IS there pork barrel in the 2019 national budget even if the Supreme Court already ruled that the same is unconstitutional?
It is best that the individuals and groups from the opposite sides of this issue define first what they mean by “pork barrel.”
The Supreme Court ruled that the former Countrywide Development Fund (CDF), referred to as “pork barrel,” was unconstitutional because it was composed of lumpsum funds allocated for each member of both the House of Representatives and Senate, which were effectively disbursed at the discretion of the legislators.
The Supreme Court ruling is clear – while Congress has the power to appropriate funds, the disbursement of the same is not among its functions. It was the “hand” of legislators in the actual disbursement of the CDF, which allegedly included not only the choice of projects and beneficiaries but also the choice of implementing organizations, that allowed the CDF to be marred by corruption.
The CDF system was exactly what allowed the Napoles-like issue to happen. Indeed, the demand for and giving of the so-called “kickbacks” are not remote for CDF projects when the system allows one legislator (as against the collective legislators) to decide on how a particular sum of public funds will be spent.
If the CDF system is what defines a pork barrel, the allocations per Congressional District that were “inserted” in the proposed 2019 national budget cannot be considered “pork” because they were not lumpsum amounts but specific projects that were already lodged in the budget of the concerned agencies of the Executive Department.
Technically, each member of Congress no longer has a hand in the implementation of the projects he or she identified for his or her constituents.
The identification of the projects is part of the lawmaking mandate of the members of Congress (both Representatives and Senators) as the national budget is essentially a law, i.e. the General Appropriations Act.
As Congress has the constitutional powers to legislate, it can and should be expected that its members will use such power in performing their mandate to “represent” their respective constituents and assert for their respective piece of the national budget pie.
The term “congressional insertion” has gained a negative meaning when it is really what should be expected from both the House of Representatives and the Senate when they considered the budget bill proposed by the President.
Congressional insertions are basically the changes made by both chambers of Congress to the budget bill submitted by the President. Having such insertions only means that Congress exercised its power to appropriate national funds as its members see fit – a power that is provided for in our Constitution.
(To be continued)
