Palace notes Lacson warning on pork
Communications Secretary Herminio Coloma: Lacson is a friend (Photo from https://pcoo.gov.ph/)
MANILA, Philippines—Malacañang on Sunday shrugged off former Sen. Panfilo Lacson’s concern about a “fiscal dictatorship” allegedly being exercised by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM).
But Communications Secretary Herminio Coloma “noted” Lacson’s warning that “too much fiscal discretion by any branch of the government will not only be not supportive of the principle of check and balance but will also affect the fiscal management efficiency of the national government.”
“Pursuant to its commitment to good governance, this administration is open to appropriate legislation and other reform initiatives that will address this concern,” Coloma said in a statement.
Lacson earlier delivered a speech before the Philippine Constitution Association assailing the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) and the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), which he described as “evil siblings.”
He outlined his long-standing opposition to the pork barrel system and warned against the enormous power wielded by the DBM over the national budget, particularly government savings.
Article continues after this advertisementHe zeroed in on National Budget Circulars Nos. 541 and 543, which he said allowed the DBM to pool savings and realign them to programs or projects of its choosing. He said the circulars were “indicative of a fiscal dictatorship by the DBM.”
Article continues after this advertisementDespite the former senator’s attacks against the DAP and the pork barrel system, the Palace ostensibly refused to fire back, insisting that Lacson was a “personal friend” and “political ally” of President Aquino.
“The bases of his speech were objective and balanced,” Coloma told the Inquirer by phone. “It’s clear in the speech who he was referring to.”
Coloma acknowledged that “certain practices have evolved” and there had been a “tendency toward abuse” by some politicians in the use of pork barrel funds.
“This might have moved away from the original intent of the law,” he said, noting that the administration was now working to address the problem.
But Coloma insisted that the DAP was legal amid petitions asking the Supreme Court to declare it unconstitutional.
“We maintain our position on the legal basis for the adoption of economic stimulus measures that have contributed to GDP growth,” he said in the statement.
“Under our existing laws, both the executive and the legislative branches have specific roles to perform and in so doing, the [DBM] and other national government agencies are guided by the principles of democratic governance.”
The Inquirer earlier reported on how the DBM managed to withdraw “unobligated allotments of agencies with low levels of obligations as of June 20, 2012, both for continuing and current allotments”—all because of budget circular 541, which was released on July 12 of the same year.
Unused appropriations the previous year amounted to P238.85 billion, while the amount was P216.18 billion the following year—meaning the DBM had as much at its disposal.
In October 2011, the department announced a stimulus program called the DAP, which was to make use of pooled savings, initially amounting to P71.11 billion, for “additional projects.”
The Inquirer later learned that DAP savings allowed the Aquino administration to jack up congressional pork barrel by about half (or P12.8 billion) in 2011 and 2012, the first two years covered by the stimulus program. The PDAF totaled P24.8 billion then.
RELATED STORIES:
Lacson hits DAP, DBM ‘dictatorship’
