Lacson twits Abad: P424B lump sum solely for calamity response?

“Kung P424 billion na ang pinag-uusapan, hindi na siguro [para sa] bagyo ’yun.”

This was the reaction of former Sen. Panfilo Lacson on Tuesday following the statement of Department of Budget and Management Secretary Florencio “Butch” Abad that lump-sum appropriations in the national budget were necessary “in the face of contingencies.”

A day after he revealed that he and his team discovered lump-sum appropriations amounting to P424 billion while they were reviewing the 2015 General Appropriations Act (GAA), Lacson maintained that discretionary funds were prone to corruption.

“Ibig sabihin ng lump sum, discsretionary ito at alam naman natin na kapag discretionary ’yung pondo eh napaka-tempting nito para sa corruption,” Lacson said in an interview with Radyo Inquirer 990AM.

READ: P424B pork in 2015 budget–Lacson

While agreeing to Abad’s statement that lump-sum funds could not be avoided at times, Lacson expressed doubts that the P424 billion that he and his team discovered would be allocated to calamity response alone.

“Totoo po ’yun na talagang hindi makakaiwas. Halimbawa mayroong, by the very nature of the budget item, eh kailangan talagang maging lump sum. Halimbawa, ’yung mga kalamidad, hindi naman natin masasabi kung ilan ang bagyo at gaano ka-extensive ang bagyo o earthquake, therefore, ila-lump sum mo muna, fine,” Lacson said.

Saying the figures that Lacson mentioned in his speech were not in the GAA, Abad on Monday said discretionary funds should not be automatically regarded as a form of irregularity.

“[Y]ou will note that all remaining lump-sum items are funds whose specific purposes are impossible to determine in the planning process. For example: We cannot foretell where disasters will strike or what the extent of the potential damage might be, so the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Fund is necessarily a lump sum,” he said.

Abad says there have been fewer lump sums in the administration’s spending plan for 2015, noting that 87 percent of the Special Purpose Funds in the 2015 budget “has already been disaggregated.”

“Mr. Lacson’s doomsday assertions on lump sums and the supposed resurrection of DAP under the 2015 budget are inaccurate. A careful reading of the National Budget would prove that quickly enough,” he added, urging Lacson to reach out to the DBM.

Lacson said the lump sum funds in the 2015 budget might pave the way for the “rebirth” of the Disbursement Accelaration Program, parts of which were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in July last year.

“Sa DILG ang napansin namin … may 1.2 billion sa housing, 3.1 billion para sa roads and bridges. Bakit naman magpapagawa ang DILG ng roads and bridges eh mayroon tayong DPWH? Bakit naman magpapagawa ng mga pabahay eh meron tayong housing (agencies)?” he added. With a report by Arianne Merez