Senate President Pro Tempore Franklin Drilon (left) says P650 million in lump sum funds in the proposed budget of the Department of Public Works and Highways are similar to the outlawed pork barrel fund. Committee on finance chair Senator Loren Legarda (right) has admitted the lump sum but said it would be for ‘feasibility studies’ for future projects. INQUIRER FILES
Senators questioned on Monday the more than P650 million in lump sum funds in the proposed budget of the Department of Public Works and Highway (DPWH) for 2017 supposedly intended for “feasibility studies” for future projects.
Senator Panfilo Lacson noted that aside from the P5.9 billion for feasibility study, project development, preliminary and detailed engineering, the DPWH was proposing another P500 million and P150 million without any details and placed under the agency’s Central Office.
Senate President Pro Tempore Franklin Drilon found the lump sum similar to the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), or pork barrel, which the Supreme Court had declared unconstitutional.
READ: Diokno refutes pork barrel claim anew in 2017 budget
At first, Senator Loren Legarda, who was defending the DPWH budget as chair of the Senate committee on finance, said the P500 million was intended to “augment regional operations of the projects that have been allocated.”
“And they are assuring you that this will not be used for political accommodation,” Legarda said, referring to DPWH officials led by Secretary Mark Villar, assisting her during the floor deliberations of the agency’s proposed budget next year.
But Lacson asked why there was a need to augment when there was already a planning division.
“Pag kulang daw ang proyekto ay mayroon silang pagkukunan to augment,” Legarda said.
“You can only augment from savings di ba? Papano kang mag-augment sa umpisa pa lang ng 2017, mayroon ka nang naka-ready augmentation, wala pang nade-declare na savings,” Lacson said.
“[T]here’s no specific project for which this money will be used. In other words, this is post intervention on the part of the DPWH Secretary because at that point, the Secretary is empowered to identify projects which will be funded by this lump sum appropriation of P500 million,” Drilon said.
At that point, Legarda explained that the P500 million would be a “standby” fund, which would be sub-alloted to the regions “for feasibility study of future projects.”
Drilon, who was presiding over the session, joined Lacson in questioning the fund, saying it was a lump sum fund “with no particular purpose.”
“And you can’t use this for augmentation. Otherwise, we’ll have augmentation amounts all over the budget. That’s precisely what Senator Lacson is raising,” Drilon said.
Lacson then suggested to just break down the allocation and explain its utilization so it would not be perceived as a lump-sum fund.
“Even if you break it per region, there’s no specific project for which this money will be used. In other words, this is post intervention on the part of the DPWH Secretary because at that point, the Secretary is empowered to identify projects which will be funded by this lump sum appropriation of P500 million,” Drilon said.
“That’s precisely what the PDAF is all about and declared unconstitutional,” he added.
“Now if Congress, can’t do that, I don’t know why it can be done by a Cabinet member,” he added.
Legarda admitted that the P500 million was a lump sum but reiterated that it was for feasibility study, engineering designs of the projects “which may ensue apart from the existing projects” in the regions.
“So after the budget is passed and becomes a General Appropriation Act, the Secretary of public works under this set up is authorized to identify where this will be spent?” Drilon asked to which Legarda answered “yes.”
“That’s precisely what the PDAF is all about and declared unconstitutional,” he added.
Legarda offered the same explanation for the P150 million fund lodged in the DPWH’s Central Office, saying it was a contingent fund. CBB/rga