Speaker Feliciano Belmonte has confirmed that members of the House of Representatives received additional pork from a so-called stimulus fund last year and that the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) offered it to members with no strings attached.
“I thought these were savings from underspending in 2011. I don’t think anybody expected or asked for it,” Belmonte said in a text message to the Inquirer. “I have nothing to do with it, maybe because the impeachment had nothing to do with it contrary to a certain story.”
There were claims that the additional pork was some form of reward for the impeachment of then Chief Justice Renato Corona in December 2011.
Two House members, who served as counsels in the House prosecution team at Corona’s impeachment trial, said they each got P10 million in extra pork given to representatives. But another member of the prosecution team said he did not get the extra pork.
Budget Secretary Florencio Abad on Saturday said each House member got P10 million to P15 million from the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), or pooled savings of agencies used for high-impact projects to stimulate economic growth.
Abad said senators were each given an additional allocation of P50 million.
Just P10 million each
Isabela Rep. Giorgidi Aggabao and Cavite Rep. Elpidio Barzaga said they received P10 million each in 2012 from the DAP on top of their annual P70-million allocation from the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), the official name of the graft-ridden pork barrel.
“Yes, I asked and was given P10-million as additional fund. I don’t have the record with me, but I think I received that (amount) late last year or early this year,” Aggabao said.
Barzaga said he asked for extra funds from the DBM for his district and was given a statement of allocation release order for P10 million in December 2012 (which was available in the first quarter this year).
“The funds were meant for subsidy to local government units. It’s nothing unusual. Lawmakers always ask for extra funds for their districts and it is not always given,” he said.
Both Aggabao and Barzaga maintained that these funds were not a reward for the impeachment of Corona because these were given six months after his conviction.
No DAP for Colmenares
But another House prosecution team member, Bayan Muna Rep. Neri Colmenares, claimed that he did not get any extra pork from the DBM as he noted that he did not even get in full his P70-million annual pork allocation.
“According to my staff, portions of the 2010 and 2012 PDAF have not been released but it’s not even an issue for us. Our stand in impeaching corrupt public officials has been clear a long time ago in the four impeachment complaints against (then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo), three impeachment complaints against (former Ombudsman Merceditas) Gutierrez and Corona,” Colmenares said.
“We don’t need to be given projects to encourage us to sign an impeachment complaint much less prosecute one,” he added. “Our position is independent of the pork barrel being dangled by the executive.”
Colmenares said that the DAP was “new” to the lawmakers.
Name DAP recipients
Navotas City Rep. Tobias Tiangco questioned why Belmonte and Abad had been reluctant in identifying the House members who received extra pork from the DAP and how much each got.
He said he did not receive any extra pork and assailed Abad’s claim that the DAP was available to every House member.
Tiangco said: “If it is really for the acceleration of the economy, why does it have to pass through the congressmen? Definitely, it comes from the executive pork. This is the reason why my figures differ with Congressman Colmenares on how much discretionary funds the President has because it is difficult to identify the lump-sum appropriations in the national expenditure program.”
Tied to impeachment
Tiangco maintained that the extra pork was tied to the impeachment of Corona.
“Impeachment is a political process. While some were studying the articles of impeachment, they would get whispers of ‘meron ka dito (you will get something).’ So, how do you expect them to make an objective review of the case? That is the reason why they do not want to remove the lump-sum appropriations because if they do that, they lose control of Congress,” he said.
In his privilege speech a day after the impeachment of Corona, Tiangco said that he did not sign the complaint despite threats that the administration would withhold his pork for his constituents.
“We were clearly given two choices: to sign or not to sign. What I did not like was the congressional leaders’ claim that this was nondebatable and that no questions would be entertained during the signing. How can you vote for the impeachment without having had the chance to even read the articles of impeachment, much less, verify the facts and merits of the case?” Tiangco said.
While Corona was convicted, the House prosecution team led by Majority Leader Neptali Gonzales II and Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas Jr. was criticized for nearly losing the case with its flimsy charges and failure to substantiate its accusations against Corona.
Tiangco asked: “If not all the congressmen who voted to impeach Corona did not get any extra funds, does this mean ‘nabukulan sila’ by the leadership? Just asking loudly.”