whole framework of the organization, fund and budget, and operation in favor to a small and geographically determined beneficiary. 2. When the benefit is large and the obligation of the constituents is small, there is the tendency to demand for an increasing pork value. Pork barrel promotes inefficiency of public spending resulting to a loss in the welfare of the greater number of people, that is the marginal national benefit (benefit of carrying the national plan) against marginal local benefit (political district project). 3. Looking at pork barrel as a reward for support of the ruling partys priority agenda, of the attribute of the legislator may result to corrupt the officials of its slightest padding of budget into the most horrendous misuse of public funds. 4. PDAF projects effectively and efficiently addresses the needs of the political constituents as opposed to the national agenda. 5. The misuse of the fund will be reduced when the mechanism of transparency and accountability will be put in place and appropriately implemented. 6. Pork barrel remained an American model which cannot be transplanted into the political system of the Philippines as this will only cause the on-rush of the politicians to get a share of the pork leaving the poor Juan crumbs for his family, and the generations to come beholden to the vicious cycle of poor getting poorer and the politicians getting richer. PORK-BARREL SPENDING: THE HISTORY OF LIPSTICKING PIGS by Wendy McElroyJanuary 17, 2013 A December 15, 2012, headline in the New York Post declared, Obama Sandy Aid Bill Filled with Holiday Goodies Unrelated to Storm Damage. The announced purpose of the $60.4 billion bill was to provide disaster aid to East Coast individuals and communities devastated by Hurricane Sandy.

Instead, the bill was so laden with unrelated and politically inspired handouts that the House of Representatives refused to pass it. Republican Darrell Issa declared of the bill that sprang from the Senate, They had the opportunity to have a $27 to $30 billion dollar legit relief package, packed it with pork, then dared us not to vote on it. Many of the handouts were directed to federal assets: the bill allotted $2 million to repair the roof of the Smithsonian in D.C. and $336 million for Amtrak. Other money targeted private ventures, such as fisheries in Alaska. Such expenditures are called pork-barrel spending, earmarks, or simply pork. These terms refer to the appropriation and redirection of government money toward projects in a representatives district, often to benefit his supporters. The pork is usually slipped into an unconnected bill as a line item. This allows it to bypass the standard review received by an independent, separate funding request. The watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste declares, Cases of out -and-out bribery are rare. But pork-barrel spending is a form of corruption, where tax dollars are dolled out on the basis of political favoritism and to advance the careers of Washington insiders. The corruption is exacerbated by a lack of transparency and by pressure from powerful lobbyists who represent special interests. The American public is generally disgusted by pork-barrel spending. But some politicians defend the secretive splurging, calling it the American way. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (DNev.) argues that pork spending has been common since we were a country. Is this true? The history of the American pork barrel The phrase pork-barrel spending is said to derive from a practice of antebellum slaveholders; they would give a barrel of salt pork to their slaves, who scrambled and fought with each other for a share. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the term acquired its political meaning in the early 1870s. Websters traces the American usage back to the turn of the 20th century. Advocates draw upon two clauses from article 1, section 8 of the United States Constitution for legitimacy. The first is called the general-welfare clause. It states, The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States. Pork is said to provide for general welfare, and thus to be permitted by this clause. The second is the so-called postal clause. It authorizes Congress to establish post offices and post roads as a way to expedite interstate communication. This is now construed to give the federal government the power to appropriate money for public works. (The expenses not covered by section 8 were left to the states. The Tenth Amendment later clarified, The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.) Senator Reid is correct in that pork has been around since the first Congress. Up until the 1980s, however, it was not widespread, and it was often discouraged. Some Founding Fathers were uncomfortable even with the funding of postal roads. In a 1796 letter to James Madison, who is often called the father of the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson argued against the postal clause. Have you considered all the consequences of your proposition respecting post roads? I view it as a source of boundless patronage to the executive, jobbing to members of Congress & their friends, and a bottomless abyss of public money. You will begin by only appropriating the surplus of the post office revenues; but the other revenues will soon be called into their aid, and it will be a source of eternal scramble among the members, who can get the most money wasted in their State; and they will always get most who are meanest. The first Congress (1790) authorized pork in the form of $1,500 to complete a lighthouse in Maine, which was then part of Massachusetts. The expenditure had the active support of President George Washington and of Rep. George Thatcher of Massachusetts. On constitutional grounds, however, the same Congress rejected a bill to aid a glass manufacturer. Perhaps the second bill lacked presidential support. Contrary to Reids suggestion, however, pork-barrel spending did not become common practice. The second Congress solidly rejected a cod fishery bill intended to assist New Englanders. The South Carolina representative Hugh Williamson argued that the Constitution had anticipated the time might come, when, by greater cohesion, by more unanimity, by more address, the representatives of one part of the Union might attempt to impose unequal taxes, or to relieve their constituents at the expense of the people.

He pointed to constitutional provisions that clearly indicated Congress might not have the power to gratify one part of the Union by oppressing another. Moreover, Williamson claimed the bill would set a dangerous precedent: it would establish a breach, into which it is not a few fishermen that will enter, claiming ten or twelve thousand dollars, but all manner of persons; people of every trade and occupation until they have eaten up the bread of our children. Subsequent presidents tended to agree with Williamson even when Congress did not. In 1817, President Madison vetoed an earmark aimed at funding a national system of roads and waterways because he did not believe the general-welfare clause permitted it. He concludedthat special-interest issues like internal improvements inexorably corrupted the legislative process. The next president, James Monroe, vetoed a bill to construct a national road. Unlike Madison, he believed the Constitution empowered Congress to appropriate funds, but he argued for an explicit amendment covering internal improvements. Monroe wanted federal power confined to great national works only, since if it were unlimited it would be liable to abuse and might be productive of evil. Anything other than great national works were the responsibility of the individual states. From its earliest years, Congress has been torn between those who pursue pork and those who resist it. Until recently, the latter generally prevailed. Indeed, during his two terms, President Grover Cleveland was dubbed the Veto President for using that power 584 times; he rejected hundreds of spending bills for which he found no constitutional authority. In 1887, after vetoing a disaster-relief bill to assist drought-stricken farmers in Texas, he stated, The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellowcitizens in misfortune.. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood. The turning point on pork seems to have come in the 1980s during the Reagan years. Citizens Against Government Waste observes, Even as federal power vastly expanded during the twentieth century, Congress did not earmark extensively until the 1980s. Instead, Congress would fund general grant programs and let federal and state agencies select individual recipients through a competitive process or formula. The House and Senate Appropriations Committees named specific projects only when they had been vetted and approved by authorizing committees. Members of Congress with local concerns would lobby the president and federal agencies for consideration. The process was aimed at preventing abuse and allocating resources on the basis of merit and need. When the procedure changed, the floodgates opened. In his book Funding Science in America: Congress, Universities, and the Politics of the Academic Pork Barrel, James D. Savage discusses just one form of pork: academic earmarks. He dates the first such earmark back to 1977 (for Tufts University). According to Savage, federal earmarks per year for academic institutions then rose from 7 in 1980 to 499 in 1992. The Heritage Foundation offered a more general overview: Between FY [fiscal year] 1985 and FY 1999, the growth in annual earmarks increased substantially faster between 25 to 1,000 times faster in most cases than inflation-adjusted federal domestic discretionary spending. The number of earmarks in five of the 13 appropriations bills doubled between FY 1998 and FY 1999. The abuse of earmarks has increased with the popularity of the omnibus bill that is, a package of several appropriations bills merged into one. An omnibus bill typically patches together hundreds of last-minute compromises, insertions, and deletions. The resulting measure is so mammoth and rushed that members of Congress usually vote on it before reading it. Conclusion Over the last decade, there have been several attempts to stop the growth of earmarks. But pork continues, because its critics have focused on reform, not elimination. For example, the AntiPork Act of 2010 tried to require those seeking earmarks to submit a written statement averring that the earmark met specific requirements. In July 2010, the bill was referred to a House committee, where it remains. Even if effective anti-pork measures were to pass, many tactics could be used to bypass them. On June 8, 2007, McClatchy newspaper reported, As the House Appropriations Committee met last week to consider four massive spending bills, something was missing: congressional

earmarks. The earmarks were missing because the Democrats had pledged to overhaul the pork system. McClatchy added, It would appear that the era of the earmark is over. Or maybe not. The maybe not referred to the announced intention of the House interior appropriations subcommittee to attach earmarks when House-Senate conference committees meet to hammer out the final versions of the bills. At that point, the final bill could not be amended but would receive only a yes or a no vote. This prospect prompted thenminority House leader John Boehner to protest, What theyve done is set up a system where you cant get at earmarks; you cant eliminate them. Efforts to reform pork are futile, and they give a misleading appearance of fiscal prudence. It was pork-barrel spending to which H.L. Mencken referred in stating, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods. Giving politicians the power to grant patronage is an inherent evil and a guarantee of abuse. Jefferson was prophetic. Pork-barrel spending causes an eternal scramble among representatives to buy support in their home states. As Jefferson warned, they will always get most who are meanest.

The misuse of the pork barrelpublic funds that finance pet projects of lawmakers appears to have continued on the watch of President Aquino, with huge amounts being funneled into bogus nongovernment organizations (NGOs). Between 2010 and 2012, some P500 million of pork went to fake NGOs through the state-owned Philippine Forest Corp., the office of Agriculture Secretary Proceso Alcala and National Agribusiness Corp. (Nabcor), documents obtained by the Inquirer showed. Philippine Forest Corp. is the agroforestry arm of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), while Nabcor is the agriculture departments corporate subsidiary. The NGOs do not belong to the network of fake NGOs that fugitive Janet Lim-Napoles had set up to receive P10 billion from the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), the official name of pork barrel, of five members of the Senate and 23 members of the House of Representatives over the past 10 years. The Inquirer reported on Aug. 16 that seven fake NGOs allegedly controlled by Napoles had cornered close to P1 billion in pork barrel of five senators and eight representatives that was coursed mainly through National Livelihood Development Corp., the microfinancing arm of Land Bank of the Philippines. Roughly half of the funds were released between 2010 and 2012. Commission on Audit (COA) chair Gracia Pulido-Tan said her team would release soon the special audit on Philippine Forest Corp., which received P428.5 million in pork barrel for the production of jatropha as biodiesel feedstock. Sen. Gregorio Gringo Honasan II accounted for P195 million of the pork that was facilitated by Philippine Forest Corp. to nine NGOs. These were the Focus on Development Goals Foundation Inc. (FDGFI), Interactive Training Opportunity on Needs Alleviation Movements Inc., Kapusot Kapamilya Foundation Inc. (KKFI), Livedures Foundation Inc., Maharlikang Lipi Foundation Inc., Philippine Environment and Ecological Development Corp., Pangkabuhayan Foundation Inc. (PFI), Kabuhayan at Kalusugan Alay sa Masa Inc. and Workphil Foundation Inc. (WFI). Honasan, who did not reply to the Inquirer query, gave P100 million in December 2011 and another P40 million in August 2011 to the FDGFI; P50 million to the WFI in February 2011; and P5 million to the PFI in December 2010. Both the KKFI and the PFI were among the 82 questionable NGOs that a COA special audit of pork barrel from 2007 and 2009 said received at least P6.165 billion in the PDAF of 12 senators and 180 House members. Another senator, Manuel Lapid, gave P5 million of his pork to the FDGFI in June 2011. House pork via PFC The House members who gave pork to Philippine Forest Corp. were Antonio T. Kho of Masbate (P30 million), Salvador P. Cabaluna II and Michael Angelo Rivera of the 1-CARE party-list group (P22.5 million each), Reynaldo V. Umali of Oriental Mindoro (P15 million), Jose Benjamin

Benaldo of Cagayan de Oro (P15 million), Nicanor Briones of the Agap party-list group (P13 million); Emil Ong of Northern Samar (P13 million), Peter Unabia of Misamis Oriental (P12 million), Hadjiman Hataman-Salliman of Basilan (P11 million), Joel Roy Duavit of Rizal (P10 million), Eduardo Gullas of Cebu (P9 million), Ramon H. Durano VI of Cebu (P9 million); Nancy Catamco of North Catabato (P9 million), Marc Douglas Cagas IV of Davao del Sur (P7 million), Jesus Emmanuel Paras of Bukidnon (P5 million), Potenciano Payuyo of the Apec partylist group (P5 million), Isabelle Climaco of Zamboanga City (P4 million), Nelson Dayanghirang of Davao Oriental (P4 million); Robert Raymund M. Estrella of the Abono party-list group (P3 million), Rodolfo Valencia of Oriental Mindoro (P3 million), Yevgeny Vicente B. Emano of Misamis Oriental (P3 million), Teoderico Haresco of the Kasangga party-list group (P1.5 million), Jose Aquino II of Agusan del Norte (P1 million) and Franklin Bautista of Davao del Sur (P1 million). Paje against practice Environment Secretary Ramon Paje said he had questioned the practice of legislators releasing their PDAF directly to a state company, Philippine Forest Corp. Paje said this should not be allowed because this would undermine the national budget allocations approved by Congress. He said that as a policy, he had rejected any PDAF releases through the DENR although P11 million in pork was already processed in 2010 when he took over. The Inquirer also obtained documents showing a list of at least a dozen NGOs that received pork from lawmakers from 2011 to 2012, with the office of Alcala and Nabcor as the designated implementing entities. Four NGOs obtained P30.809 million in 2011, with the bulk of P29.1 million going to the Sagip Buhay People Support Foundation Inc. (from Honasan and former Akbayan Rep. Risa Hontiveros) through Nabcor. The balance was coursed through the Kaagapay Magpakailanman Foundation Inc., P1.402 million (Nabcor); Visca Foundation for Agricultural and Rural Development Inc., P519,000 (Department of Agriculture-Office of the Secretary); Consortium for the Advancement of Peoples Participation, P650,000 (DA-OSec); and Gateway East Foundation Inc., P540,000 (DA-OSec). Gateway East Foundation used the money as financial assistance for the dissemination of a desk calendar, 12 Good Reasons Why You Should Use Bayong. Seven NGOs Last year, the agriculture department processed P53.6 million worth of pork to at least nine NGOs. Coprahan at Gulayan Foundation Inc. eceived P750,000 from former Agham Rep. Angelo Palmones. Gabay at Pag-Asa ng Masa Foundation got P1.5 million from Rep. Renato Unico of Camarines Norte, P1.659 million from Rep. Abigail Faye Ferriol of the Kalinga party-list group, P1.26 million from Rep. Anthony T. Golez of Bacolod City, P225,000 from Rep. Eduardo R. Gullas of Cebu, P600,000 from Rep. Rodante Marcoleta of the Alagad partylist group, P525,000 from Rep. Renato Unico Jr. of Camarines Norte and P1.5 million from Rep. Julieta Cortuna of the A-Teacher party-list group. Kaakbay Buhay Foundation Inc. received from Representatives Nur Ana Sahidula of Sulu (P750,000), Bai Sandra Sema of Maguindanao (P750,000) and Jim S. Salliman Hataman of Basilan (P750,000). Kabuhayan at Kalusugang Alay sa Masa Foundation Inc. got from Representatives Gullas (P1.425 million), Julio Ledesma of Negros Occidental (P1.35 million), Abigail Faye Ferriol of the Kalinga party-list group (P1.74 million), Marcoleta (P3 million), Mariano U. Piamonte Jr. of the A-Teacher party-list group (P1.5 million) and Gabriel Luis R. Quisumbing of Cebu (P900,000). Kasangga sa Magandang Bukas Foundation Inc. received from Representatives Leopoldo Bataoil of Pangasinan (P2.044 million), Quisumbing (P750,000), Cortuna (P600,000), Sherwin Tugna of Citizens Battle Against Corruption (P300,000), Maria Valentian Plaza of Agusan del

Sur (P750,000), Irwin Tieng of the Buhay party-list group (P300,000), Isidro T. Ungab of Davao City (P1.125 million) and Monique Yazmin Q. Lagdameo (P1.2 million). From unnamed legislators, National Corn Competitiveness Group Inc. got P11.764 million; Philippine Maize Federation Inc., P1 million; Ploughshares Inc., P1.5 million; and UP Los Baos Foundation Inc., P12.1 milion. Various NGOs received P25.27 million from Sarangani Rep. Erwin Chiongbian. These transactions were on top of the P89.2 million worth of pork funds from eight representatives in the 15th Congress who used a Napoles-owned NGO, Kaupdanan para sa Mangunguma Foundation Inc., to implement the projects under Alcalas watch, according to testimony by pork barrel scam whistle-blowers Benhur Luy and Merlina Suas. Alcala confirmed that P83.2 million went to Kaupdanan and only P38.2 million had been released as of last month. Tighter DA accreditation He claimed that the agriculture department had tightened its accreditation of NGOs eligible for its projects since 2011 (owing to the anomalous use of pork uncovered by the COA), but he could not explain how a Napoles NGO had managed to be included on the list. Alcala has refused to reveal the complete list of NGOs sanctioned by his department despite repeated requests by the Inquirer. He was reprimanded by President Aquino for promoting Ophelia P. Agawin to assistant secretary in 2012 despite her role as an accountant in the P432million fertilizer scam engineered by former Agriculture Undersecretary Jocelyn Joc -Joc Bolante. Charges against Agawin was dropped and she remained with the agriculture departments division handling the accreditation of NGOs. Agawin is currently suspended, but his boss, Undersecretary Antonio Fleta, a protg of Alcala, remains the head of the departments finance division, the same post occ upied by Bolante. Senators and representatives have invariably denied any dealings with the NGOs claiming their signatures were faked or they were not responsible for monitoring the NGOs implementation of these projects that they claimed was the responsibility of implementing agencies. Last week, the Liberal Party secretary general, Eastern Samar Rep. Senen Sarmiento, said the P10-billion pork barrel scam involving Napoles and 28 senators and House members happened before the Aquino administration implemented reforms. The official of the ruling party said the use of the pork barrel had been judicious and strictly regulated since 2010. Faced with a growing public outrage over the corruption-ridden PDAF and calls for its abolition, President Aquino scrapped the fund. He, however, did not abolish the pork barrel as this would be included as line items in the proposed 2014 national budget. Under the new scheme, lawmakers will identify the specific projects for the line-item budget, a process different from the PDAF scheme in which they get lump-sum amounts that they could use to fund their pet projects. Originally posted: 9:05 pm | Sunday, August 25th, 2013 I really dont know what to make of it, but an article from Rappler says that at least 15 lawmakers allied with the Aquino administration are also involved in the P10 Billion Pork Barrel Scam. The names left out by Benhur Luy, the self-confessed bagman of an alleged public fund syndicate, include 15 who are now allied with the Aquino administration, Rappler learned. They are: 1 former senator whose son ran under the administrations Team PNoy last May 8 turncoats who are now with the Presidents Liberal Party 2 party-list representatives who are with the administration 4 who have long been with the LP I can only guess why this bit of information has surfaced surfaced weeks after the story broke in the Philippine Daily Inquirer and after the names of five senators were accused of being beneficiaries of the pork barrel scam, some of whom are regarded as President Aquinos political enemies.

These are senators Juan Ponce Enrile, Ramon Bong Revilla Jr, Ferdinand Bongbong Marcos Jr, Jinggoy Estrada, and Gregorio Honasan II. One clue that came up in the deluge of articles on the P10 Billion Pork Barrel Scam is the insinuation that the whole story had been propped up and pumped through Malacanang Palace propaganda machinery to distract as well as get back at Aquinos enemies for the alleged Ballsy Aquino $30 Million extortion try story. Including the names of lawmakers allied with the Aquino Administration in the P10 Billion could possibly be a good way to lay the predicate for a possible refutation of the insinuation that it could be revenge assuming itll be probed by either legislature or the executive or a constitutional body. It is a funny to think though that senators and congressmen could conduct a probe on their peers use of the pork barrel fund, considering that its quite possible that almost all lawmakers may have committed indiscretions with their funds. Itll be a TV fiesta of pots calling kettles black ugh! Then again, if a congressional probe might look like a sh*t storm, the whole scam story from the start didnt have the usual complexion of other scam stories where the whistle -blower was characterized as somewhat of a do-gooder fed up by corruption. At the center of the P10 Billion scam is a certain Benhur Luy, who by his own admission, had been somewhat central to the perpetration of the pork barrel scam. Also, in various reports, it seems Luys credibility has been quite damaged by accusations drug-use and reports of an arrest warrant issued against Luy by the Pasig Regional Trial for qualified theft involving P300,000. While most of the reports on the P10 Billion pork barrel scam have been quite dignified expositions of facts and analysis, one thing that caught my eye was a rather gutter level personal attack perpetrated by a certain journalist and former official of the National Press Club named Berteni Toto Causing. While most of his peers seem to have reported on the pork barrel scam with a good measure of decency, Causing came up with a post on his personal blog (www.totocausing.blogspot.com) which seems to go against journalist ethics and standards. In a post titled Meet girl in extremely-costly lifestyles using some of P10-B pork barrel of the people?, Causing accuses Jeanne Lim -Napoles using proceeds from the scam to support her lavish lifestyle. Jeanne is the the daughter of Janet Lim-Napoles whom Luy alleges is the mastermind of the P10 Billion pork barrel scam. Causing writes: This daughter of the mother f*cker should know she wears all the money out of the blood of poor Filipinos. Where is the conscience of this girl? Like her mother, she must be f*cked to prison, too, and all her signature apparels confiscated as unexplained wealth. Going beyond Causings the gutter talk, the former National Press Club official should have put out evidence (documents, affidavits, etcetera) that would prove Jeanne had used money skimmed off from pork barrel funds to support her lavish lifestyle. Alas, nothing in Causings blog post shows anything of the sort. A gay friend who read Causings post remarked that the vileness of the words used against Napoles daughter tended to make the whole P10 Billion pork barrel scam appear like away bakla. He said, Hay nakuh! Mukhang overblown na away bakla lang yan. Ang bakla, lalaban ng siraan ng buhay and thats what it looks like to me. Theyll say anything and everything, even invent outright lies to destroy the life of their enemy. Apart from that, isa pang tell-tale sign is the kampi-kampihan that happens! Did you see that news report of Eddie Badeo? My gawd ewan ko ha, pero there are stories going around that he asks for advances for design work but doesnt deliver the goods!! Kalurkey! Anyway, if ever the P10 billion pork barrel scam gets air-play during a congressional probe hearing, I just hope it focuses on exposing the real problems of government fund use and not on this gutter level mud slinging. Pork-barrel scam: a billion per year for ten years POSTED BY CMFR || 26 JULY 2013

CHEERS TO the Philippine Daily Inquirer for a six-part investigative series that revived public interest in and widespread discussion on the pork barrel, which for years has been the object of claims that it is a major source of corruption. The subject of the report was the alleged P10billion development funds scam by a syndicate using bogus non-government organizations (NGOs) to obtain funds for ghost projects. The Inquirer reported that a Janet Lim Napoles, with her brother Reynald Jojo Lim, who run the trading company JLN Corp., siphoned into their private accounts public money from the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), or pork barrel, of five senators and 23 members of the House of Representatives. The Inquirer based its story on interviews with, and the sworn affidavits submitted to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) by, six whistleblowers. The issue came to light when an NBI special task force rescued alleged kidnap victim and principal witness to the scam Benhur K. Luy, who was supposedly being detained by Napoles and Lim. Luy was Napoles distant cousin and personal assistant. The other five whistleblowers also worked in JLN Corp. The first part of the series focused on the statement of the whistleblowers and allegations against JLN Corp. The whistleblowers, assisted by their lawyer Levito Baligod, prepared and submitted to the NBI sworn affidavits stating that JLN Corp. had defrauded the government of billions of pesos in ghost projects involving the creation of at least 20 bogus nongovernment organizations. In an interview with the Inquirer, Luy said that JLN offered to lawmakers commissions equivalent to 40 to 60 percent of the amount of PDAF in exchange for the right to determine the implementing agency and fund beneficiary. (NBI probes P10-B scam, July 12) The second part of the series presented Napoles side. Napoles declared that the charges against her and her family were false, fabricated, and a mere product of lies perpetrated by business competitors conspiring with corrupt agents of the National Bureau of Investigation with the ulterior motive of besmirching our reputation. (I am not involved in any scam, July 13) The third part looked at how the syndicate allegedly converted billions of pesos in government funds into kickbacks. According to the Inquirer report, Napoles established dummy NGOs to serve as recipients of the funds and named her own employees, including a nanny, as presidents of these outfits. The report added that (t)he funds, which were deposited in the foundations bank accounts, were eventually remitted to her to be split between her and the lawmaker whose PDAF allotment was used, or the official of the state agency involved. (How P10-B racket works, July 14) The fourth part named the five senators and 23 House representatives who were allegedly involved in the scam. Sen. Ramon Bong Revilla Jr. topped the list of senators and reportedly gave the syndicate access to his pork barrel to dummy NGOs in 22 instances; followed by Senators Juan Ponce-Enrile on 21 occasions; Jinggoy Estrada, 18 times; Ferdinand Marcos Jr., four; and Gringo Honasan, once with a small amount. The Inquirer also identified the top four of the 23 House representatives linked to the pork barrel scam: Topping the list of 23 House representatives is Rizalina Seachon-Lanete of Masbates third district, who allowed her pork to be used 13 times; followed by Conrado Estrella III of Pangasinans 6th district and Rodolfo Plaza of Agusan del Sur, both nine occasions; and Samuel Dangwa, of Benguet, eight. Also in the report are the banks accounts of the bogus NGOs and of Napoles as well as properties acquired in the course of the scheme. (28 solons linked to scam, July 15) The fifth part revealed that (a)t least P900 million from royalties in the operation of the Malampaya gas project off Palawan province intended for agrarian reform beneficiaries has gone into a dummy nongovernment organization (NGO). The report identified the 12 dummy NGOs that were made recipients of the Malampaya funds. (Malampaya fund lost P900M in JLN racket, July 16) In the last part, the Inquirer published Luys own account of his kidnapping. The paper also published the letter of Luys lawyer to Justice Secretary Leila de Lima saying: This case initially appeared to me as simple case of serious illegal detention. However, a further interview of witnesses revealed that the victim was being detained to ensure that nobody could directly implicate the above persons with the ongoing issues on the fertilizer scam, Malampaya Fund, and anomalies in the implementation of several PDAF-funded projects. (Napoles: We control govt, July 17)

For background, the Inquirer reminded the readers of Napoles connection to the P728-million fertilizer fund scam and the misuse of the P1.782-billion Malampaya fund. As informative as it was, the investigative series fell short of providing an in-depth discussion of pork barrel politics. However, the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) did a follow-up report on the vulnerability of the pork barrel to abuse and to corruption. The PCIJ report noted that allies of the current administration and some political dynasties get most of the PDAF. The funds are distributed to vote-rich areas contrary to the purpose of the fund to assure equity in access to public funds. The report noted the lack of transparency and accountability in the system: Under the pork system, the known tasks of lawmakers are only to identify what projects they want funded at the start and monitor and sign on to project completion, at the end. Of course, in between they get to plaster their names and faces on project tarps or propaganda, to make sure voters remember them come election time. Whatever else lawmakers do, or how they exact commissions from pork funds, are secret, typically paperless transactions. There are also pork-like funds in the national budget that are prone to corruption because the disbursement details are seldom disclosed to the public and the funds seldom accounted for. In a previous PCIJ interview, then Sen. Panfilo Lacson, who has refused to accept pork barrel funds, said the standard commission and/or kickback of a legislator ranges from 20 to 50 percent from every PDAF-funded project, and that around 50 percent of all pork funds are what might be called the good pork that translates into some service to the citizens. (Pork, lumpsums, and President PNoy: Scam, no! PDAF a mafia of executive & legislature, July 21) Another follow-up report by Rappler.com released the first part of a series linking prominent administration allies to the pork barrel scam, among them: a former senator whose son ran under the administrations Team PNoy last May eight turncoats who are now with the Presidents Liberal Party (LP) two party-list representatives who are with the administration four members of Congress who have long been with the LP Rappler scrutinized PDAF releases to other agencies and government corporations as well as Commission on Audit reports, and found that the allegations made by Luy in the affidavit he recently submitted to the justice department make up but a small part of a larger anomaly. NAPOLES SURRENDER Malacaang announced that Janet Lim Napoles has surrendered and is now under the custody of Interior Secretary Mar Roxas. Napoles, the alleged brains behind the P10-billion pork barrel scam, turned herself in at past 9 p.m. A Malacaang statement posted on the website of the Official Gazette confirmed this. At 9:37 p.m. on August 28, Janet Napoles surrendered to President Aquino. Napoles is wanted on charges of serious illegal detention arising from the alleged kidnapping of Benhur Luy. The President turned her over to the custody of Interior and Local Government Secretary Mar Roxas and Philippine National Police Director-General Alan Purisima for processing and booking, Secretary Edwin Lacierda, the presidents spokesman, said. Earlier yesterday, President Aquino announced a P10-million reward for Napoles capture. The President announced the bounty on the sidelines of the 8th East Asia Conference on Competition Law and Policy at the Sofitel Philippine Plaza Hotel in Pasay City. P10 million is the reward for any information leading to the arrest of Ms Napoles, the President told reporters. Napoles and her brother Reynald Lim disappeared before authorities could serve arrest warrants on them on Aug. 14 for the alleged kidnapping of Napoles aide and cousin Benhur Luy. Luy and other members of Napoles staff blew the whistle on the conversion of P10 billion in lawmakers priority development assistance fund into kickbacks by Napoles and her company using dummy foundations, bogus beneficiaries and forged signatures of officials. The President warned people helping Napoles hide from the law. Harboring of a fugitive is a crime; obstruction of justice is a crime , he said, but expressed confidence that the authorities would collar her soon. SOCIAL FUNDS

The President also scoffed at calls for the abolition of his Social Fund that is used to aid families of slain soldiers and policemen, but he vowed to account for the fund. Aquino said the calls were puzzling because the Presidents Social Fund (PSF), which came from the revenue of the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corp. (Pagcor), has not been misused during his watch. Have you noticed that nobodys talking about the misuse of the Presidents Social Fund? But theyre asking that it be stopped. You dont understand whats the logic there, he told reporters. Besides, the President said he has been tapping the PSF to provide assistance to the spouses and children, especially those of school age, of soldiers and policemen who were wounded or killed in combat or anti-crime campaign. Part of it would also pay for the hospitalization of the wounded officers and men, and fund the education of the children of the slain soldiers and policemen, he said. But given the strident calls for its abolition, Aquino said he would instruct the Presidential Management Staff to disclose details of where it was spent and how much of it remained. After all, this has been prudently spent, he added. The abolition of the PSF was among the calls made by some of the tens of thousands who rallied at Rizal Park in Manila last Monday to rail against misuse of the pork barrel fund. The President announced the abolition of the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), a pork barrel, on Aug. 23 but failed to stop the mammoth rally on Aug. 26. He said the PDAF would be replaced by line-item budgeting in which lawmakers would identify their pet projects. Public outrage boiled over in the wake of newspaper and state auditors reports about the large scale misuse of the lump sum fund at the disposal of senators and members of the House of Representatives over the years. Malacaang earlier said that the PSF should not be treated as a pork barrel because it was not part of the national budget but was mainly funded by revenue from Pagcor. The President reiterated that the special purpose fund, estimated at P450 billion in the proposed P2.268-trillion 2014 national budget, could be itemized to a point. Were open to that, he said. But then, for instance, how do you itemize the cal amity fund before the calamity strikes? You should have a standby fund for any disaster that of course we cant predict. The President also defended the role of lawmakers to scrutinize the national budget proposed by the executive department as part of the system of checks and balances. I hope I got your question right. I have heard proposals to remove the role of Congress in the budget, he said. Thats in the Constitution. If you remove that and perhaps entrust that to me, that means theres trust in me. Thank you. But what if my successor is abusive? Wheres the check and balance? Thats the role of Congress. Not one person dictates. And the representative should represent the interest of his constituents, he added. Under the Constitution, the three main branches have division of powers to insulate the system of checks and balances from abuse, according to Aquino. CONDUITS Provincial capitols, city halls, and barangay halls have also been used by senators and representatives as conduits in the multi-billion peso pork barrel scam apart from the fake nongovernment organizations and conniving state agencies favored. The recent Commission on Audits (COA) special report on PDAF released between 2007 and 2009 showed that at least P1.289 billion released through nine cities, six provinces and 109 barangays violated state procurement rules. Only 82 percent of these transactions were backed with documents that the COA considered questionable while the remaining 18 percent or P234.213 million had no disbursement vouchers at all. / INQUIRER

PDAF and padrinos: Why the pork barrel must go By David Dizon, ABS-CBNnews.com Posted at 08/26/2013 8:59 PM | Updated as of 08/26/2013 8:59 PM

Randy David: Pork protest a success for social media MANILA The Million People March for the scrapping of the pork barrel may not have gathered a million warm bodies but it was a big enough crowd to show that movements sparked via social media cannot be ignored, political analyst Randy David said Monday. Its really a metaphorical way of referring to something that we want to be massive and as crowds go, this was big enough. I think it's just the beginning. Besides, we should take into account not just the people in Luneta today but also the people who gathered in other public squares around the country and in the rest of the world where Filipinos are. I think it is a tremendous success and I am certain it is just the beginning. It is a way of telling our political leaders that we are here. We are watching you, he told ANCs Top Story. Calls for the million people march started circulating on Facebook and Twitter earlier this month following a series of news reports on a P10 billion scam involving the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) of lawmakers. Jonas de los Reyes, Socialytics co-founder and managing director, said online outrage over the scam reached fever pitch after a blog and video of Jeane Napoles' ritzy lifestyle went viral. Napoles is the daughter of businesswoman Janet Lim Napoles, alleged mastermind of the scam. Various lawmakers have washed their hands of the alleged pork barrel scam despite the statements of whistle-blowers and a Commission on Audit report on the pork barrel anomalies. In the interview with ANC, David said he is dissatisfied with Malacaangs response to the pork barrel scandal. He said the Palace response was too calibrated. When the Napoles P10 billion pork barrel scam first hit the headlines, I was quite disappointed with the reaction of Malacaang. Essentially, Malacaang was saying a lot of good has happened from the use of the PDAF. And then that was replaced by 'Let's prosecute those who have abused the PDAF.' And then last Friday, the President said let's abolish the PDAF but in the same breath, the President was also saying that whatever has been appropriated so far or will be appropriated for 2014 will now be itemized in a line itemized way. The legislators will still be given the privilege of electing and suggesting their own projects. Well, it was a little too late. Maybe if he had said that in his [State of the Nation Address], it might have been applauded as a heroic, courageous, very modern statesman way of running a government but it is one month too late. Besides, given the magnitude of the reaction to the allegations of abuse of the pork barrel, it was inadequate. Not bold enough as a response. He also said Aquino failed to capitalize on the publics expression of vigilance and outrage especially since his own rule has not been tainted by corruption. I would think that if I were the President, wala kang record ng corruption, you have a high moral standing in the political community, you have high approval and trust ratings. You should draw further strength from this manifestation of public anger in order to initiate bolder reforms instead of looking at it as somehow threatening you or feeling that it is being directed against you, he said. One reason, David believes, why Aquino has not been as strong in his statements against the pork barrel scam is because the President may have spoken too soon about the controversy not affecting his own administration. He said that while the worst of the scam might have happened during the Arroyo presidency, it would be premature to say that it did not continue under Aquino. The worse forms of pork barrel abuse might have really taken place during the time of former president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. It was a transactional presidency and pork barrel was a very convenient tool for accomplishing your transactional goals but to say that it does not happen, did not happen in the last 3 years, I think that is totally baseless, he said. I would like to see COA [Commission on Audit] reports from 2010 -2012. I am quite certain that Napoles-type scams were also taking place and the reason for that is very simple. When you have lump sum appropriations that you offer to legislators both in Congress and in the Senate, that is practically an invitation, a temptation. Dati dati the misuse or so called misuse of the pork barrel took the form only of overpricing or the use of inferior materials or suggesting suppliers or contractors who would somehow pay you a kickback of 5%-10%. If you have an opening like that, you will have Napoles-types of characters who would pledge to the legislator: I'll fix this for you and you get 60%-70%. Pork barrel feeds padrino system In the interview, David said there is ample reason why Filipinos should push for the abolition of the Priority Development Assistance Fund of lawmakers.

He said the pork barrel system has always been a kind of concession or accommodation of politicians so that they can play their role as padrinos. He said that in the past, the use of the PDAF was very limited and subject to bidding rules and submission of very detailed project proposals that are subject to strict monitoring. These rules were later set aside and allowed lawmakers to name which non-government organizations (NGOs) should get their PDAF. David rejected the reasoning of some lawmakers that they can determine which of their constituents should get scholarships, medical assistance and other funds. Kayo bang mga senador at kongresista - do you have really the capability to examine who needs dialysis? Who needs scholarships? Do you have the staff to do that? What criteria do you use? Why don't you give that to people who have the staff and the professional training to determine who is actually in need? He also rejected the reasoning of some lawmakers that they could not verify if the NGOs receiving millions of pesos of their pork barrel funds were legitimate. Alam naman nila what kind of NGOs these are. When you give hundreds of millions of pesos to NGOs, you have to at least know the records of these NGOs. That is why the real development NGOs are up in arms because in a sense, the scandal has also stigmatized them and many of them have done good work, he said. David lamented the current legal and institutional systems in the country are "too advanced" for the countrys political culture. Our legal system and even our Constitution is very, very democratic and modern and yet the whole social and political context in which these institutions is made to operate is very backward and very feudal so there is a disconnect between your institutional systems and the kind of society we have. It is a very hierarchical society that is really spit between the very powerful and rich and the poor and powerless. It is a society that encourages precisely the patronage system, he said. However, he also noted that the reason why pork barrel should be scrapped completely is already built into the Constitution. He said the role of Congress is not to disperse a portion of the national budget to constituents but to look at the budget proposal from the executive and debate policy implications. These include allocations for defense, education, infrastructure and even scholarships. David said lawmakers should criticize any form of partisanship that has entered the drafting of a budget. How can they perform that function if they are interested in recommending their own projects? It is a conflict of interest situation. The power of social media David said one way to break the political patronage system is to break the cycle of poverty in the country. He said freeing Filipinos from economic dependency will lead to a break from dependency on political patrons. He also said Filipinos, especially the masses, must be empowered with information. He noted that many of those who congregated in Luneta today are hooked into the information loop. You have to give them the will and encourage them. It is to capacitate people to have the will, readiness and moral courage to inspect, monitor and criticize if necessary. You cannot expect that from very, very poor people who are out of the information loop. That is why most of the people who are in Luneta are those who are connected to the internet. They are the informed people but during elections, they constitute a minority. The majority are those who are peripheralized from the circuits of national life, whether you are talking about information, wealth or power. These are the clients of the patrons, he said. David said todays protest was started by informed people who are calling for a complete modernization or overhaul of the political system and getting rid of the political system of patronage, which is also at the root of the political dynasties. He also said the march could be the start of more social media-led movements similar to the ones in Brazil and Turkey. David described social media-led movements as very volatile but can be the core of really massive change. There is a tendency, I think, of the political class to underestimat e the power of social-mediadriven movementsYou might think it is insignificant but (in other countries) it started with families bringing their children, pitching tents and picnics like what you have this afternoon.

You take a picture today, post it online and a relative sees it in America. The Internet in other words has made communications one and global and instant and real-time. What kind of power does that imply for movements, for protest movements? It is tremendous. Nobody has grasped the full implications, not even the Left, I would say, he said. 5 senators gave P1.45 billion to NGOs by Chi Almario-Gonzalez, ABS-CBN News Posted at 08/21/2013 3:58 AM | Updated as of 08/21/2013 3:58 AM MANILA - The top five senators who used their Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) or their pork barrel funds from 2007 to 2009 were Senators Ramon "Bong" Revilla, Jr., Juan Ponce Enrile, Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada, Edgardo Angara and Gregorio Honasan. This is according to a tally from as special audit report of the Commission on Audit (COA) on the use of PDAF from 2007 to 2009. Under Annex A of the COA report, Revilla requested use of his pork barrel eight times, with a total of P503.85 million. Enrile requested use of his PDAF 14 times with a total of P469.3 million while Estrada requested use of his PDAF seven times with a total amount of P286.8 million. Angara requested use of his PDAF six times with a total amount of P150.51 million while Honasan requested use of his PDAF three times with a total amount of P74.8 million. The total PDAF of the five senators transferred to NGOs is P1.45 billion. Most of these NGOs are linked to Janet Napoles, alleged mastermind of the pork barrel scam. The five senators are part of the list of legislators who transferred their PDAF to 82 questionable NGOs. COA found the transfer of a total of P6.15 billion "not proper and highly irregular." The list showed that the PDAF of the five senators were also released for implementation of the projects to similar agencies. These agencies are the National Livelihood Development Corp. (NLDC), Technology Livelihood Center (TRC), and the National Agribusiness Corp. (Nabcor). The Department of Agriculture, which accepted the requests for project implementation, referred the PDAF to the agencies. Aggravating the clear violation of law in the release of funds to NGOs, these NGOs were not even selected in accordance with the Guidelines on Participation of NGOs in Public Procurement, COA said. Of the total P6.15 billion PDAF transferred to the 82 NGOs, COA found that top agencies that released the pork barrel funds were Nabcor which released P1.2 billion, Znac Rubber Estate Corp. with PP282 million; Department of Agriculture RFUs with P31 million; DSWD with P748 million, TRC with P2.4 billion; NLDC with P1.295billion, and the Quezon City government with P177 million. The COA report criticized these agencies for transferring funds and letting the NGOs implement the projects requested by the legislators. The IAs (implementing agencies) to where the funds were released by the DBM should have implemented the project themselves as they are the IAs defined in the GAA (General Appropriations Act), COA said. Among the NGOs linked to Napoles that were tapped by the senators for their pork barrel fund were Agri and Economic Program for Farmers Foundation, Inc. (AEPFFI), Agricultura Para sa Magbubukid Foundation (APMFI), Countrywide Agri and Rural Economic Development (CARED) Foundation, Masaganang Ani Para sa Magsasaka Foundation, Inc (MAMFI), Peoples Organization for Progress and Development Foundation (POPDFI), Social Development Program for Farmers Foundation, Inc. (SDPFFI) and Philippine Social Development Foundation, Inc. (PSDFI). Senators Enrile and Estrada have welcomed investigation into the use of their PDAF while Senator Revilla has denied involvement in the pork barrel scam. Senator Honasan reportedly wants to wait for the NBI probe on the scam while Senator Angara has yet to issue an official statement. Countdown:15senatorsnowseekingbanonpork By Norman Bordadora Philippine Daily Inquirer The idea of doing away with their allocations under the multibillion-peso Priority Development

Assistance Fund (PDAF) has gained ground in the Senate, with 15 senators so far expressing support for the abolition of the pork barrel. Senators Francis Escudero and Alan Peter Cayetano on Thursday filed separate resolutions seeking the scrapping of the PDAF, the official name of the pork barrel. This developed as two senior senators from both the majority and minorityRalph Recto and Gregorio Honasanexpressed the need to abolish not only the PDAF but also the discretionary funds of the executive branch headed by President Aquino. Other senators who favored the abolition of the PDAF were Teofisto Guingona III, Aquilino Pimentel III, Loren Legarda, Grace Poe, Juan Edgardo Angara, Ramon Revilla Jr. and Benigno Aquino IV, all members of the majority bloc. Members of the minority who supported the idea of scrapping the PDAF included Deputy Minority Leader Vicente Sotto III and Sen. JV Ejercito, the chair of the Senate committee on economic affairs. Senate President Franklin Drilon himself earlier expressed support for the abolition of the pork barrel, while Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago filed a resolution for the three-year phaseout of the congressional pork. Honasan and Revilla were among the senators whose names figured in the alleged P10-billion pork barrel scam engineered by Janet Lim-Napoles using fake nongovernment organizations (NGOs) and recipients. Their names were also mentioned in the Commission on Audit (COA) report that found that more than P6 billion in PDAF went to 82 questionable NGOs, including those set up by a number of lawmakers or their relatives. The others were Minority Leader Juan Ponce Enrile and Jinggoy Estrada. All the senators linked to the scam and mentioned in the COA findings have denied any wrongdoing and indicated their willingness to be investigated. [The PDAF] has already mutated into a multibillion racket allegedly perpetrated by syndicates in both the public and private sectors, Escudero said in Resolution No. 193 that he filed on Thursday, this weeks first and only working day at the Senate. Source of corruption Despite the proper use and disbursement by well-meaning public officials and despite its statutory laudable purpose, the misconception that the pork barrel has become a form of horse trading and a major source of corruption in the government is apparently starting to become real in the eyes of the Filipino people, Escudero said. Escudero is the chair of the Senate committee on finance that in the coming weeks will hear the Aquino administrations proposed P2.226-trillion budget for 2014. Majority Leader Cayetano said in concurrent Resolution No. 4, which he hopes the House of Representatives will adopt, that the power and mandate of oversight was greatly compromised when legislators themselves were accused of grave acts of abuse and misuse of public funds. Misuse fans anger [The] special audit report of the Commission on Audit covering the years 2007-2009 released on Aug. 16, 2013, showed that at least P6.165 billion of PDAF from 12 senators and 180 representatives were released to 82 questionable nongovernment organizations, which has further fanned the discontent, anger and indignation of the Filipino people, Cayetano said. Reports of the massive misuse of the PDAF, as alleged by whistle-blowers and confirmed by the COA report, have gripped the nation and triggered widespread public outrage. Million people march The misuse of public funds has also given rise to calls to abolish the pork barrel and a public gathering called the Million People March to Luneta on Aug. 26 in Rizal Park in Manila and other parts of the country to showcase the peoples outrage, but President Aquino and many lawmakers have thumbed down the idea. Cayetano said the continued presence of the PDAF in the national budget was viewed by the public as an unwillingness of the legislature to address the many abuses and instances of corruption in the system and the unwillingness to heed the voice of the Filipino people for dramatic change.

Recto, the Senate President Pro Tempore and the former chair of the Senate committee on ways and means, said he was supporting the abolition of the pork barrel but added that it would not be enough to ensure graft-free and responsive national budget allocations in 2014 and afterward. Together with the abolition of the PDAF, we must reform the entire budget. [There should be] no off-budget items like [funds from] Malampaya, Pagcor, PCSO and minimize lump-sum budgeting to only calamity and contingency accounts, Recto said, referring to the funds allocated by the executive branch. Line-item budgeting The rest should be line item [allocations]. This will promote transparency and a more effective, efficient and responsive budget, Recto said in a text message. Recto said a line-item budget provided for in the General Appropriations Act will inform local government officials, districts, communities, netizens, civil society where taxpayers money is being spent, what project, price and location. Aside from calling for the abolition of the PDAF, Honasan called for an impartial probe of the PDAF scam which, he said, put him in a bad light and for the enactment of the Freedom of Information Bill that would mean full transparency in public affairs. I would support the calibrated abolition of the PDAF, pork barrel, discretionary fund system in all branches, departments of government, Honasan said in a text message. Also ban insertions Revilla, whose allocations were also linked to the PDAF scam, said, It looks like its time for the total abolition of the PDAF. Even the insertions [in the budget] should no longer be allowed. It appears that the good intentions of helping the poor and spreading development to the countryside are not realized and are even toyed with when it comes to the implementation, Revilla said. A handful in House Ejercito said senators should be sensitive to what the people want. We were elected as legislators, not as administrators. I can manage to perform my duties without the pork barrel. And also as a neophyte senator, I would want to put an end to this issue once and for all and restore the faith of the people in the Senate and Congress, he said. In the House of Representatives, a handful of lawmakers have also called for the scrapping of the PDAF. But the Liberal Party secretary general, Western Samar Rep. Mel Senen Sarmiento, said scrapping the pork barrel could leave many poor families without scholarships for their children, medical assistance and infrastructure projects. Sarmiento said he supported President Aquinos decision to suspend the release of the PDAF since this would be a good opportunity to plug the loopholes in the system and make it transparent and immune to corruption. More harm than good He said scrapping the PDAF would be a drastic move that could do more harm than good. The complete abolition of the Priority Development Assistance Fund appears to be the spur of the moment answer by people understandably angered by the extent of reported anomalies on the controversial pork barrel. But this may not, after all, be the best option, he said in a statement. Sarmiento said that personally, he would not mind if the pork barrel system would be abolished. But it could have heartbreaking consequences for poor families who depend on the help of their representatives for needs such as educational assistance and medical care. Equalizing factor The President, he said, is convinced on the equalizing factor of the PDAF so the poorest of the poor in far-flung areas of the country could share the fruits of development.

Sarmiento further said that the PDAF system was a good one, but hum an greed took advantage of the systems loopholes. As long as it is used properly, the pork barrel funds could do a lot of good, he added. He sought to distance the Aquino administration from the alleged pocketing of pork barrel funds. According to him, the alleged P10-billion scam supposedly involving Janet Lim-Napoles and several lawmakers took place before the reforms implemented by the Aquino administration. He said the use of the pork barrel had been judicious and strictly regulated since 2010. With a report from Leila B. Salaverria How fake NGOs raked in P10B from government from a report by Niko Baua, ABS-CBN News Posted at 07/12/2013 9:47 PM | Updated as of 07/13/2013 1:37 AM MANILA, Philippines - The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) is looking into an alleged P10billion scam by a company that set up fake nongovernment organizations (NGOs). The organizations are believed to have benefited from the pork barrel of several lawmakers, as well as the fertilizer fund mess and proceeds from Malampaya. In a letter addressed to Justice Secretary Leila de Lima, lawyer Levito Baligod asked for help. His client, Benhur Luy, was reportedly detained in a condominium in Taguig because he knew about illegal business practices in the appropriation of the pork barrel of certain lawmakers and projects during the Arroyo administration. After Luy was rescued last March, he issued an affidavit accusing the JLN Group of Companies of being involved in anomalous deals. Luy was employed by his relative, Janet Napoles -- the owner of JLN. Other employees and relatives of Luy claim the company set up 5 fake NGOs that became beneficiaries under the fertilizer fund scam, Malampaya scam, and the pork barrel of some lawmakers. The employees of JLN, and even the household help, became the presidents and officials of the fake NGOs. A number of cities also became beneficiaries, but the signatures of the local officials were fabricated. According to the affidavit of JLN project coordinator Merlina Sunas, the government funds appropriated to the fake NGOs were remitted to Napoles. Sunas added, Malampaya had a P900-million budget, but there were no deliveries of supplies and materials. The liquidation reports submitted to concerned government agencies were also allegedly fabricated. She said this was also the modus for the pork barrel of some lawmakers and the controversial fertilizer fund scam. The DOJ dismissed the serious illegal detention case filed against Napoles for lack of probable cause. Napoles also submitted an affidavit to the DOJ denying any involvement in Luy's detention. The NBI has refused to give a statement about the case. The investigation, however, about the fake NGOs, is still ongoing. Better integrity in fund release Malacaang on Friday said it has taken steps to ensure the integrity of the disbursement of government funds since President benigno Aquino assumed office in 2010. Palace deputy spokesperson Abigail Valte made the statement, amid the probe into the alleged P10-billion scam. Valte said while she is not privy to the contents of the probe, President Aquino has strict orders for his Cabinet members to be on guard for such scams. "When the President assumed office in June 2010, isa po 'yan doon sa mga naging marching orders niya sa mga miyembro ng Gabinete na tingnan po, gumawa ng imbentaryo nung mga proyektong nasa ilalim ng kanilang mga departamento at ahensiya at gawan po ito ng kaukulang aksyon," Valte said. "So, suffice to say, that our Cabinet secretaries are, of course, on guard for things like these," she added. - with ANC

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

10 Billion (PDAF) PORK BARREL Scam linked 28 legislators, 5 Senators, 23 Congressmen with Ghost JLN Group of Companies AT MONDAY, JULY 15, 201354 COMMENTS Sen. Franklin Drilon who is expected to be the next Senate President is proposing the removal of the Priority Development Assistance Funds (PDAF)or known as PORK BARREL of lawmakers following reports that a certain businesswoman had plotted a 10 billion scam over the past decade using the pork barrel of senators and congressmen for ghost projects. "We should seriously think about abolishing the pork barrel," Drilon told Radyo Inquirer 990AM in an interview Monday morning. Drilon said in a radio interview Monday that Senate will let the National Bureau of the Investigation's take the lead in probing a fraudulent scheme involving millions of pork from various lawmakers allegedly channeled through ghost projects. Drilon was reacting to the Philippine Daily Inquirer's report linking at least 28 legislators five senators and 23 members of the Houseto the alleged scheme hatched by Janet "Jenny" LimNapoles to dummy organizations receiving pork barrel funds named as "JLN Group of Companies". The issue links Senators are the following: Juan Ponce Enrile Bong Revilla Gregorio Honasan JV Ejercito Bongbong Marcos Drilon said anomalies like these will be eliminated once the pork barrel is abolished. Scrapping the pork barrel was the ideal move but Drilon admitted that "in reality, many congressmen need this for projects in their districts." He added if the pork barrel will not be removed, the next option is to limit the types of institutions where these funds may be appreciated. He suggested giving pork barrel directly to hospitals and schools so that the fund can be easily audited. "Payag ako na itigil etong pork barrel para matigil na etong mga reported anomalies. Itigil natin pork barrel. Sa akin ang buod nito kung i-retain ang pork barrel talagang i-limit na lang natin among sa institutional recipients," he said in a radio dzMM interview. "Kung hindi man matanggal lagyan mo ng limitation para yung opportunity for corruption ay very limited," he added. The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) is looking into an alleged 10-billion scam by a company that set up fake nongovernment organizations (NGOs). The organizations are believed to have benefited from the pork barrel of several lawmakers, as well as the fertilizer fund mess and proceeds from Malampaya. In a letter addressed to Justice Secretary Leila de Lima, lawyer Levito Baligod said his client, Benhur Luy, was reportedly detained in a condominium in Taguig because he knew about illegal business practices in the appropriation of the pork barrel of certain lawmakers and projects during the Arroyo administration. After Luy was rescued last March, he issued an affidavit accusing the JLN Group of Companies of being involved in anomalous deals. Luy was employed by his relative, Janet Napoles -- the owner of JLN. Other employees and relatives of Luy claim the company set up 5 fake NGOs that became beneficiaries under the fertilizer fund scam, Malampaya scam, and the pork barrel of some lawmakers. The employees of JLN, and even the household help, became the presidents and officials of the fake NGOs. A number of cities also became beneficiaries, but the signatures of the local officials were fabricated. According to the affidavit of JLN project coordinator Merlina Sunas, the government funds appropriated to the fake NGOs were remitted to Napoles. Sunas added Malampaya had a 900-million budget, but there were no deliveries of supplies and materials. The liquidation reports submitted to concerned government agencies were also allegedly fabricated.

She said this was also the modus for the pork barrel of some lawmakers and the controversial fertilizer fund scam. Drilon said though that his pork barrel had not been used for any irregular activities. "I had no transactions with her," said the senator, referring to Janet "Jenny" Lim-Napoles, the person allegedly behind the anomalous. Justice Secretary Leila de Lima has confirmed that the names of some lawmakers and officials were mentioned by some of the whistleblowers who had tagged Janet Lim Napoles of the JLN Group of Companies as the alleged brains behind the anomaly. Even the linked names were already disclosed by the philStar, Justice Secretary Leila de Lima declined to name the lawmakers and officials. 1 Million Anti-pork barrel protest set on National Heroes Day Luneta Park 9 AM AT MONDAY, AUGUST 19, 201312 COMMENTS Anti-pork barrel advocates are set to gather at the Luneta Park on August 26, National Heroes' Day, and are using social media to rally participants to their cause. It started out as a simple idea. Friends Arnold Pedrigal, Peachy Bretana, and Bernardo Bernardo created a Facebook event page to gather like-minded people who want the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) or pork barrel scrapped. The gathering, scheduled on August 26, aims to gather one million people to assemble at the Luneta Park for a "massive pocket picnic." The event invitations calls on "ordinary, tax-paying people" to show "government (that) they answer to us. Tayo ang boss dito!" (We are the boss!) The event also states that there will be no banners, no political colors, and no speeches. The event invite was created on Saturday afternoon, August 17. As of this posting, more than 4,500 Facebook users have signified their willingness to join the event. Overwhelming response Pedrigal said the event was inspired by artist Ito Rapadas' Facebook post that urged Filipinos to march against the pork barrel. According to Pedrigal, Rapadas posted the following statement: "What we need is a MILLION PEOPLE MARCH by struggling Filipino taxpayers- a day of protest by the silent majority that would demand all politicians and govt. officials (whatever the political stripes, color they may carry) to stop pocketing our taxes borne out from our hard work by means of these pork barrel scams and other creative criminal acts." "Peachy shared it in her wall in which she suggested to have a Martsa sa Luneta on Aug 26 to coincide with the Araw ng mga Bayani. Peachy's post was then shared by Bernardo Bernardo which I also received. I then suggested creating an event in FB to invite more people," said Pedrigal. "After less than 12 hours, we saw the sudden surge of people who would like to join," Pedrigal told Rappler. Rapadas was surprised at the speed of the reaction online. He told Rappler in an email, "I've been reading the anger and outrage on my social media feeds for several days now. And I share the same frustration that netizens are venting." "The 'one million' line (looking back now) caught the attention of some of my fb friends (only a few read it actually) because it probably gave them a quick visual image in their minds that maybe all the online emotions can be translated to action," Rapadas added. No organizers Though the brainchild of Pedrigal and several others, he is the first to admit that the protest event has no formal organizers, possibly taking inspiration from the Occupy Wall Street Movement in the USA, which was loosely organized. "There is really no formal organizing group. This is a non-partisan event, where we would like the Filipinos to vent out and voice their feelings and sentiments towards the Pork Barrel system." Pedrigal is based in San Francisco, USA, where he is the head of Prowave Media and produces "Power ng Pinoy" a US-based show that features "inspiring stories of Filipino shakers and movers." Bernardo Bernardo is a theater actor based in Los Angeles. Bretana is based in Maila. The lack of formal leaders has lead some to question whether the event will succeed in rallying a million people as intended. It has also lead to some practical concerns, such as who will secure the necessary permit to assemble in front of the Quirino Grandstand. This doesn't seem to bother Pedrigal or the others who have adapted the event as their own.

Bernardo posted on the event page, "Sabi nga--Build it and they will come. Just Believe. Makikita mo, magsusulpotan yung mga gusto talagang tumulong. Sooner than you think! (You'll see, those who really want to help will appear.) "The rally is not just for the Filipinos in Metro Manila," said Pedrigal. "It is gaining grounds in other parts of the Philippines such as Iloilo and Zamboanga and (even) outside the Philippines." Rapadas is more cautious. "I don't know if a million can be generated. I personally feel it's not important now if that figure is reachable. What's important is that it remain peaceful and orderly." How to participate? The event is set to begin at 9AM. Those attending are asked to meet at the KM 0 marker adjacent to the Rizal Monument and are encouraged to wear white. On social media, supporters are also encouraged to tweet to @ProtestaNgBayan and post a status message on Facebook that includes the statement: "I am *name* Pinoy ako. I pay my taxes, on-time and full. You, my government, owe me a full explanation." The hashtags #OnePinoy #MillionPeopleMarch and #ProtestaNgBayan are also being used. Online campaigns sprout Though the One Million People March against Pork Barrel may be the first protest rally organized entirely through social media, online campaigns are nothing new in the Philippines. People Power 2 and 3 were largely fueled by people sending text messages within their social networks, calling on others to rally. Most recently, a group of "former senior government officials" started an online petition through the website Change.org to call on Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales to "conduct an impartial investigation of the grave misuse of the PDAF." "No benefit can possible justify the crimes it has spawned and the systematic corruption of public institutions and officials it has promoted," the statement read. The online campaign also asked President Benigno S. Aquino III "to constitute a special committee composed of representatives of Department of Budget and Management, Department of Justice, and the private sector to review the PDAF process and to recommend safeguards to ensure that the PDAF is not further abused." Growing disgust The call to junk the pork barrel system has gained a tidal wave of support in recent weeks after news reports revealed the alleged misuse of funds involving members of Congress and fake NGOs. The idea that several elected officials and their cronies have abused the PDAF to enrich themselves has generated intense public anger in a country where the divide between the rich and the poor grows further everyday. -Rappler.com Pork by any name AUGUST 23, 2013 By YVONNE T. CHUA and BOOMA B. CRUZ (Note: The excerpt on the history of pork barrel in the Philippines was written by VERA Files trustees Yvonne T. Chua and Booma Cruz in 2004 for the book, The Rulemakers: How the Wealthy and Well-Born Dominate Congress.) WHETHER they come in large or small amounts, pork barrel allocations have generated a lot of controversy since they were first introduced in the Philippines in 1922. In 1925, Senate Minority Leader Juan Sumulong stunned colleagues when, standing on a question of privilege, he charged that the ruling party had misused public funds in the form of pork barrel appropriations. Legislators and citizens alike who have lobbied for the abolition or at least the taming of pork barrel over the years have proffered other reasons, ranging from the inequitable distribution of funds among the legislative districts and congressmen overstepping their mandate to make laws, to the failure of pork barrel-funded projects to respond to development needs, to the use of pork as a tool for political patronage. But many have come to the defense of pork barrel legislation as well. Just like cholesterol, there is bad pork and good pork, they say. Without pork barrel, goes their argument, most of the countryside would have been neglected by the national government, being remote from the seat of power to wield much influence. Pork barrel, or simply pork, refers to appropriations and favors obtained by a representative for his or her district. G. Luis Igaya of the Institute for Popular Democracy defines pork barrel

legislation as any attempt by Congress to divert national funds directly into their districts whether it be in the form of public works (such as highways or bridges), social services (such as education funds or public school buildings), or special projects (such as livelihood programs or community development projects). The difference between pork barrel and ordinary expenditures, explains Igaya, lies chiefly in the manner it is obtained. Whereas the share of line agency budgets is based on annual financial reports, he says, pork barrel shares are based on lobbying efforts between and among members of Congress itself. Whoever can flex the strongest political muscle usually gets the largest share. The district funds are discretionary in nature. This means it is up to each congressman or senator to identify the projects of their pork barrel allocation and the beneficiaries. On too many occasions, however, lawmakers have exceeded their discretion, going as far as picking even the project contractors and suppliers. American origins Pork barrel has American origins. In 1823, the U.S. Congress enacted the first appropriation for rivers and harbors for the different states, promptly drawing criticisms from opponents that it was purely political in purpose. The measure was branded pork barrel legislation, supposedly after a pre-Civil War custom in the U.S. South in which landowners set aside a definite portion of pork salted in barrels for their black slaves. In 1919 a U.S politic al pundit wrote, Oftentimes, the eagerness of the slaves would result in a rush upon the pork barrel, in which each would strive to grab as much as possible for himself. Members of Congress, in their rush to get their local appropriationsbehaved so much like Negro slaves rushing to the pork barrel. (Parreno 1998) Other texts meantime suggest that the term pork barrel originated from a practice of American farmers who preserved pork in barrels in anticipation of the hardships of winter, when the pork is shared with their needy neighbors. A third version says the term simply comes from the old adage, Bring home the bacon. By the time the notion of pork barrel rolled into the Philippines, it was already 1922. That was when a public works act separate from the general appropriations act (GAA) was first passed. It didnt take long, however, before the Philippine version of the pork barrel acquired a sleazy sheen, no thanks to the shenanigans of legislators. Act 3044, the first pork barrel appropriation, essentially divided public works projects into two types. The first typenational and other buildings, roads and bridges in provinces, and lighthouses, buoys and beacons, and necessary mechanical equipment of lighthouses fell directly under the jurisdiction of the director of public works, for which his office received appropriations. The second grouppolice barracks, normal school and other public buildings, and certain types of roads and bridges, artesian wells, wharves, piers and other shore protection works, and cable, telegraph, and telephone linesis the forerunner of the infamous pork barrel. Although the projects falling under the second type were to be distributed at the discretion of the secretary of commerce and communications, he needed prior approval from a joint committee elected by the Senate and House of Representatives. The nod of either the joint committee or a committee member it had authorized was also required before the commerce and communications secretary could transfer unspent portions of one item to another item. Pork barrel took on a somewhat different form in 1950. First, the public work act passed that year ended the practice of releasing the amount in lump sum, meaning the law did not specify projects. Second, it transferred the discretion of choosing projects from the secretary of commerce and communications to legislators. For the first time, the law carried a list of projects selected by members of Congress, they being the representatives of the people, either on their own account or by consultation with local officials or civil leaders. In an apparent bid to make pork barrel more palatable, Congress also segregated the legislativesponsored projects from other items in the public works act and christened them community projects miscellaneous community projects for projects of congressmen and nationwide selected projects for those of the senatorsand then short-term rural progress projects under the socio-economic program. During this period, the pork barrel process began with local government councils, civil groups, and individuals asking congressmen or senators for projects through formal resolutions or verbal communications. Petitions that were accommodated formed part of a legislators allocation. The majority then convened a caucus, which determined the amount each legislator would get. The amount was built into the administration bill prepared by the Department of Public Works and

Communications (DPWC), although the pork barrel section was left unfilled but for the wor ds to be inserted in the House The Senate and the House of Representatives then added their own provisions to the bill until it was signed into law, the Public Works Act, by the president. Interest groups pushed for the funds release as soon as the law got approved, even though the president still got to decide when to release the money. When funds were approved for release, the budget commissioner transmitted an allotment advice to the DPWC, which in turn routed a sub-allotment advice to the city or district engineer. The engineers officer would then inspect the site, prepare a program of work, and schedule construction either by the department or private contractors or, in some cases, by barrio councils, parent-teacher associations, or civic organizations. Martial-law pork Public work acts lasted a good 50 years, interrupted only by the outbreak of war in 1942, and then in the mid-1960s, when stalemate between the House of Representatives and the Senate resulted in no pork barrel legislation getting passed. Martial law was another pork barrel legislation spoiler, pulling the plug on it, albeit only temporarily. By 1982, the Batasang Pambansa introduced a new item in the annual general appropriations acts National Aid to Local Government Units: the Support for Local Development Projects or SLDP. Journalist Belinda Olivarez-Cunanan would write three years later, The SLDP is closest thing that todays assemblymen have to the controversial pork barrel fund of the old glory days. In fact, the SLDP may be said to be truly one of the carryover practices from the old Congress, which contradicts the claim of the Batasan to being the parliamentary system based not on patronage, but on programs and principles. Each assemblyman received P500,000 in SLDP. But pork barrel items no longer just came under the form of public works projects, or hard projects as they are called these days. Sure, legislators still allocated their SLDP to capital outlays and infrastructure projects like schoolhouses, municipal buildings, roads, and the like. But they also used the money for what are now known as soft projects the purchase of medicines, fertilizers, fumigants and insecticides, paints, and sports equipment, or for scholarships for constituents. The SLDP worked this way: The assemblyman expressed his project preferences to the Ministry of Budget and Management, which had been delegated by the Office of the President to approve projects. The MBM, in turn, released the allocation papers to the Ministry of Local Governments, which would issue the checks to the city or municipal treasurers in the assemblymans constituency, who then paid project suppliers. Enter Corys CDF Four years after the fall of Ferdinand Marcos and the return of democracy, President Corazon Aquino restored the pork barrel of members of Congress. But it was rechristened Countrywide Development Fund or CDF. Pork was to go by that name for the next eight years. As in porks initial years, the budget provided just a lump sum. Beginning 1992, however, amid widespread clamor among congressmen for equitable distribution, the General Appropriations Act (GAA) adopted the Batasang Pambansas practice of allocating members of Congress equal amounts. Initially, each congressman got P12.5 million and each senator P18 million. Basically, no limitation was made on the legislators CDF-funded projects. A congressman or senator could identify any kind of project, from hard or infrastructure projects such as roads, bridges, and buildings to soft projects such as textbooks for schools, medicines to each household, scholarships for constituents and financial support to some seminar. But the CDF was by no means the only type of pork the lawmakers could partake of. During his administration, Fidel V. Ramos, a minority president, fashioned other forms in an attempt to ensure continued support for his legislative agenda from Congress. Among these were the Public Works Fund, restored in 1996; School building Fund; Congressional Initiative Allocation or CIA; El Nio Fund; and the Poverty Alleviation Fund. By and large, members of Congress do not acknowledge the School building Fund as pork barrel, but a special provision of the GAA clearly marks it as such: The allocation of demountable school building shall be made upon prior consultation with the representative of the legislative district concerned. Ramos restored the School building Program, which was administered by the education department during Aquinos time, to the Department of PublicWorks and Highways in 1995 upon the strong lobbying of members of Congress. Close to P5 billion was appropriated that year for this purpose.

Congressional Initiative Allocations were not clearly provided in GAAs. Rather, they were items inserted to the budget of a government agency through the negotiations with the Speaker and the chairman of the appropriations committee. Legislators had the power to direct how, where, and when these particular appropriations were to be spent. Most of the funds were contained in the budgets of the Department of Public Works and Highways, Department of Education, Department of Interior and Local Government, and the Department of Health. CIAs ran into billions of pesos as well. At one point, they even reached as much P28 billion, according to some accounts. But since they formed part and parcel of the budgets of executive departments, they were not easily identifiable and were thus harder to monitor. Those who knew the most about the insertions were the lawmakers themselves, the finance and budget officials of the implementing agency, and the Department of Budget and Management. From CDF to PDAF When he campaigned for the presidency, Joseph Estrada vowed to abolish pork barrel, which by then had been swirling in controversy after controversy. But once he got into office, the former action-film star did not entirely scrap the legislators discretionary funds. He simply changed the system, taking pains to remove only the CDF-type of pork barrel and retaining the rest, such as the School building Fund and the CIAs. He even added his own type of pork barrel, the Lingap para sa Mahirap Program. Estrada at first sought to limit the use of district funds to only hard projects, and created the Rural Development Infrastructure Fund or RUDIF, a facility that was exactly the same creature as the Public Works Fund. Each congressman was supposed to receive P30 million, but the amount was merely a gentlemens agreement. The 1999 national budget carried no special provision that indicated the amount each congressman would get, leaving legislators at the mercy of the executive branch, namely Estrada. Clamoring for the restoration of funds for soft projects, Congress successfully lobbied for a share of P2.5 billion Lingap para sa Mahirap Fund, which was supposed to be channeled to poor families in the form of a package of assistance, including food, nutrition and medical assistance; price support for rice and corn; protective services for children and youth; rural waterworks; socialized housing; and livelihood development. The congressmen gained two-thirds control of the fund for their so-called projects. Then came the comeback of the CDF or as then President Estrada preferred to call it, the Priority Development Assistance Fund or PDAF. Given a ballooning budget deficit and rising criticism against pork at the time, though, a trade-off was inevitable: Legislators lost some of their discretionary power. Under the new system, at least on paper, congressmen would identify projects from a narrow set of project categories determined by the executive. Today, the PDAF is still very much around. So are other special-purpose funds, especially the Public Works Fund and the School Building Fund. - See more at: http://verafiles.org/pork-by-any-name/#sthash.129qt7fx.dpuf TIMELINE: Janet Napoles from scandal to surrender BY MICHAELA ROMULO POSTED ON 08/29/2013 5:25 PM | UPDATED 08/30/2013 12:21 AM NAPOLES SURRENDERS. Mugshot of Janet Lim Napoles. Graphic by Emil Mercado MANILA, Philippines (Updated) - The two-week-long manhunt for fugitive and pork barrel queen Janet Lim Napoles came to a close when she surrendered to President Benigno Aquino III Wednesday night, August 28. The surrender came shortly after President Aquino announced a P10-million bounty for her arrest. Napoles was brought to Camp Crame, headquarters of the Philippine National Police. Her brother, Reynald Jojo Lim remains at large. She was transferred to the Makati City jail a day after she surrendered. The timeline below traces the series of events that culminated in Napoles' surrender. July 12, Friday - The alleged multi-billion pork barrel scam is exposed by the Philippine Daily Inquirer. Whistleblower Benhur Luy identifies relative and previous employer Janet Lim Napoles as the mastermind behind the scam involving at least 5 senators and 23 congressmen and the siphoning of millions of pesos for ghost projects through their PDAF. July 15, Monday - Justice Secretary Leila de Lima issues an Immigration Lookout Bulletin on the Napoles siblings to monitor their international travels.

July 16, Tuesday - Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales creates a 6-person team of investigators to conduct parallel investigations with the National Bureau of Investigation to look into the ghost projects funded through the misuse of pork barrel funds. July 17, Wednesday - Through a statement read by her lawyer at a press conference, Napoles denies her involvement in the misuse of the Priority Development Assistance Fund, or pork barrel. July 18, Thursday - Benhur Luy is placed under the Witness Protection Program. July 25, Thursday - Photos obtained by Rappler show Janet Lim Napoles partying with Senators Jinggoy Estrada and Bong Revilla and their families. LET'S PARTY. Janet Lim-Napoles, left (standing), rubs elbows with senators Jinggoy Estrada and Bong Revilla in this photo taken during a party in Estrada's favorite hangout in San Juan. The man second from right is businessman Jaime Dichaves, who has owned to the Jose Velarde account initially linked to former President Joseph Estrada. July 26, Friday - The blog of Jean Napoles, daughter of Janet Lim Napoles, exposing the familys lavish lifestyle goes viral including a video of her extravagant 21st birthday party in Berverly Hills, CA. July 31, Wednesday - A Rappler investigation reveals that Jean Napoles is the listed owner of an P80-million luxury apartment in Los Angeles, CA. POSH LIVING. Online records show Jeane Napoles is the listed owner of a luxury apartment in the Ritz-Carlton, Los Angeles. Photo from Ritz-Carlton website August 1, Thursday - The Napoles camp sends Rappler a letter threatening to sue the company for the inaccurate, reckless and unfair articles on the Jean Napoles' lavish lifestyle. August 5, Monday - In a unanimous decision, the Senate says they will not conduct a probe into the multi-billion pork barrel scam for now. August 5, Monday - The minority bloc of the House of Representatives, led by Minority Leader and San Juan City Rep, Ronaldo Zamora files a resolution to probe into the alleged misuses of pork barrel funds. August 7, Wednesday - A Rappler investigative report shows that Janet Napoles learned the tricks of the trade in the military where she cut a P3.8- million deal on Kevlar helmets which was later declared anomalous by the Sandiganbayan. August 8, Thursday - The eldest daughter of Janet Lim Napoles, Jo-Christine, abandons her hopes of joining Congress as she withdraws her nomination as the second representative for the OFW Family party list. August 8, Thursday - A Rappler exclusive reveals that the Napoleses own 3 other properties in California with a total networth of P415.1 million or US$9.5 million. NAPOLES FAMILY PROPERTIES. US-based properties of the Napoles family are worth up to P415-M. Photo collage by Rappler August 13, Friday - Former Marine Col Ariel Querubin comes forward and reveals to Rappler a tragic past involving a pyramid scam by Napoles that caused his wife's depression. August 14, Wednesday - Makati Regional Trial Court branch 150 orders the arrest of Janet Lim Napoles and her brother Reynald Jojo Lim for the illegal detention of whistleblower Benhur Luy. August 14, Wednesday - Another Rappler investigative report reveals that the sons of Napoles and Senator Revilla are business partners, based on Securities and Exchange Commission records. August 15, Thursday - The NBI urges the Napoles siblings to surrender. More than 12 hours since the issuance of the arrest warrants the siblings are nowhere to be found and the manhunt continues. FIND HER. Justice Secretary Leila de Lima orders a nationwide manhunt for Janet Lim Napoles and her brother. File photo by AFP August 15, Thursday - A Rappler investigation reveals that the 2012 net profit of Napoles officially registered businesses in the Securities and Exchange Commision totaled less than P1 million. August 16, Friday - Napoles' lawyers asks the Court of Appeals to stop the implementation of the arrest warrant against her clients by filing an application for temporary restraining order.

August 16, Friday - The Court of Appeals orders the freezing of the accounts of Napoles, her family, relatives, and staff. The freeze order is effective for 6 months and covers a total of 415 accounts linked to Napoles. August 16, Friday - The Commission on Audit special report on how the PDAF was used from 2007-2009 reveals that P6.156 billion went to 82 NGOs, 10 of which were linked to Napoles and received P2.1 billion in pork. August 17, Saturday - The Department of Foreign Affairs cancels the passports of the Janet Lim Napoles and brother Reynald. August 17, Saturday - The COA report reveals that senators Juan Ponce Enrile, Jinggoy Estrada, and Bong Revilla are patrons to the many dubious NGOs controlled by Napoles. SUKI TO NAPOLES. The COA report shows that senators Jinggoy Estrada, Juan Ponce Enrile, and Bong Revilla were patrons of Napoles NGOs. Graphic by Rappler August 20, Tuesday - The Senate backtracks on its earlier statement on the pork probe. Sen TG Guingona, chairman of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, announces that they will launch a formal probe into the multi-billion pork barrel scam. August 20, Tuesday - President Aquino says he has ordered the Inter-Agency Anti-Graft Coordinating Council to probe the PDAF scam. The investigating council consists of the Ombudsman, the Department of Justice, and the Commission on Audit. August 21, Wednesday - Rappler reveals that Monsignor Josefino Ramirez, a retired priest from the Archdiocese of Manila, is the listed tenant of Janet Lim Napoles home in the exclusive Forbes Park Village in Makati. NAPOLES FRIEND. Monsignor Josefino Ramirez admits knowing Janet Lim-Napoles and working with the family. Photo from Ramirez's Facebook fan page August 26, Monday - At least 80,000 to 100,000 angry netizens and citizens join the#millionpeoplemarch at Luneta Park in the countrys first-ever social media-organized protest against the pork barrel. August 27, Tuesday - Napoles sues Rappler reporter Natashya Gutierrez along with 6 others from other publications. Napoles is asking Gutierrez for P10 million in damages and attorneys fees. August 28, Wednesday - President Aquino announces a P10-million reward for anyone who has information that could lead authorities to Napoles and her brother Reynald Jojo Lim. August 28, Wednesday - The Court of Appeals does not issue a TRO for the arrest warrant against the Napoles siblings. Instead, the court asks all parties in the case to comment on a petition by the Napoleses to stop their arrest August 28, Wednesday - At 9:37 Napoles surrenders to President Aquino in Malacaang. Aquino turns her over to the custody of Interior and Local Government Secretary Mar Roxas and Philippine National Police Director Alan Purisima. Napoles spends the night in Camp Crame. headquarters of the Philippine National Police. SPECIAL TREATMENT?: Janet Lim Napoles surrenders to President Aquino. Malacaang photo August 29, Thursday morning - Netizens react to the surrender of Napoles. Many wonder who will receive the P10 million reward. August 29, Thursday afternoon - The Makati Regional Trial Court Branch 150 issues a commitment order to Napoles, paving the way for her impending transfer to the Makati City jail. August 29, late Thursday afternoon - The Napoles camp asks the Makati court to stop the transfer of Napoles to the Makati jail. NAPOLES SURRENDERS. Mugshot taken earlier today. Photo from the Philippine National Police August 29, Thursday evening - Napoles is transferred to the Makati City jail. She is brought to an air-conditioned office outside the cells of other jail inmates for security reasons.