TEACHERS
GUIDE
on
PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE FUND
MODULE 1
Pork Barrel in the Philippines: History, Practice, and Malpractice
1 session = 1 hour and 30 minutes
FLOW OF SESSION:
•Group Activity (30 minutes)
•Reflection on the results of the Activity (10 minutes)
•Lecture (35 minutes)
•Open Forum and Synthesis (15 minutes)
ASSIGNED READINGS:
For the Love of Pork by: Yvonne Chua and Booma Cruz (In The Rulemakers by Shiela
Coronel et al.)
PART 1: GROUP ACTIVITY
TITLE: A BRIDGE TOO FAR (FOR 5 – 6 GROUPS)
DURATION: 30 MINUTES
To introduce the subject-matter to the students, the teacher must facilitate a
simulation exercise that will replicate the supposed objectives of the PDAF in the
context of scarce resources and competing groups. However, the facilitator must
pay attention to the clash between personal interests during the activity and must
cite this issue during the subsequent discussions.
OBJECTIVES:
• In order to win, a group must build a road (three popsicle sticks wide)
from one end of the classroom to the other
MATERIALS:
• Each group must bring 30 popsicle sticks only
PROCESS:
1. Before the start of the class (preferably days before the lecture) the
facilitator must establish 5 groups through a count-off. He/she would
then require the groups to bring the necessary materials for the activity
before establishing with the class, a set of rewards and punishments for
the game.
2. At the start of the session, the facilitator will state the objectives of the
activity. The facilitator will then require the class to elect their president
before stating that the president’s assignment is to hand out the
popsicle sticks with the objective of building a road from one end of the
classroom to the other.
3. Each group will then be required to surrender their popsicle sticks to the
president in order to start the game
4. The group/s who could successfully build a road wins
5. If no group succeeded in building a road, then the president loses the
game
PART 2: DISCUSSION ON THE RESULTS OF THE ACTIVITY
DURATION: 15 MINUTES
After the activity, the teacher must facilitate reflection by asking the following
questions before conducting a discussion on certain key points of understanding
and basic concepts on pork barrel politics
QUESTIONS:
• What were difficulties encountered by the groups in trying
to acquire resources?
• What were the difficulties encountered by the class
president in distributing a scarce resource?
• How did the class president judge the worth of the
groups asking for resources?
• If a bridge was not completed, what are the reactions of
the groups?
• If a bridge is completed, what are the reactions of the
groups who were unable to accomplish the task?
KEY POINTS FOR UNDERSTANDING:
• Pork Barrel – Refers to appropriation and favors obtained by a local
politician or representative for his/her district.
• Pork Barrel Legislation – any attempt to divert public funds directly
to certain localities or sectors in the form of projects ranging from
infrastructure to social services.
• A distinction must first be made between pork-barrel legislation and
corruption (the former a political mechanism to obtain funds that could
lead to the misappropriation of funds and/or the utilization of public
funds for the political ends of pork-barreling legislators)
• Pork barrel politics is not exclusive to legislators but could also involve
actors/interests groups outside the halls of congress (i.e. lobbyists).
• The political relations behind the Pork Barrel is defined as a form of
patronage/patron-client relations wherein the dispenser of funds (may it
be the executive in relation to the legislature or legislators in relation to
other entities) could control or influence the activities of the recipients.
PART 3: DISCUSSION ON THE HISTORY OF PORK BARREL IN
THE PHILIPPINES
DURATION: 30 MINUTES
The facilitator will lay out a map of the key years of the Pork Barrel’s history in the
Philippines and will start filling out necessary information via providing a narrative
on how this practice was introduced in the legal system, and sustained through
different administrations despite being modified and placed in different forms.
KEY POINTS OF UNDERSTANDING:
Timeline of the Pork Barrel in the Philippines
1922 Commonwealth period: the introduction of pork barreling in the Philippines
via Act 3044 on public works that placed certain infrastructure projects under a type
requiring the approval of a joint committee elected by the Senate and House of
Representatives.
1950 The Public Works Act ended the practice of releasing the amount in lump
sum – the law did not specify projects – and transferred the discretion of choosing
projects from the secretary of commerce and communications to legislators.
1982 Marcos Administration: the pork-barrel system was temporarily abandoned
but due to the introduction of the Support for Local Development Projects or SLDP
that gave P500,000 to each member of the National Assembly, the system survived.
1990 Aquino Administration: President Corazon Aquino restored the pork barrel
system under a new name, Countrywide Development Fund or CDF.
1992 – 1998 Ramos Administration: President Fidel Ramos, in order to ensure
support for his legislative agenda, created other forms for dispensing funds to legislators. Included in this period of various pork barrels are the Public Works Fund, the
Schoolbuilding Fund, The Congressional Initiative Allocation, the El Nino Fund, and
the Poverty Alleviation fund
2000 Estrada Administration: After removing the CDF and maintaining other pork
barrels like the Schoolbuilding fund, Estrada allowed the CDF to return under the
new name, Priority Development Assistance Fund or PDAF.
2001 – 2010 Arroyo Administration: Effective utilization of the PDAF to pursue
ends contrary to the supposed purposes of the PDAF, and are clear manifestations
that such mechanisms of dispensing funds are utterly vulnerable to interests outside
the common good
2013 Second Aquino Administration: The Napoles Pork Barrel Scam that exposed
the network behind the PDAF brought about numerous acts of public protest and the
subsequent declaration of the Supreme Court that the PDAF is unconstitutional.
PART 4: SYNTHESIS AND OPEN FORUM
DURATION: 15 MINUTES
The facilitator will now discuss the final synthesizing points that would introduce
the next topics on PDAF. Also he/she will now address clarifying questions and/or
elaborations that might be raised by students in a brief open forum.
KEY POINTS OF UNDERSTANDING:
• The adverse effects of Pork Barrel politics is not only about misappropriated funds but also the perpetuation of patron-client relations between
legislators/local politicians and their constituents who are politically
disempowered and reduced to being mere recipients.
• Pork barrel politics violates the separation of the executive from the
legislative branch of government for the reason that this mechanism
could and was already utilized by the executive branch as an incentive
(or disincentive in terms of funding being withheld) to entice legislators
to abide by the will of the executive.
THIS MODULE IS WRITTEN BY MR. ANTHONY LAWRENCE BORJA, POLITICAL SCIENCE, DLSU - MANILA
REFERENCES:
Chua, Y., Coronel, S., Cruz, B., & Rimban, L. (2007). The rulemakers: How the wealthy and well-born
dominate Congress. Pasig City: Anvil Publishing Inc.
ADDITIONAL REFERENCE:
WHAT YOU
NEED TO
KNOW
ABOUT THE
PORK BARREL
WHAT IS PDAF?
PDAF stands for “Priority Development Assistance Fund,” the official
name of the congressional “pork barrel” — a lump sum amount in the
national budget, which is nearly Php25 billion this year (2013). It is just
about 1% of the national budget but it could be and is strategically used
by politicians to gather voters’ support. It used to be called Countrywide
Development Fund (CDF) in the past Congresses.
WHY IS IT CALLED “PORK BARREL”?
The term dates back to a time when preserving meat was actually done in
wooden barrels for future consumption. The term has since seeped into
popular usage as a metaphor for the allocation of political largesse. In the
Philippines, the first “pork barrel” came with the passage of the 1922 Act
No. 3044 on public works.
WHERE DOES PDAF COME FROM?
Every Filipino pays taxes. For most of them, it comes in the familiar form
of Income Tax. So a person earning Php15,000 may pay as much
Php1,000 as Income Tax. However, it’s not limited to that. There are other
forms of taxes that Filipinos pay throughout their lives such as Value Added Tax (VAT), Estate Tax, Withholding Tax, etc. The National Budget,
that money comes from YOU, from us, so we should have a voice in
how that money is spent.
WHAT’S WRONG WITH PDAF?
In the Napoles case alone, which covers PDAF use for only a few years,
Php10 billion in public funds is at issue. As a sizeable discretionary
fund, even with so many safety mechanisms in place, PDAF is a staple
source of corruption. More problematic is that PDAF serves as a tool to
reproduce the conditions of traditional, elite politics in the country — the
rich get even richer in government and they can use public funds to court
and keep votes, and thus stay in power. Historically, congressional pork is
the means by which traditional politics, not just plain corruption in the form
of individual enrichment, is reproduced in the country’s legislature. Pork, by
any other name — Public Works Fund, CDF, PDAF, or by whatever official
name it may come — leads to non-inclusive development as public
funds get to be used for personal political and economic gain.
The book, The Rulemakers (2004), had this to say: “Defenders of pork
barrel say it ensures that development funds are made available even to
the remotest barangay. For sure, pork funds have helped needy patients
and built schoolhouses for poor children. But pork is primarily a tool
of political patronage, not development. It is also a rich source
of corruption, with many legislators enriching themselves from
commissions from pork-funded projects. The billions spent on pork
drain the national treasury and distort national development.”
HOW IS THE FUND RELEASED
AND (MIS)USED?
A Senator or House
Representative selects from
a list drawn from a menu
specified in the annual budget
law and submits it to the
Senate Finance Committee
or House Appropriations
Committee.
The DBM then releases the
fund in the form known as the
Special Allotment Release
Order (SARO) to the specified
implementing agency.
The chosen implementing
agency then holds biddings
for contractors (e.g. private
businesses, firms and NGOs).
The Senate Finance
Committee or the House
Appropriations Committee
Chairperson then submits it
to the Senate President or
House Speaker.
The Senate President or House
Speaker forwards the request to
the Department of Budget
and Management (DBM)
who makes sure that the
projects identified conform
with the menu in the annual
budget law.
Rather than an open bid, corrupt
Senators or Representatives
manipulate the process so
that their chosen and sometimes
fake NGOs or suppliers will
win the bid. By the time the
Commission on Audit (COA)
performs a post-project
implementation examination,
the money has already been
misused.
PORK BARREL IN THE PHILIPPINES: PDAF RELEASED
PER REGION (2009-2013)
According to the summary report by the Department of Budget and
Management (DBM), the Philippine government has released a total of Php
69,656,296,938 (P69.66 billion) Priority Development Assistance Fund
(PDAF) or Pork Barrel.
The following shows the PDAF or Pork Barrel released per region in the
Philippines from 2009 to 2013:
Source: http://pdaf.dbm.gov.ph/index.php
REGION
2013
2012
2011
Region XII
57,273,000
27,550,000
1,828,440,563
NCR
846,785,000
1,946,781,293
1,000,214,500
Region I
666,609,000
1,401,714,190
488,630,000
CAR
289,071,440
611,590,000
795,220,000
Region II
480,098,000
1,021,021,300
1,515,396,228
Region III
1,005,127,635
2,266,884,390
1,956,826,492
Region IV-A
976,771,500
2,515,912,918
402,040,000
Region IV-B
263,842,000
478,441,000
1,341,022,000
Region V
845,805,750
1,614,133,866
1,127,965,265
Region VI
789,980,200
1,501,612,645
895,890,552
Region VII
663,193,740
1,240,404,760
1,029,729,275
Region VIII
603,070,500
1,113,680,800
861,700,500
Region IX
501,661,650
894,621,800
822,848,435
Region X
480,390,000
1,060,270,700
606,315,000
Region XI
386,437,000
835,535,000
785,150,750
Region XII
505,405,000
915,877,085
58,260,000
Region XIII
357,995,000
765,949,998
524,026,300
1,865,034,473
4,035,467,229
3,266,274,792
NG/GOCC
Total
11,584,550,888
24,247,448,974 19,305,950,652
2010
2009
TOTAL
1,036,900,000
679,812,300
3,629,975,863
301,940,000
158,581,000
4,254,301,793
200,688,000
75,507,500
2,833,148,690
236,650,000
259,010,000
2,191,541,440
669,850,000
355,520,000
4,041,885,528
636,625,000
327,899,000
6,193,362,517
214,670,000
115,330,000
4,224,724,418
474,020,000
344,194,000
2,901,519,000
438,285,000
191,847,000
4,218,036,881
418,800,000
347,879,750
3,954,163,147
273,265,000
179,952,000
3,386,544,775
252,725,000
59,600,000
2,890,776,800
323,470,000
133,460,000
2,676,061,885
299,779,000
167,284,500
2,614,039,200
245,630,000
107,200,000
2,359,952,750
121,500,000
121,000,000
1,722,042,085
173,260,000
104,660,000
1,925,891,298
1,593,505,000
2,878,047,374
13,638,328,868
7,911,562,000
6,606,784,424
69,656,296,938
2014