Panfilo “Ping” Lacson. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO
Budget Secretary Florencio Abad on Friday said former Senator Panfilo Lacson should direct his criticism of the alleged lump sum in the 2015 national budget at Congress.
“This criticism should really be directed at Congress because the accusation being leveled is that Congress has once again reinstituted the pork barrel,” Abad told reporters on Friday.
Abad maintained that there were no lump sums in the national budget.
Abad added he welcomed the petition that Lacson said he would file before the Supreme Court next week.
The case, Abad said, would be an occasion for the high court to again “clarify what pork barrel really means.”
Earlier this week, Lacson claimed the 2015 national budget “resurrected” the lawmakers’ priority development assistance fund (PDAF), also known as the pork barrel, as well as the controversial Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP).
Lacson said he had the names of lawmakers who have inserted “pork” projects in this year’s national budget.
In 2013, the High Tribunal declared the PDAF unconstitutional, saying the identification of pork-funded projects by lawmakers was “unrelated to the power of congressional oversight.”
The court’s ruling came at the height of the so-called pork barrel scam involving businesswoman Janet Napoles and several lawmakers, who allegedly connived to pocket the funds using fake nongovernment organizations.
In an earlier statement, the Department of Budget and Management said “a careful reading of the National Budget would prove [the inaccuracies of Lacson’s allegations] quickly enough.”
“While the General Appropriations Act may appear complex, it will very clearly show two things: that the supposed DAP provisions are not in the GAA, and that there are fewer lump sums in the administration’s spending plan this year,” the DBM said.
It also said 87 percent of the “Special Purpose Funds” in the 2015 Budget “has already been disaggregated.”
The DBM added that whatever lump-sum items are left in the proposed 2015 Budget are “funds whose specific purposes are impossible to determine in the planning process,” such as when natural disasters would strike or the extent of damage calamities.
The DBM said this was why the budget of the National Disaster Risk Reduction Management Council is “necessarily a lump sum.”