8/10/2019 PDAF - Juan

1/11

AFFIRMATIVE REBUTTAL

Good day ladies and gentlemen. I am the second speaker of the affirmative side

and my task is to rebut the arguments presented by the first speaker of the negative

side and to present additional arguments in favor of the affirmative side. In fulfilling

this task, let me begin my speech in pointing out the flaws of the arguments presented

by the first negative speaker.

The speech of the first negative speaker can be summed up in a meager one

sentence: They believe that the Priority Development Assistance Fund, in short PDAF,

also known as the Pork Barrel System, should not be abolished because through this

system our members of the Philippine Congress can serve their constituents better by

directing government resources to the urgent needs of their communities. The negative

side believes that the pork barrel system should not be abolished but instead should

only be rectified or corrected through installation of more safeguards to the pork barrel

system.

To be very frank and honest, ladies and gentlemen, the argument of the first

negative speaker that the pork barrel is necessary because our Congreesmen can

serve better their constituents through it is a poor attempt to jusitfy the existence of the

prok barrel system. This reminds me of former Soviet Premier Nikita Krushchev when

he said that Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build a bridge even

where there isno river. In a way, the same can be said of our very own politicians in

general. In this part of the globe, lawmakers strive to make good of their promises.

They feign generosity to their constituents through pork funds to cover up their

lackluster performance in law-making and parliamentary debates.

As promised, policymakers in this country are rather preoccupied with the

construction of bridges, roads, waiting sheds and health centers etc., only that most of

8/10/2019 PDAF - Juan

2/11

these public works projects are substandard. Because our lawmakers visualize

themselves as pseudo-DPWH, they utilize pork funds to support pet projects, mostly

public works, to impress upon their constituents that they have done well with their

fund. But beneath all this, lawmakers wallow in a grand conspiracy to deceive the

public. These rent-seeking vultures are more concerned with paperless deals that

would put them in a better light come election time. But the stench of institutionalized

corruption is hard to contain. It stinks. And most Filipinos are not unaware of the fact

that pork barrel is a source of evil.

The scenario is all too familiar:Mr. Congressman identifies his pet projects

for his district. The pork fund is channeled through the implementing agency,

say DPWH, to execute the public works project. Next is the bidding process.

Studies show, and rightly so, that PDAF projects normally attracts just one

bidder for each of the competitive tenders conducted by the implementing

agency. Consequently, with no real competition in the bidding process, your

mighty Congressman exerts influence in the selection of contractors to carry

out PDAF-funded projects. The favored contractor, the one tasked to undertake

the project, is obligated to hand over at least 30-50 percent rebates of the pork

fund, known as kick back or cuts, to your honorable congressman. 30 percent

goes to the contractor, the remainder, or 20 percent of the Fund would now go to

the cost of the project.This is why most public works projects are substandard, and

are in need of continuous repairs despite hefty allocations ostensibly given to them.

Worse, in between these projects, lawmakers would get to flaunt their names and

vapid faces on project tarps to make sure that constituents would praise their hallowed

names to high heavens during elections. Now, whether the pork barrel funds go to the

deep pockets of politicians, LGUs, and bogus NGOs the underlying purpose is the

same: Its all for the money. What nerve, what conceit!

The proposition of the negative side of rectifying or correcting the flawed and

abused pork barrel system is the same with the idea of attempting to put make up and

8/10/2019 PDAF - Juan

3/11

beautify a stinky pig to make it appear presentable and acceptable to the public. No

matter how much make up we put, the odor of a pig will always come out. This is the

same with the proposition of the negative side. The first negative speaker himself

admitted that the pork barrel system has been abused by out politicians and is

definitely flawed. Why should we retain the pork barrel system, ladies and gentlemen,

when it has been flawed, abused and has been the source of evil and corruption in this

country?

It is therefore the stand of the affirmative side that we should abolish and junk

the PDAF or pork barrel system.

As defined by PDAF Watch, a civil society organization,pork barrel funds are

those allocated to politicians such as congresspersons and senators, to be used,

based on their decision to fund programs or projects in their districts.In reality, pork

barrel is a spoiling incentive used by the President to gain political support in both

houses of Congress. In return, he gets to have his wishes done.

Under the principle of separation of powers, the Constitution distributed the

powers of government among its three distinct departments, each superior in its own

sphere-- the legislative makes laws, the executive implements it, and the judiciary

interprets the law. But the separation is not absolute. There are instances when these

powers blend with each other owing to its corollary mechanism of checks and

balances. In this way, at least in theory, separation of powers enables the three great

branches to check each other thereby preventing concentration of powers that might

result to tyranny.

There is, however, a flipside to it. The principle of separation of powers was

never intended to promote efficiency. The price of interdependence among the great

departments, while notable for its purpose, exacts a high price that could create an

8/10/2019 PDAF - Juan

4/11

impasse in the workings of the government. Needless to say, political compromises are

often the result of executive-legislative gridlocks especially when their personal

interests transcend constitutional boundaries. It is my view that even if the theory of

separation of powers rests on the premise that tyranny can be avoided by allocating

distinct powers among the three departments, the same line of argument is no

guarantee against determined despots. What if the holders of powers decide to band

themselves together in a grand conspiracy to something that is oppressive like the

infamous pork barrel system?

Essentially, this is how the dynamics of executive-legislative work: legislation is

the exclusive domain of Congress, but the Constitution does not prohibit the president

to introduce legislation through party lines in the legislature. Because party-principles

in Philippine politics are subservient to personal interests or patronage network,

alliances and coalitions usually appear like mushrooms, frantically aligning themselves

to the central leadership of the ruling party. What made them tow the line? The 1987

Constitution provides as with a simple answer:Discretionary funds appropriated for

a particular official shall be disbursed only for public purposes to be supported

by appropriate vouchers and subject to such guidelines as may be prescribed

by law.Discretionary funds had evolved in various names hoping to dispel the

negative connotation of the term. But whether you call it as Discretionary Fund or

Countrywide Development Fund or Priority Development Assistance Development

Fund still, the stench of a sullen past exudes a venal odor of anomalyit

institutionalizes patronage politics. In the Philippines, as one American legislator

observed, all politics is local. Congressional power depends largely at the local level.

Members of the House of Representative are elected by legislative districts where

patronage politics is at its all time high. Thus politicians, especially the incumbents,

have an immense advantage in protecting local networks through their control of pork

barrel, and they will do almost anything to preserve the system of corruption. Senators,

on the other hand, although elected at large had their fair share of a systematize

8/10/2019 PDAF - Juan

5/11

distribution of spoils. Except for some lawmakers who eschewed their pork barrel

allocations, most senators had funneled their shares on the basis of specific

geographic vote-rich districts. Most of these areas or political districts are highly

urbanized cities and provinces with dense population obviously with high voters

turnout every election. In the end, all things being equal, the pork barrel system hardly

benefits the people in terms of goods and services. Instead, the pork barrel system

has further cemented the hold of political dynasties and money politics in local

fiefdoms.

We the negative side believes that the PDAF should be abolished. We submit

that the pork barrel system runs contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution

when it reminded us thatpublic office is a public trust. It also frontally violates the time-

honored principle of separation of powers by sneaking loopholes through the

backdoor, masquerading PDAF-funded projects as executive function when in fact

lawmakers have taken responsibility over project implementation more than passing

laws. One of the lessons I learned in construing provisions of the Constitution is the

rule which says,What cannot be legally done directly cannot be done indirectly.I think

the rule finds application, one way or another, with the pork barrel funds in relation to

constitutional proscriptions. But more that the legality of PDAF, it takes a strong

leadership to eradicate corruption. The President, as one commentator opined, can

easily abolish pork barrel by not including in its budgetary proposals. Congress, by

way of tradition and under the 1987 Constitution, cannot add anything outside the

specified budget recommended by the President, the most that they can do is to

decrease the figures.

Again, we the affirmative believes that the PDAF should be abolished. Thank you and

Good day!

NEGATIVE REBUTTAL

8/10/2019 PDAF - Juan

6/11

Good day ladies and gentlemen. I am the second speaker of the negative side

and my task is to rebut the arguments presented affirmative rebuttal and to present

additional arguments in favor of the negative side. In fulfilling this task, let me begin

my speech in pointing out the flaws of the arguments presented by the speaker for the

affirmative rebuttal.

The affirmative side believes that the PDAF should be abolished altogether.

They argue that while pork barrel funds do

provide services to constituents, they foster political patronage,

institutionalize patron-client relations, strengthen the chances of

We the negative side believes that the pork barrel should not be abolished and should

only be corrected.

Is pork barrel spending inconsistent with the principle of separation of powers ina democratic system since members of Congress are elected to pass laws and not

implement projects? A look at the major democracies in the worldUS, Canada, UK,

Australia, Japan, among otherseasily disproves this point. Pork barrel is alive and

well in all major democracies in the world, and they do not suffer the same economic

maladies that we have. Pork barrel goes hand in hand with democratic processes and

institutions. Governments all over the world use their power to tax and spend to favor

certain constituencies with special benefits.

Democratically elected officials have geographic-specific electoral bases that they

represent (that is why members of Congress are called representatives) and

legislator-constituency relations are often defined in terms of providing location-specific

projects like roads, livelihood projects, courthouses, airports, and schools.

Those who argue that legislators are elected only to make laws fail to grasp the

meaning of democratic representation. Legislators articulate the interests and

demands of their constituents to the national government. In many instances, the

solutions to these problems cannot be found in making laws but in ensuring that the

8/10/2019 PDAF - Juan

7/11

needs of their constituents are addressed. In a perfect world, executive agencies

provide these projects. In an imperfect world, pork barrel projects meet these

demands.

American political scientist Diana Evans even argues that pork barrel facilitates

legislative decision-making. She asserts that pork barrel benefits, while reviled by

many, are routinely used by political leaders to build coalitions to pass much-needed

legislation on social welfare, health, and education. Buying votes with pork, in this

instance, enables Congress to enact laws that are contentious and difficult to pass.

Should we abolish the pork and transfer all funds to the executive branch? This

contention assumes that: 1) the choices made by legislators in the use of their PDAF

are irrational and even corrupt;

and 2) that executive decision-making is more rational (and ethical) than those of

legislators.

While there is no question that there are many examples of bad pork (such as

a former senator who built nothing but basketball courts, or a movie actor-turned-

congressman who constructed road humps all over his district) there are also many

innovative PDAF projects that fulfill constituency needs but get poor press.

Examples of good pork are numerous. Senate Presidents Drilons collaboration with

the Filipino-Chinese Chamber of Commerce (FCCC) has reduced the price of

constructing a two-room school building from

P700,000 (Department of Public Works and Highways cost) to P350,000 (FCCC cost).

Drilon has put P205M of his PDAF in this initiative, effectively doubling the number of

school buildings constructed using

government funds.

Senate Minority Leader Nene Pimentel has given PDAF funds to the U.P. to train

some 350 SUC (state universities and colleges) student council presidents andeditors-in-chief on leadership and legislative advocacy; award outstanding local

government leaders, recognize cooperatives-LGUs (local government units)

partnerships, and sponsor workshops on federalism, tax reforms, party list

representation, and globalization.

Senator Juan Flavier used P300M of his PDAF to complete the construction of the

Baguio General Hospital and P65M in a LandBank-administered credit program for

cooperatives and a scholarship program for students in the 20 poorest provinces of the

Philippines.

And former Negros Oriental congressman, now LandBank President Margarito

Teves used his pork barrel to provide incentives to mayors who implemented

successful family planning programs.

8/10/2019 PDAF - Juan

8/11

Do these projects promote political patronage and corruption? No. Would regular

government agencies implement these types of projects if funds were given exclusively

to them? No! In these instances, the abolition or transfer of the PDAF would result in

overpriced government services, the non-completion of vital infrastructure, or the

neglect of projects that executive agencies routinely disregard because these do not

fall within their priorities.

Abolishing the pork barrel will have a disastrous effect on many local

communities where a legislators pork barrel project is often the only capital investment

in the area. Pork barrel projects in 5th and 6thclass municipalitiesroad construction,

repair of day care centers, schools, and barangay halls, livelihood projectsprovide

employment and much-needed infrastructure.

The budget of these LGUs can barely pay for salaries and operating expenses,

and their needs tend to fall out of the radar screen of national and provincial

authorities. A reduction in the pork barrel

coupled with a reduction in their IRA (Internal Revenue Allotment), as GMA has

proposed, will be disastrous to poor communities.

Finally, PDAF abolition or reduction will further exacerbate executive dominance

over Congress. Under the present system, the President, through the Deparment of

Budget and Management (DBM), controls the

release of PDAF funds through the issuance of SAROs (Special Allotment Release

Orders) and NCAs (Notices of Cash Allocation) and administration allies tend to get

their releases faster than those in

the opposition.

Members of the House are most vulnerable to executive pressure because any

delay in the PDAF release can jeopardize projects promised to their constituents.

Senators can be more independent because theirelectability is not anchored exclusively on serving constituency needs.

Abolishing the pork barrel will further weaken legislative-executive checks-and-

balances and tilt the balance of power to create an Imperial Presidency.

The solution to the pork barrel issue is not abolition but greater transparency,

accountability and rationality in its utilization. What can be done?

1. Promote greater transparency in the use of the pork barrel funds by

requiring projects to be listed in publicly available reports through theinternet and print media. Sunshine is still the best disinfectant

for wasteful government spending. Transparency and accountability

can be required through a resolution passed by each chamber of

Congress, the exercise of legislative leadership by the Speaker and

Senate

8/10/2019 PDAF - Juan

9/11

President, and the observance of the freedom of information provision

of the Constitution;

2. Form advocacy and watchdog groups that will monitor public

spending and force government to open public documents for

scrutiny. Groups like Citizens Against Government Waste and

Taxpayers for Common Sense have successfully monitored pork

barrel

spending in the US. In the Philippines, the USAID-initiated

Transparent Accountable Governance project (www.tag.org.ph) has

data on aggregate pork barrel spending. Unfortunately, it does not

track the type of projects implemented by legislators, making it

impossible to identify bad pork versus good pork. The neutrality or

independence of some of the partners and implementing agencies is

also questionable since they themselves are beneficiaries of pork

barrel projects;

3. Reform-minded legislators can take the cue from U.S. Senator

John McCain whose website www.mccain.senate.gov has a special

page called pork barrel spending that lists questionable pork

projects. They can then link up with watchdog groups to ensure

access to government documents on pork barrel spending; and

4. Enact a Freedom of Information (FOI) law similar to those in

Sweden, US, Canada, and the EU that gives citizens the right to see

public records and requires public disclosure of government

transactions. In the Philippines, Action for Economic Reforms has

been collaborating with reformist legislators for a law on the citizens

right to public information.

If we adopt at least one of these suggestions, the public would have a better

appreciation of the pork barrel. Then the President would be forced to find better ways

to plug the deficit, as well as intelligently and bravely address the chronic problems ofthe economy. incumbents for re-election, and engender corruption.

In consideration of these arguments, we the negative side believes that the

PDAF should not be abolished but instead be corrected by implementation of better

safeguard measures. Thank you ladies and gentlemen

8/10/2019 PDAF - Juan

10/11

LAST AFFIRMATIVE SPEAKER

Good day ladies and gentlemen. I am the last speaker of the affirmative side

and my task is to rebut the arguments presented in the negative rebuttal and to

summarize the arguments presented by our side, the affirmative side. In fulfilling this

task, let me begin my speech in pointing out the flaws of the arguments presented by

the negative side.

8/10/2019 PDAF - Juan

11/11

LAST NEGATIVE SPEAKER

Good day ladies and gentlemen. I am the last speaker of the negative side and

my task is to summarize the arguments presented by our side, the negative side. Our

side believes that PDAF should not be abolished and instead be corrected. Our side

has presented ample arguments to support our position, namely: