Evolution of the pork barrel

MANILA, Philippines — It’s just a matter of political jargon or nomenclature – but it all boils down to one thing. 

Since the bicameral Congress reopened in 1987 in the post-Marcos era, pork barrel funds for senators and congressmen introduced by the administration of the late president Corazon Aquino have evolved into many forms. 

The lump sum – P200 million for each senator and P70 million for each congressman every fiscal year – has always been popularly called “pork” although its official name started with Congressional Development Fund, later renamed Priority Development Assistance Funds. 

This continued to several administrations later, where each got their full entitlements despite its perennially negative connotation, and other terminologies – blunt or subtle – came along the way in the likes of “realignments and insertions.”  

And now, 32 years later, pork barrel funds have found a new and rather more interesting name –institutional amendment and pie – because the Supreme Court struck down in November 2013 any lump sum allocation in the annual budget without any line-item specific purpose. 

The open media coverage of Monday’s bicameral conference committee, dubbed by many political insiders as the “Third Congress” where massive horse-trading occurs, gave birth to terms not previously akin to any pork-related perk. 

It was actually the first time in Philippine Congress’ history that newsmen were allowed to cover the bicameral proceedings which have always been closed-door, thanks to House appropriations committee chairman and Camarines Sur Rep. Rolando Andaya Jr.

Veteran journalists were surprised to hear the word “pie” and “institutional amendments.” And even more surprising, it came from a senator whose purported advocacy is anti-pork. 

“Why don’t we agree on a pie? We also acknowledge that you congressmen have legislative districts to attend to. If you agree, then we agree on a certain figure,” Sen. Panfilo Lacson suggested to Andaya. 

“Let’s have a certain figure to work on. It’s up to you to fight it out. Say 80-20, one-third or two-thirds but not unlimited,” Lacson suggested. “Let’s not sacrifice the entire national budget.”  

“Can we just agree on a workable figure?” Lacson, who has apparently changed his tune on his previous anti-pork stance, proposed. “But we should not set aside institutional amendments because these were requested.” 

Sen. Loren Legarda, chair of the Senate committee on finance, attempted to tone the terms “pie” and “institutional amendments” down. “It’s actually re-prioritization, not universe, not pie.”

“We will identify the scope for re-prioritization of individual amendments of elected leaders of both houses,” the former newscaster said upon the suggestion of Albay Rep. Joey Salceda, a member of the House contingent. 

“I hope this will not be misconstrued as my amendments. Honestly, I don’t consider that as pork because I get a lot of texts, calls from agencies. Personal are different from institutional amendments,” she insisted. 

“From here we agree to agree for the sake of our people to be transparent and abide by the institutional support. It should not be a whim to create a budget when there is a need,” Legarda stressed, defending the Senate’s P190-billion pork for 2019. 

Andaya, a former budget minister, understood fully what their counterparts want. 

“I understand there are things like institutional requests. What they gave to you (senators), if approved it becomes institutional amendments. But there should be a way to know what is institutional and what is not,” he said, citing the proposed funding’s “inborn defects.”