Politicos deaf to public outcry vs pork barrel

What a wide gap yawns between political leaders and the public. This shows in senators’ alibis for reinserting their outlawed pork barrels in the 2014 national budget. Their view of the issue varies greatly from what people deem proper.

Sen. Jinggoy Estrada sees no wrong in assigning his P200-million “pork” to the City of Manila, among others, because he did so during Congress’ budget deliberations. That, he says, was what the Supreme Court prescribed in its 14-0 abolition of the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF).

That the SC forbade Congress to concoct “pork”-funded works after the budget’s passage was only half the ruling. Truly it’s wrong for lawmakers to infringe on the Executive’s power to implement projects. The other half of the ruling denounced the PDAF as discretionary lump sums, therefore unconstitutional for opacity and unaccountability. And that’s what Estrada’s wholesale assignment is of such huge amount to the city his father, ex-President Joseph Estrada, now rules as mayor.

The elder Estrada too contends no wrong in getting the “pork” because “Manila is bankrupt.”

But since when has bankruptcy become an excuse to disobey the SC? The right thing for City Hall to do was ask Congress for financial help, with details of how much was needed for what.

Senate finance committee head Francis Escudero says they agreed to not object to Estrada and eight other senators reinserting their P200-million PDAF each.

In the wake of the public outcry and the SC ruling against the “pork,” 15 senators saw it fit to forfeit their P200-million slabs. But in letting nine colleagues defy the SC, they lost their moral ascendancy. Is there no compulsion in the Senate to do right?

Escudero adds that the reinsertions are legal because approved by the Senate and the bicameral conference committee, and ratified by the two chambers of Congress.

But did not Congress approve year after year the P200-million PDAF per senator and P70 million per congressman – until declared unconstitutional by the SC last November?

Malacañang did not withdraw the P25-billion proposed PDAF from the 2014 budget, presidential spokesmen say, because it already was submitted to Congress by the time the SC outlawed it.

What a copout! The President is sworn to uphold the law, which is what an SC ruling is. To make it optional for Congress to keep or scrap the PDAF was complicity in crime. The spokesmen were hypocritical. Malacañang intervenes in lawmaking when it wants to, like in rushing passage of the Reproductive Health Law and deferring the Freedom of Information Bill.

Estrada resents being criticized for having spotted the item in Malacañang’s budget proposal – the Support Fund for LGUs (Local Government Units) – in which to reinsert his P200-million “pork.”

Okay, some are smarter than others. But did it not bother Estrada to keep his PDAF after being implicated with seven other lawmakers in the P10-billion plunder of the discretionary lump sums in 2008-2009? Was he unperturbed to be charged with such heinous offense for a historic second time? Did he not see wrong in the LGU Support Fund – for itself being a discretionary lump sum like Malacañang’s 2011-2012 Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), which he had exposed as a presidential pork barrel?

Budget Sec. Florencio Abad says there was no need for President Noynoy Aquino to veto Estrada’s reinsertion since it is subject to conditional release anyway.

Abad in effect bolsters the fact that the LGU Support Fund is an unlawful discretionary lump sum just like the PDAF, because hinging solely on presidential whim and not on congressional power over the purse.

Palace spokeswoman Abigail Valte echoes Escudero and Abad about the supposed legality of the LGU Support Fund.

That of course is in preparation for Malacañang’s defense of the DAP, which the SC has also been asked to declare unlawful. Abad swears that the P142-billion discretionary lump sum was spent on worthwhile economic stimulants, yet withholds details.

“Why can senators do it but not us congressmen?” Rep. Edgar Erice gripes about the option to assign their lump sums to LGUs.

That’s like asking for the right to murder because guns-for-hire abound. Should not Erice’s question be: “Why are we letting senators get away with crime?” Furthermore, letting lawmakers assign their “pork” to LGUs where relatives reign will reinforce political dynasties. Would that not aggravate Congress’ defiance of the Constitution in not enacting for the past 27 years an anti-dynasty law?

Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV called shameless the alleged pocketing of “pork” funds by his Senate foes Estrada and Juan Ponce Enrile.

How does he perceive his own illegal reinsertion of P200-million PDAF?

Administration Rep. Reynaldo Umali wants to impeach three SC justices who led the 14-0 ruling against congressional “pork.”

There is no worse term for such ploy than “satanic.”

*  *  *

Catch Sapol radio show, Saturdays, 8-10 a.m., DWIZ, (882-AM).

Gotcha archives on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Jarius-Bondoc/1376602159218459, or The STAR website http://www.philstar.com/author/Jarius%20Bondoc/GOTCHA

E-mail: [email protected]