Saying reforms were underway, the Aquino administration and the House of Representatives on Tuesday asked the Supreme Court to junk petitions seeking to declare the pork barrel system unconstitutional.
In a 23-page comment to the court, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) also urged either the partial or total lifting of the court’s temporary restraining order (TRO) on the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) for the rest of the year, P12.2 billion of the allocated P25 billion.
The OSG argued that the TRO would “work to the damage of innocent citizens who rely on the operations of the PDAF for educational and medical assistance purposes” and urged that they at least be exempted from the freeze directive.
It cited the cases of 62-year-old Flora Rivera, who “depends on the PDAF for her regular dialysis” at the National Kidney and Transplant Institute, and Judy Grace Concordia, a college student from Valenzuela, “whose scholarship is now at risk.”
In all, the OSG said 412,078 scholars relied on the PDAF of 95 congressmen.
“Most colleges are finishing the first semester, are about to give final examinations, and the second semester will open in about less than a month’s time,” it said in pleading for access to the PDAF for these scholars. It said hundreds of thousands of indigent patients likewise would suffer from the TRO.
Deputy presidential spokesperson Abigail Valte told reporters that the Palace supported the partial lifting of the TRO, but only for expenses relating to medical and educational assistance.
She said that in the case of the scholarships, “that can be easily identified, given that they have submitted the documentary evidence.”
“The reported abuses of the PDAF are problems of implementation; they do not go into the constitutionality of the law,” the OSG said, citing “existing jurisprudence,” referring to three previous court decisions upholding the pork barrel system.
The OSG filed the comment on behalf of Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa, Budget Secretary Florencio Abad and House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte. Senate President Franklin Drilon said the chamber had issued its reply “on the basis of the hearings and jurisprudence.”
The Malampaya Fund and the President’s Social Fund (PSF)—described by critics as Aquino’s pork barrel—were “special funds, the disposition of which have been constitutionally delegated to the President,” according to the comment.
“Congress has the constitutional authority to create special funds and there is no constitutional basis to compel the Executive to include ‘off-budget’ items in the GAA [General Appropriations Act],” it said.
No delegation of powers
“Clearly, there is no undue delegation of legislative powers to the President because the disbursement and utilization of the Malampaya Fund and PSF are subject to well-defined standards in the use of public funds for public purposes,” the OSG said.
The OSG insisted that Aquino “has officially declared his intent to abolish PDAF and has specified his plan to replace [it] with a defined program of line-item budgeting.”
Also cited was the new pork barrel mechanism under discussion in the House that would adopt a “limited menu with more stringent qualifications for line-item projects in the 2014 budget.”
The OSG said a decision of the court “may preempt the efforts of the President and Congress, and a judicial solution may inadvertently limit a more progressive solution.” It urged the court “to allow the reform-oriented political process to proceed.”
Belmonte on Tuesday said each representative could propose up to five infrastructure projects to be implemented by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) under the new pork system being worked out. The DPWH would get 35 percent (or P7.21 billion) of the entire PDAF allocation in the national budget. Education, healthcare and employment would each get 15 percent of the total PDAF. Crisis intervention programs would receive 20 percent.
“Under the Constitution, the calibration of the specific contours of the budget falls within the competence of Congress and the Executive,” the OSG said.
Perversion of taxation
“The political branches are in the best position not only to perform budget-related reforms but also to do these in response to the specific demands of their constituents.”
The high court issued the TRO in response to three separate petitions filed by civil society groups amid public outrage over the alleged P10-billion racket that over the past decade diverted funds meant to ease rural poverty to “ghost projects” and kickbacks of up to 50 percent to lawmakers.
The petitions asked the court to declare unconstitutional the pork barrel system, including President Aquino’s lump sum, discretionary funds, except the calamity and contingency facilities.
They also urged the court to strike down for being unconstitutional a provision in the Malampaya Fund law allowing the President to use the facility “for such other purposes” directed by the Chief Executive. The government’s share from the revenue from the operation of gas wells off Palawan (province) was mandated to be used solely “to finance energy resource development and exploitation programs and projects of the government.”
“The pork barrel system allows the perversion of taxation by providing opportunities for the members thereof to gorge themselves in funds collected pursuant to tax legislation they have enacted purportedly for the public good,” said Samson Alcantara, of the Social Justice Society.
Oral arguments Oct. 8
Alcantara said the pork barrel system was a “mockery” of the constitutional mandate on accountability, honesty and integrity of public officers. He added that the system also allowed the President to have control over lawmakers in violation of the constitutional separation of powers.
Also at Tuesday’s en banc meeting, the high court asked the petitioners to comment within seven days upon receipt of the OSG consolidated comment.
The high court is set to hold oral arguments on the petitions against the pork barrel on Oct. 8.—With a report from Michael Lim Ubac