The Only Thing

ON SECOND THOUGHT Some kind of a priority

The only thing I know about PDAF, of course, aside from its complete name of Priority Development Assistance Fund, is that it can also be called “Pork Barrel”. Other than that, there is nothing in the least extraordinary about it (for now, at least). But for an average taxpayer out there, PDAF is indeed pork-like. Though I doubt even if they would be interested in digging more into it if not for the scandalous affair it did to its well-wishers. I certainly doubt that. But since it has made a name for itself over the past three weeks, people, all of a sudden, became critics in their own right, and are out to give this pork its much-needed rest.

But it is so hard to imagine our politicians without it. Part of their duty really is to usher in that necessary assistance to their constituents without actually going into the sordid details of providing or even asking one, the privileges of having that pork, to begin with. These funds, however, usually go to those hospital bills, bus fares, small-scale infrastructure and some socio-civic projects in their respective communities, of which most, if not all, of these expenses don’t necessarily go through the usual tirade of accounting and liquidation (as was the common practice).

Initially called the Congressional Initiative Allocation (CIA) to Countrywide Development Fund (CDF), and finally settling with PDAF. It is a discretionary fund exclusively given to a politician, congressmen in particular, for a specific need, mostly for minor projects, and with emphasis on “priority” and “assistance” as its main calling card. And because it has its own connotation of limitless use and unbridled patronage, it has often been called “pork barrel”, out of a scathing tradition of an American practice, a sleazy name that usually lends itself to bribery and harassment to the inexperienced. Somehow, even from the start, it has its own nasty reputation to deal with and was highlighted even further with the arrival of Janet Lim Napoles.

Not that I want to dig deeper into this whole mess, in the first place, or to know more about its alleged star culprit in Napoles, I just want to examine PDAF in the context of its oftentimes ready-made outcome, or even the circumstances surrounding it. I’m not interested anymore in knowing how it’s been appropriated or liquidated, its own shady transaction, notwithstanding, is too complicated to untangle, let alone understand. I just want to see where PDAF goes, its end results, as well as its eventual justification as to why it is now dictating the terms of most of our politicians for almost two decades. 

And for what it’s worth, I think it would be spurious to abolish PDAF right now. I know it may sound so surprising to some, but yes, I do hope they would opt for some reformation at some point. But if they do accomplish just that, abolishing pork at the expense of practically everybody, even for the right reasons, I think there are still no guarantees at all. Somewhere, somehow, they might be able to replace the old pork with a new one, but it is still the same beast, with a different set of teeth, of course. I’d be very suspicious about abolishing it, most often than not, the one that will take over would less likely be the ideal substitute, or may not at all prioritizing like PDAF used to be, and that you could almost feel the incoming replacement getting tighter and overly meticulous.

There has to be an easy way out of it, like breaking it to them gently. PDAF, no matter how questionable its practices at times, still has its own use in a country where assistance, monetary especially, is almost nonexistent. In fact, our political deliverables are much too dependent on it for quite some time now. We don’t even know really if we could save all those Pablo victims by releasing just a portion of that PDAF nationwide. That could certainly make a difference after seeing the scandalous figures scattering everywhere, one could only assume that if these numbers contribute to the saving of lives after that devastating typhoon, that loss could not have been too depressing as it was then.

In Agusan del Sur alone, from 2001-2010, former Representative Rodolfo “Ompong” Plaza has had a staggering P81.5 million on pork, that’s more or less, 9 million pesos per year. And during those years there may have been some projects initiated by his PDAF, or improvements by way of that fund, but because of the leniency of accountability in every aspect of our political system or perhaps the enormity of his scope as a representative at that time (Agusan Sur was not yet divided into two districts for much of his stint as a congressman), and the nonchalance and ignorance of his constituents perhaps, his CDF or PDAF, in the end, chose to limit itself, choosing only those closest to heart. It may have helped a few of his registered voters, but it did not bring about an extensive representation as it should, and was, by and large, limited only to party politics.

"People in the neighborhood (Agusan del Sur) have never seen, felt or even eaten that pork for years because it has been butchered somewhere, and that most of its piglets are distributed just before election time."

81 million for 9 years is probably enough to recuperate the damaging effect of that political stigma as one of the country’s poorest. Although it’s quite tempting to put the blame on the disappearance of his pork for doing most of the damages because, according to some, it’s the animal that is infesting the field since day one. But we know better than that. And I’m sure the former congressman is now aware of his wasted resources now that PDAF is fast becoming an institution in itself, enabling Senator Jinggoy Estrada to perform a Herculean task of cleaning its stables, just so to save face and extricate himself from further implication. PDAF may be the cause of the insidiousness of this whole affair, but at the end of the day, it was more like an unwilling accomplice.

I don’t want to sound dogmatic about it, but I guess we might want to go back to that original sin of passing the bucket to those who are handling this fund, no less than the politicians themselves, because a lot of that 81 million stuff should have been used for the development of Agusan del Sur: the repairing of its water system which has seen an invasion of contamination due to excessive mining, the aiding of its problematic energy provider, which has its own anemic electricity since Secretary Reyes died, and even that long-awaited cityhood of San Francisco as a mere political ploy over the years. Not that PDAF should shoulder the expenses of these necessary political platforms, but that it should somehow perk up what has been dead for more than 9 years. Suffice it to say, we don’t see any perking up out of that fund in the province other than those Epals perking up its voters come election time.

And the presence of these non-government agencies (NGOs) around is another thing, an indication probably that Agusan Sur is in need of some aid. Now whether some of them are questionable or not, it doesn’t matter, but their proliferation into the morass of anything Agusan might do some service to that 81 million we have in mind. I know a case whereby the provincial government still has some debt to settle with one of its partner NGOs in collaboration with their participation in the Naliyagan Festival 2011, not to mention its own unliquidated expenses every year, such instances so indicative of the kind of PDAF we have been accustomed to, a constant no-show. “So what else is new?” so says a dear friend. This problem, turns out, is way beyond Janet Lim Napoles. But, of course, we know better than that.

I have not seen PDAF in the province since I first settle in Agusan in 2003, except turning those old roads into an asphalted one (and even that is still very much a suspect), which has given an earful of complaints from our drivers recently, especially at night. It was supposed to be a discretionary thing (in aid of legislation?) and yet somehow it gave way to indiscretion and is now coming to terms with some serious litigation in the process. In hindsight though, I even wonder what will happen now to those scholars who are so dependent on it; I don’t exactly know what kind of future they will have to face, that is if they still have one left.

That’s exactly the reason why PDAF should not be abolished. We still haven’t exacted enough use on it. We need that meat (pork) in our system, trite it may seem, but for the sake of keeping that system in balance, we certainly could use some of that analogy. Though asking these representatives to necessitate an NGO-style proposal on their PDAF (since we’re basically talking about accountability here) before they could be given their perks, and used these same parameters as basis of their approval if and when they do deserve another helping, might still be debatable to some, if not outright difficult, but the proposition definitely is worth the risk, instead of handing it over to them like some loose change and at the mercy of their oftentimes wasteful disposal. Like I said, trying to simplify things and making it utilitarian. So if we could tap some of that (real) NGO stuff into their pork, I think any corruption within it might not spread in such manner like that of Napoles.  

It should be reformed, if it is indeed serious about being relevant again. Perhaps the Freedom of Information (FOI) Bill can take care of that. Abolishing it, however, is counterproductive (try Lani Mercado). There’s no harm really in trying to reform it. Enrile’s alleged P10 billion barrels of you-know-what, normally, would be too much for him to handle, so if we could reform, or rehab, some of that stuff (and snuff out of it), we could at least save a significant chunk of that pork. Again, that’s thinking out loud. But if the Marcoses can bounce back from sheer permissiveness and notoriety, what makes it so different with PDAF?  

The Lower House, nonetheless, is sticking to its decision to scrap PDAF and distribute it to those agencies that are tasked to look into the needs of its constituents. But come to think of it, that’s simply giving it a hug instead of a hog. That’s nowhere near its intended purpose of abolishing it because it is still susceptible to the same panacea from CIA to CDF to PDAF to what have you. They will do, by any means necessary, to delay, sugar-coat, sweet talk, or even feed that pork for as long as it stays in that pigpen.  

Simply put, the amount of politics you could get is approximate to the amount of pork being released. And in the case of Agusan del Sur, that has been absent for a very long time. People in the neighborhood have never seen, felt or even eaten that pork for years because it has been butchered somewhere, and that most of its piglets are distributed just before election time. But a lot of people in Agusan wanted to have their pork, too, regardless if they don’t necessarily admit it, or worse, not even aware of it. Perhaps abolishing it might do some service (and justice) to other provinces in the country, but not in Agusan del Sur, that only means taking everybody’s breath away, literally at times. They don’t even know if they could get a taste of it when it was still around, how much more if it is taken away from them? And that’s the only thing I really want to know.

THERE IT GOES Some kind of an assistance

photo: TAG