Pork Barrel: General Concept. Pork Barrel is political parlance of American-English origin.

(1) Historically, its usage may be traced to the degrading ritual of rolling out a barrel stuffed with pork to a multitude of black slaves who would cast their famished bodies into the porcine feast to assuage their hunger with morsels coming from the generosity of their well-fed master. (2) This practice was later compared to the actions of American legislators in trying to direct federal budgets in favor of their districts. (3) While the advent of refrigeration has made the actual pork barrel obsolete, it persists in reference to political bills that bring home the bacon to a legislators district and constituents. (4) In a more technical sense, Pork Barrel refers to an appropriation of government spending meant for localized projects and secured solely or primarily to bring money to a representative's district. (5) Some scholars on the subject further use it to refer to legislative control of local appropriations. (6) In the Philippines, Pork Barrel has been commonly referred to as lump-sum, discretionary funds of Members of the Legislature, its usage would evolve in reference to certain funds of the Executive. In 1990 the Countrywide Development Fund (CDF) was created with an initial funding of P2.3 billion for projects in all congressional districts and the national constituency of Senators. The CDF aims to support small local infrastructure and other priority community projects which are not included in the national infrastructure program involving massive and costly projects. It has been regularly included in the annual General Appropriations Acts since 1990. In 2000, the CDF was transformed into the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF). The Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) and allied congressional initiative allocations collectively labeled as pork barrel in the derisive tradition of its American origin of unbridled patronage. (7) Supreme Court Sustains the Constitutionality of CDF (and PDAF) Many are obviously unaware or simply forget that no less than the Supreme Court has categorically declared that the appropriation of the Countrywide Development Fund (CDF), the forerunner of the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), is a valid and constitutional exercise of the congressional power of the purse. (8) Four years after the adoption of the CDF, the Philippine Constitution Association, among other petitioners, asked the Supreme Court to declare as unconstitutional and void the Countrywide Development Fund (CDF) as provided for in the General Appropriations Act of 1994. The High Court declared in no uncertain terms that the CDF is valid and constitutional. It was ruled that: Under the Constitution, the spending power, the power of the purse, belongs to Congress, subject only to the veto power of the President. The President may propose the budget, but still the final say on the matter of appropriations is lodged in the Congress. The power of appropriation carries with it the power to specify the project or activity to be funded under the appropriation law. It can be as detailed and as broad as Congress wants it to be. (Emphasis

supplied). The Countrywide Development Fund is explicit that it shall be used for infrastructure, purchase of ambulances and computers and other priority projects and activities and credit facilities to qualified beneficiaries xxx. It was Congress itself that determined the purposes for the appropriation. The Supreme Court further held that: The Constitution is a framework of a workable government and its interpretation must take into account the complexities, realities and politics attendant to the operation of the political branches of government. Prior to the GAA of 1991, there was an uneven allocation of appropriations for the constituents of the members of Congress, with the members close to the Congressional leadership or who hold cards for "horse-trading," getting more than their less favored colleagues. The members of Congress also had to reckon with an unsympathetic President, who could exercise his veto power to cancel from the appropriation bill a pet project of a Representative or Senator. The Countrywide Development Fund attempts to make equal the unequal. It is also a recognition that individual members of Congress, far more than the President and their congressional colleagues, are likely to be knowledgeable about the needs of their respective constituents and the priority to be given each project. (Emphasis supplied). The GAA of 2004 contains the following provision:
. - Use and Release of the Fund. The amount herein appropriated shall be used to fund priority programs and projects or to fund the required counterpart for foreign-assisted programs and projects: PROVIDED, That such amount shall be released directly to the implementing agency or Local Government Unit concerned: PROVIDED, FURTHER, That the allocations authorized herein may be realigned to any expense class, if deemed necessary: PROVIDED FURTHERMORE, That a maximum of ten percent (10%) of the authorized allocations by district may be used for procurement of rice and other basic commodities which shall be purchased from the National (9) Food Authority.

Many more fail to see that the relatively small projects implemented under the PDAF complement and link the national development goals to the countryside and grassroots as well as to depressed areas which are overlooked by central agencies which are preoccupied with mega-projects. Even more fail to realize that since the advent of the CDF in 1990 and the institution of the PDAF in 2000 up to the present, there has been no post-audit report by the Commission on Audit (COA) directly associating any Member of Congress to a serious abuse, misuse and/or infraction in the utilization and implementation of the much-maligned congressional funds. Almost everyone believes that the CDF or PDAF is a cash allocation personally given to Congressmen and Senators for their unlimited discretionary disposition without any constraint or accountability. This is a gross misconception because Members of Congress neither handle the funds nor implement the projects. Their authority is limited to the identification of projects and designation of beneficiaries, subject to a specific menu. The implementation is undertaken by the appropriate government agency after an open public bidding.

On November 19, 2013, the PDAF had been declared as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Some Part of the decision below.
In view of the constitutional violations discussed in this Decision, the Court hereby declares as

UNCONSTITUTIONAL: (a) the entire 2013 PDAF Article; (b) all legal provisions of past and present Congressional Pork Barrel Laws, such as the previous PDAF and CDF Articles and the various Congressional Insertions, which authorize/d legislatorswhether individually or collectively organized into committees to intervene, assume or participate in any of the various post-enactment stages of the budget execution, such as but not limited to the areas of project identification, modification and revision of project identification, fund release and/or fund realignment, unrelated to the power of congressional oversight; ( c) all legal provisions of past and present Congressional Pork Barrel laws, such as the previous PDAF and CDF Articles and the various Congressional Insertions, which confer/red personal, lump-sum allocations to legislators from which they are able to fund specific projects which they themselves determine; (d) all informal practices of similar import and effect, which the Court similarly deems to be acts of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of discretion; and ( e) the phrases (1) and for such other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the President under Section 8 of Presidential Decree No. 910 and (2) to finance the priority infrastructure development projects under Section 12 of PD 1869, as amended by PD 1993, for both failing the sufficient standard test in violation of the principle of non-delegability of legislative power. WHEREFORE, the petitions are PARTLY GRANTED. In view of the constitutional violations discussed in this Decision, the Court hereby declares as UNCONSTITUTIONAL: ( a) the entire 2013 PDAF Article; (b) all legal provisions of past and present Congressional Pork Barrel Laws, such as the previous PDAF and CDF Articles and the various Congressional Insertions, which authorize/d legislators whether individually or collectively organized into committeesto intervene, assume or participate in any of the various post-enactment stages of the budget execution, such as but not limited to the areas of project identification, modification and revision of project identification, fund release and/or fund realignment, unrelated to the power of congressional oversight; (c) all legal provisions of past and present Congressional Pork Barrel laws, such as the previous PDAF and CDF Articles and the various Congressional Insertions, which confer/red personal, lump-sum allocations to legislators from which they are able to fund specific projects which they themselves determine; ( d) all informal practices of similar import and effect, which the Court similarly deems to be acts of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of discretion; and (e) the phrases (1) and for such other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the President under Section 8 of Presidential Decree No. 910 and (2) to finance the priority infrastructure development projects under Section 12 of PD 1869, as amended by PD 1993, for both failing the sufficient standard test in violation of the principle of nondelegability of legislative power. Accordingly, the Courts temporary injunction dated September 10, 2013 is hereby declared to be PERMANENT. Thus, the disbursement/release of the remaining PDAF Funds allocated for the year 2013, as well as for all previous years, and the Malampaya Funds under the phrase, and for such other purposes as may hereafter be directed by the President pursuant to Section 8 of Presidential Decree No , 910, which are, at the time this Decision is promulgated, not covered by Notice of Cash Allocations (NCA) but only by Special Allotment Release Orders, whether obligated or ot, are hereby ENJOINED. In similar regard, the Court also enjoins the release of funds sourced from the Presidential Social Fund under the phrase, to finance the the priority infrastructure development projects pursuant to Section 12 of Presidential Decree No. 1869, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1993. Said funds covered by this permanent injunction shall not be disbursed/released but instead returned to the general coffers of the government, except for the funds covered by the Malampaya funds and the Presidential Social Fund which shall remain therein to be utilized for their respective special purposes not otherwise declared unconstitutional.
(10)

In conclusion, the PDAF was originally constitutional was recently declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

References: (1) *P+ork barrel spending, a term that traces its origins back to the era of slavery before the U.S. Civil War, when slave owners occasionally would present a barrel of salt pork as a gift to their slaves. In the modern usage, the term refers to congressmen scrambling to set aside money for pet projects in their districts. (Drudge, Michael W. Pork Barrel Spending Emerging as Presidential Campaign Issue, August 1, 2008<http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/article/2008/08/20080801181504lcnirellep 0.1261713.html#axzz2iQrI8mHM> [visited October 17, 2013].) (2) Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J., The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary, 2003 Edition, p. 786, citing Bernas, From Pork Barrel to Bronze Caskets, Today, January 30, 1994. (3) Heaser, Jason, Pulled Pork: The Three Part Attack on Non-Statutory Earmarks, Journal of Legislation, 35 J. Legis. 32 (2009). <http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=&handle =hein.journals/jleg35&div=6&id=&page=> (visited October 17, 2013). (4) Nograles, Prospero C. and Lagman, Edcel C., House of Representatives of the Philippines, Understanding the Pork Barrel,p. 2. <http://www.congress.gov.ph/download/14th/pork_barrel.pdf>(visited October 17, 2013). (5) Chua, Yvonne T. and Cruz, Booma, B., Pork is a Political, Not A Developmental, Tool. <http://pcij.org/stories/2004/pork.html> [visited October 22, 2013].) See also rollo (G.R. No. 208566),pp. 328-329. (6) Morton, Jean, What is a Pork Barrel? Global Granary, Lifestyle Magazine and Common Place Book Online: Something for Everyone, August 19, 2013. http://www.globalgranary.org/2013/08/19/whatis-a-pork-barrel/#.UnrnhFNavcw > (visited October 17, 2013). (7) Nograles, Prospero C.; Lagman, Edcel C., Understanding the Pork Barrel, House of Representatives of the Philippines, archived from the original on April 17, 2012 (8) Philippine Constitutional Association vs. Enriquez, et al. (235 SCRA 507 [1994]) (9) Special Provision 1, Article XLII, RA 8174 (1996 CDF Article) (10)SC Decision on GR208566, 208493, 209251; November 19, 2013 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/microsite/pdaf/