Lacson insists: It’s ‘pork’; a ‘blessed few' to get more | Inquirer News

Lacson insists: It’s ‘pork’; a ‘blessed few’ to get more

By: - Reporter / @MAgerINQ
/ 10:34 AM November 29, 2018

Sen. Panfilo Lacson. INQUIRER file photo / JAM STA. ROSA

Senator Panfilo Lacson is standing by his allegation that the P60 million allocated for each member of the House of Representatives in the proposed national budget is pork, saying a “blessed few” may even get more.

“They excised P20B from the 51.792B proposed national budget and appropriated P60M to each of their 297 members, probably more to a blessed few since a simple computation tells me there is an excess of 2.17B,” Lacson said in a text message on Thursday.

ADVERTISEMENT

“If that isn’t pork, tell me what is?” he said.

FEATURED STORIES

Lacson issued the statement when sought for comment on House Majority Leader Rolando Andaya, Jr.’s statement that the funds for lawmakers’ pet projects in their congressional districts are not pork.

READ: Andaya: No pork in 2019 general appropriations bill

Andaya, in interview Wednesday, said House members were allotted P60 million each while senators would get P200 million each in the 2019 budget for their pet projects.

Asked about the allocation for senators, Lacson said he was aware that several of his colleagues submitted their individual amendments for projects.

“How much? I have no idea although I’m sure it is not a uniform 200M each,” he said.

“I am also sure I have none since I do not avail of such kind of amendment or insertion,” the senator added.

ADVERTISEMENT

In another text message to reporters, Lacson advised Andaya and other congressmen to read the entire ruling of the Supreme Court declaring the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) also known as “pork barrel” unconstitutional .

“Hindi lang post legislation vs pre-legislation ang definition ng pork,” he pointed out.

He even cited a portion of the ruling, which states that “All informal practices with the same import and effect that the Court deems to be acts of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of discretion are also declared void.”

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

“Ano pa ba ang implication ng hatiang tig-60M sa bawat congressman? Wala bang grave abuse of discretion yung practice na ganun?” Lacson asked. /cbb

TAGS: favors of office, House, News, Senate

© Copyright 1997-2024 INQUIRER.net | All Rights Reserved

We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. By continuing, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. To find out more, please click this link.