THE DEPLOYMENT OF THE PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE FUND

(PDAF) ON INFRASTRACTURE AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF

RODRIGUEZ AND SAN MATEO RIZAL: AN ASSESSMENT

An Undergraduate Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the Political Science

Department

Institute of Arts and Sciences

Far Eastern University

In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements Needed for the Degree of Bachelor

of Arts Major in Political Science

Bianca Nerizza A. Infantado

Jade Clevert M. Garcia

Rommarie Angelei C. Dela Rosa

Hennessy O. Martinez

Efren Anthony Rizaldy R. Lamorena

Oliver Julius G. Aquino

October 2013

0

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND PAGE

Introduction 3

Background of the Study 5

Setting of the Study 7

Theoretical Framework 7

Research Paradigm 8

Statement of the Problem 9

Hypotheses 9

Significance of the Study 9

Scope and Delimitation 10

Definition of Terms 11

2. RELATED LITERATURE

Empirical 12

Non-Empirical 18

3. RESEARCH METHOD PAGE

1

Research Approach 22

Research Design 22

Respondents or Study Subjects 23

Research Instrument 24

Validation of the Instrument 24

Data Gathering Procedure 25

Statistical Treatment 26

4. Bibliography 28

5. Appendix 32

2

Chapter I

The Problem and Its Background

Introduction

The Priority Development Assistance Fund is a lump-sum appropriation

(Noda, 2011) in the annual General Appropriations Act (GAA) to fund priority

development programs and projects of the government, specifically the Executive

and Legislative Branch. The objective of the PDAF in the legislative branch is to

finance significant small-scale projects in congressional districts which cannot be

addressed by national agencies due to their concentration on large-scale

projects. According to the express statement on lump-sum amounts, the PDAF of

2011 allocates P200 million to each senator, broken down into P100 million

allocation each for “hard” and soft project while P70 million to each congressman

broken down into P40 million for “hard projects” and P30 million for “soft projects”

(R.A. 10147). The allocations are most commonly directed to projects in the form

of infrastructure, health, education and social aid packages. But, the PDAF

Articles also deem the priority list requirement upon which projects directed shall

strictly conform to the implementing agency’s priority list.

The PDAF was preceded by the Countrywide Development Fund (CDF),

which was abolished in 2000 due to lack of transparency in disbursement. In the

pursuit of anti-corruption measures, the PDAF was also changed to include a

menu of projects that may be funded. The release of the appropriations was then

based on requests passed to the Department of Budget and Management

3

(DBM). Such requests include the nature and location of the proposed projects,

the implementing agency and the amount of the funds required.

However, certain problems and issues surfaced against the PDAF. One

problem is that due to the discretionary privileges of the legislators, the allocation

spurs the intentions to spend big on particular localities, normally found in highly-

urbanized cities with thick population that can assure a high voter turn-out. The

misuse of the appropriations to ensure the political survival and the patron-client

relationship of the legislator and the constituents associates PDAF to the lexicon

- pork barrel. In a study conducted by Yvonne Chua and Booma Cruz (2004) of

the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ), the standard

commission of a legislator ranges from 20 to 50 percent in every project financed

through the PDAF. Moreover, financial benefits from cuts, kickbacks,

commissions, rebates and discounts also added much weight to this controversy.

Aside from being termed as a political and electoral instrument used to

secure the position of public officials, the PDAF was also highly questioned on

the projects that it seek to prioritize. According to the shortlist of projects provided

under the General Appropriations Act (GAA), the soft projects include scholarship

programs, medical assistance to indigent patients in government hospitals,

livelihood support programs, purchase of IT equipment and financial assistance

to local government units (LGUs) for the latter’s priority projects and programs.

The hard projects or projects for the construction of roads, bridges, multipurpose

buildings and waiting sheds are reflected as well in the GAA under individual

district allocations and under the DPWH locally funded nationwide lump sum

4

appropriations. Since the projects are supposed to encompass mechanisms or

resolutions for the achievement of the Philippine Development Plan 2011-2016,

major contentions on the legitimacy and the appropriateness of these priority

projects are raised.

Background of the Study

In the course of this study, there have been issues on the utilization of the

PDAF. Janet Lim-Napoles, a businesswoman had been linked together with his

brother, Reynald “Jojo” Lim to an alleged P10 billion pork barrel scam that

involved the misuse and transfer of the PDAF of several legislators  to fraudulent

non-governmental organizations. According to Abakada Party-list Representative

Jonathan Dela Cruz (Ribaya, 2013), about P2.2 billion in the PDAF had been

given to 244 non-governmental organizations. Five Senators namely Former

Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile,  Sen. Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr., Sen.

Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada, Ferdinand “Bong-Bong” Marcos Jr. and Gregorio

Honasan and 23 members of the House of Representatives had their PDAF

available to the scam based on the sworn statements of the whistleblowers

submitted to the Department of Justice.

The scam was exposed through affidavits of at least ten whistle-blowers,

of which Benhur K. Luy, cousin and assistance in JLN Corporation was the

primary witness. According to Luy, Napoles offered commissions to lawmakers,

5

equivalent to 40 to 60 percent of the amount of the PDAF in exchange of the right

to determine the implementing agency and fund beneficiary.

According to Commission on Audit (COA) Chief Maria Gracia Pulido-Tan,

their 2007-2009 report showed that most of the 82 non-governmental

organizations addresses had been traced to shanties or actual home addresses

of some members. In addition, the supposed recipients of the PDAF questioned

the inclusion of their names in COA audit reports as they have not received

goods or any financial aid. Ghost beneficiaries were predominant in the report as

names of board passers were also distinctively used.

The issue is heightened by the fact that President Benigno “Noynoy”

Aquino III increased the allocation from P24.8 billion on 2012 to P25.2 billion this

year due to the additional number of members in the House of Representatives.

With such cases at bench, there have been resolutions filed before the Senate

including the proposal of Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago to cut in half the

allocation on PDAF by the year 2014 and further slash it in half by 2015 to

efficiently abolish the PDAF by 2016 (Bacani, 2013). Other measures such as

line-item budgeting and complete abolition were called for by legislators.

However, the public clamoured to entirely abolish the pork barrel system.

From the case of the Philippine Constitution Association (PhilConsA) vs.

Enriquez et al (235 SCRA 507 [1994]), the Supreme Court held that “Under the

Constitution, the spending power called by James Madison as the power of the

purse, belongs to Congress, subject only to the veto power of the President.” The

6

Court ruled that the creation of the fund is “an attempt to make equal the

unequal”. An emphasis was supplied to the ruling that “individual members of

Congress, far more than the President and their congressional colleagues, are

likely to be knowledgeable about the needs of their respective constituents and

the priority to be given each project” (Nograles et al, 2008).

However, the Supreme Court, in a unanimous vote, declared the PDAF

unconstitutional on November 19, 2013 following the petitions of several parties.

Three issues were considered by the High Tribunal namely: procedural issues

which include the legitimacy for judicial review, substantive issues on the

congressional pork barrel which pertain to possible violations to constitutional

provisions and substantive issues on the Presidential pork barrel which relate to

questionable Presidential Decrees that direct delegation of legislative power.

On the first issue; the Supreme Court ruled that the petition complied with

the legal requisites for judicial inquiry. On the second issue, the Supreme Court

ruled that the pork barrel system present through the PDAF violated the principle

of separation of powers. According to the ruling, the legislative branch was given

the post-enactment authority in the implementation and enforcement of budget

through the means of participation in the identification of the projects, release

and realignment of funds which exclusively manifest an encroachment to the

power of the Executive Branch. Moreover, the PDAF was ruled to have violated

the principle of non-delegability for the reason that the legislators were allowed to

exercise the power of appropriation as an individual and not through legislation.

The system also impairs the President’s power of item veto because the

7

President can only accept the PDAF without knowing the projects that are to be

funded and therefore can also reject the entirety of the allocation without

cognizance as well. The court also saw the propensity for abuse of power or lack

of accountability with the power vested to the Legislators. In addition, the

Supreme Court agreed with the petitioners’ contention that the PDAF is in conflict

with the constitutional principles of local autonomy since it allows District

Representatives, known to be national officers, to utilize public funds for local

development. Lastly, the Supreme Court also declared void the power of the

President to use the Malampaya fund and the Presidential Social Fund (PSF) for

other purposes such as in financing infrastructure development projects.

Following the decision penned by Associate Justice Estela Perlas-

Bernabe, the government cannot disburse the remaining budget allocated for the

PDAF which amounts to P24.79 billion.

Setting of the Study

As we are focusing on the Philippine Development Plan of 2011-2016, the

researchers want to know if the PDAF or the Priority Development Assistance

Fund is the solution to provide the basic social development and infrastructure

services needed by the people. To answer the question on whether the PDAF

provides assistance needed by the people or act as a tool for political survival

and corruption of funds for their self-interest, the researchers focused the study

on the Second District of Rizal. The Demography of the study focuses on the

Second District of Rizal particularly in the municipalities of San Mateo and

8

Rodriguez. Presently San Mateo has a population of 220,702 while Rodriguez

also known as Montalban has a population of 326,668. San Mateo and

Rodriguez are first class urban municipalities in the province of Rizal. San Mateo

is in the west border of the Rizal Province, while Rodriguez (Montalban) is in the

North. The border of Rodriguez to its south is San Mateo and Antipolo, in its

north is Bulacan Province and in its East is Quezon Province.One of the sources

of taxes of San Mateo is the growing number of poultry and piggery estates and

also small eateries and restaurants and markets and retail stores and even in

Rodriguez, the sources of taxes is the same.

Theoretical Framework

Several scholars have studied pork barrel by considering formal theories

on distributive politics by examining legislative bargaining to pass bills that does

not include general interest provisions and that benefits only a majority of

legislators’ districts. According to Weingast (1979) on his paper A Rational

Choice Perspective on Congressional Norms, the theory assumes that members

seek distributive benefits for their constituents in order to get reelected. In

addition, the formal distributive politics theory is consistent with the study

conducted by Ferejohn (1986) – Incumbent Performance and Electoral Control,

when he said that voters will base their decisions on what can greatly maximize

their well-being subject to the constraint that politicians are pursuing their self-

interests. This connotes that if politicians deliver goods to a particular locality, the

connection between the legislator and the voters, bind voters to support the

legislator despite poor policy performance. This is known according to Keefer

9

and Khemani (2008) as pursuing the politics of patronage or clientelism by

delivering services in exchange for local vote mobilization. To simply put it,

Keefer and Khemani (2008) pooled the ideas of Ferejohn, 1974, Shepsle and

Weingast, 1981 and synthesized that “the incentives of individual politicians or

legislators to target public spending to specific projects in their constituencies to

win elections or to gain rents”.

Research Paradigm

Statement of the Problem

Statement of the Problem

The problem is whether the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF)

contributes to the attainment of the goals specified in the Philippine Development

Plan 2011-2016.

Other questions pertinent to the problem:

1. What were the projects funded and where were these deployed?

10

Independent Variable

Deployment of the PDAF

Amount of Allocations

Projects Funded

Dependent Variable

Development Philippine Development Plan

2011-2016 (Plan V- Infrastructure and VIII: Social Dev’t )

Involvement of Politicians

Public Opinion

2. What is the public opinion (respondents) towards the social development

contribution of the PDAF funded projects in the research site?

3. What insights on the involvement of politicians can be generated out of the

study?

4. What policy recommendation may be proposed?

Hypotheses

The Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) contributes to the

attainment of the goals specified in the Philippine Development Plan 2011-2016.

The Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) is tool for political

survival.

Significance of the Study

This thesis provides studies on the effectiveness of the Priority

Development Assistance Fund to the public through proper evaluation and

assessment of the projects funded. It studies the validity of the PDAF projects

initiated by a District Representative in the locality of the Second District of Rizal

through the assessment given in the questionnaire. This study thus helps the

constituents of the Second District of Rizal as well as the general public to be

aware of the contribution of the PDAF in attaining the development goals of the

country. In addition, the study is significant to students, professors and

researchers who feed their social awareness from governmental issues and who

aim to forward the discipline of the academe as well as their cause. This study

helps the society in understanding the issue on the pork barrel politics that beset

11

the country nowadays by means of providing data on the level of effectiveness of

the utilization of the PDAF. This study is significant as it encourages awareness

in political, moral and social issues affecting our nation and their localities in

extent.

Scope and Delimitation

The study is constrained on the assessment of the PDAF of the

Representative of the 2nd District of Rizal - Isidro S. Rodriguez, Jr. This study will

focus on the deployment of the PDAF on the two municipalities of the 2nd District

of Rizal- San Mateo and Montalban on Fiscal Year 2011; the priority projects; the

projects of the Local Government Units or Non-government Organizations (NGO)

supported through the PDAF; the political career of the Representative; and the

Agencies, Departments, Private Institutions attached in the delivery of the

projects..

Definition of Terms

In order to understand our study, here are the following terms that have been

defined:

1. Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) - a lump-sum appropriation in

the annual General Appropriation Act to fund the priority development programs

and projects of the government.

12

2. Pork barrel - collective body of rules and practices that govern the manner by

which lump-sum, discretionary funds, primarily intended for local projects, are

utilized through the respective participations of the Legislative and Executive

branches of government, including its members.

3. Assessment - the process of gathering, analyzing, interpreting and using

information about the study; to identify and give clarity the usage of the subject.

4. Deployment – to distribute strategically or systematically; utilization

5. Development - the process in which projects are being effectively implemented

and enforced for the attainment of general welfare and progress; simply defined

as ”good change” as progress towards a desired state (Chambers, 2005)

6. Development Goals- quantitative targets set for poverty reduction and

improvements in health, education, gender equality, the environment, and other

aspects of human welfare employed by States

7. Poverty Alleviation - aims to reduce the negative impact of poverty on the lives

of poor people, but in a more sustained and permanent way than poverty relief

programmes through social grant programmes.

8. Political Survival- an act of surviving to remain in his electoral position; usually

correlated with abuse of power and exploitation of political advantages for private

gain

9. District - a type of administrative division managed by a local government.

13

10. Expediency- an act of doing what is right for his own interest without thinking

the effects of his decision to the others. Following one’s own will rather than the

common good of his constituents.

11. Corruption- operationally defined as the misuse of entrusted power used for

private gain. Transparency International further differentiates "according to rule"

corruption and "against the rule" corruption facilitation payments, where a bribe is

paid for a preferential treat for something that the bribe is required to do by the

law, constitute the former. The latter, on the other hand, is a bribe paid to obtain

the services the bribe receiver is prohibited from providing.

12. Disbursement- an act of spending money that is given to a politician for the

funding of their projects.

13. Patronage Politics - prioritizing projects not on the basis of needs but on the

basis of votes that were delivered during the last elections

14. Lump-Sum - appropriated for a stated purpose without specifying maximum

amounts that may be spent for specific activities or individual objects of

expenditure

15. NGO - any non-profit, voluntary citizens' group which is organized on a local,

national or international level to perform a variety of service and humanitarian

functions, bring citizen concerns to Governments, advocate and monitor policies

and encourage political participation.

14

Chapter II

Related Literature

Empirical Literature

Finnigan (2007) said that a pork barrel project is a line – item in an

appropriations or authorization bill that designates funds for a specific purpose in

circumvention of the normal procedures for budget review. It is requested by only

one chamber of Congress; not specifically authorized; not requested by the

president; greatly exceeds the President`s budget request or the previous year`s

funding; not the subject of congressional hearings; or serves only a local or

special interest. The pork label is not a subjective judgment of a project`s merit,

rather, it refers to lapses in the procedures erected by Congress to review and

consider the wise expenditure of taxpayer dollars. The study also delineated the

reasons on why pork is bad. He said that pork is used in the biased redistribution

of taxpayer dollars because it serves particular needs; it destroys the competitive

marketplace; leads lawmakers to neglect more important duties and allows

members of Congress to indulge their narcissistic vices. Also, according to

Finnigan, to reduce overall spending, curtail corruption, and hold elected officials

accountable for wasteful spending, pork barrel spending should be eliminated.

The study is useful because corruption and pork barrel misuse in the

government were sufficiently discussed, just as in the recent controversy flooding

the Philippines headlines. With the different pork barrel systems employed in

different governments and countries, the illustrations given in this study can then

15

be used to be able to depict the possibilities of abuse in our own current system.

In addition, the study is also significant in determining the factors that yield to the

inefficiency of the system and the reasons on why pork barrel funds are used

arbitrarily to suit one’s self-interests. Consequently, according to the author, in

the United States, these funds may also never get spent or the projects never get

done. The fund for the development ends up stuck in federal coffers because

pork barrel funds cannot be spent on other projects without permission from

Congress. Just like what happened in Hurricane Katrina, the Transportation

Department `s inspector general examined accounts of the Federal Highway

Administration and found significant amounts of unspent funds, some earmarked

as far back as 1983. Thus, conference reports that are more than a foot thick can

include thousands of pork-barrel projects that have not been seen or voted on by

either the House or the Senate. This then leads us to the idea that allocations

may still be left unattended. This goes to show that, amidst all overspending or

abuse of the pork barrel funds, there is still likelihood for it to remain unutilized.

Stein and Bicker’s (1994) study of Congressional Elections and the Pork

Barrel explained three assumptions. The first assumption is the ability of the

legislator to influence the distribution of services to his own district. The second

rests on the assumption that the constituents are aware of the benefits that their

locality had been receiving from the allocations distributed through the

legislature. The third assumption says that the public award the legislator with

their support in the next election. From the results of the study, the authors were

16

able to come up with the following findings: “not all incumbents have the same

incentive to seek an increased flow of particularized benefits to their districts;

those who are electorally vulnerable seek new particularized benefits; not all

constituents are expected to be equally attentive to the procurement activities of

incumbents; it is the awareness of new grants that is expected to have an impact

on a constituent’s vote choice.”

This study is notable since it presented a relationship between distributive

politics and re-election margins. The behaviour of incumbents, whether

vulnerable or not as well as the behaviour of the voters, affect the decisions on

appropriation or pork barrel spending. Studying the attentiveness of the citizens

to politics and the presence of interest groups also show the extent of influence

that could be casted from them through the allocations. The study is helpful as it

provides a guide for the researchers on the validation of the instrument.

Kawanaka’s (2007) discussion on his paper Who Eats the Most?

Quantitative Analysis of Pork Barrel Distribution in the Philippines, basically

tested the theory of pork barrel distributions through the use of quantitative data

from the 12th Congress. But aside from this, one important discussion presented

was the explanation of the two categories of the theories of pork barrel

distribution. Kawanaka made the distinction between the supply-side explanation

and the demand-side explanation by defining the former as to emphasize the

discretion of national leaders (party center or president) or the leader’s control

over the members of the Congress and the latter as the attributes of legislators –

status in Congress, expertise, seniority, etc.

17

This study contributed to the researchers’ thesis since it provided a new

outlook on distributions. Aside from the fundamental support of this study to the

assertion that politicians struggle to win positions in Congress in order for them to

greatly benefit from the pork barrel funds, the study also aided the researchers in

defining how the process works in the senate as leaders and coalitions compete

against each other, against the system and against public trust. With this study,

the researchers also became aware of the key distinctions of legislators based

on their tenure, position, status, etc. Consequently, it introduced the palatability

of pork barrel funds to individual legislators. As time progress, changes in the

mechanisms of the distribution discreetly happen with the intentions of different

legislators or coalitions. A conclusion can be drawn from the study - legislator

makes it a point to use his power in deciding the procedural aspects of planning

and disbursing the fund in order to secure the funds that sustain their being.

The report of the PDAF Watch (2007), a Non-Governmental Organization

from the studies they conducted assessed the transparency of local government

units, the compliance of the PDAF projects with specifications, the

appropriateness of PDAF projects and perception of corruption. From the study,

it was shown that the senate (15-35% positive response) is more transparent

than the House of Representatives (6% positive response). On the other hand,

the study also presented that from 37 Congressional Districts, 80% were road

projects: 64% of which are completed without defects, 28% with defects, 2%

18

incomplete, 3% being constructed and 3% missing; 9% -IT Computer Projects –

86% were overpriced and 11% Priority Programs of LGUs.

This study is imperative in the thesis because it laid down the irregularities

present during the 2 year span (2005-2007) in connection to the use of the

PDAF. Basically, with the criterion on appropriateness, the researchers became

familiar with the perception of the people on the utility of the PDAF. Although

public opinion vary in time due to different social factors and influences, this

study will guide the researchers as comparisons to the consistency of the

perception of the people are made since perception vary due to present issues.

This also gave the researchers the idea of the most common programs or

projects funded through the PDAF.

Noda (2011), on a study conducted in the Philippines, entitled

Politicization of Philippine Budget System: Institutional and Economic Analysis on

Pork Barrel, the author distinguishes the particular process or stages of budget

formulation specifically on pork barrel politics. The four stages include: a. lump-

sum allocations, b. congressional insertions, c. disbursement specification or

impoundment and d. initial basic allocation. Moreover, certain economic

inefficiency of budget distribution was studied. It was believed that “economic

inefficiency may be caused by particularism of budget distribution when a

regional differentiation in funding is a result of lobbying activities by the districts

to the central government or to the President.”

19

The study is useful in understanding the budget procedure in the

Philippines. With the integration of corruption through kick-backs and plutocracy,

and other problems such as the delayed approval in the budget process, the

researchers became aware of the technical processes in the deployment of the

PDAF. Problems on the whole budget process also help identify the possible

loopholes, opportunities for abuse, and discrepancies of the budget system. The

policy recommendation of the researchers may then get its basis from this

discussion as well. The numerous institutions of the budget process also became

interesting points of study to the researchers since some institutions were

believed to have taken part in the pork barrel scam particularly non-government

organizations.

The research paper of Bangsal (2004) entitled An Analysis of the

Determinants of Congressional Funds or “Pork Barrel” Spending in the

Philippines tried to answer the following questions: a. whether pork barrel funds

respond to the actual needs and conditions widespread in particular

congressional districts or b. serves its political nature as a largesse in order to

secure the position for the incumbent legislator. The study utilized several

determinants in order to justify the significance of the utilization of the pork:

infrastructure per capita (hard projects), social per capita (soft projects), term or

tenure of office, party affiliation, population, population of legislative district, land

area, population density (pop/area), average road density, (km/sq km of land

area), length of unpaved national roads, implementation difficulty factor of the

district, 1997 average family income, human development index, life expectancy

20

index, combined enrolment rate, education index and literacy rates. Based on the

assessment of the named determinants, the study concluded that the allocation

was poorly inconsistent with economic, political and social factors. The projects

implemented were known to be relatively insignificant to the provision of

economic and social services that localities primarily needed.

The research is significant because it gave a general picture on how the

209 district representatives of the 12th Congress utilized their pork barrel funds in

congruence to the purpose to which it is called for. The indicators are indeed

helpful due to its relevance in determining the influences on congressional

spending decisions and thus are good models in the operation for the allocation

formula that will be relevant in the assessment of the projects or programs

implemented. In addition, the study also introduced a grounded finding on the

pursuit of re-election instead of a more development-driven allocation. It basically

suggested that the process starts off with the allocation based on the number of

legislators and the affiliation they hold instead of the genuine needs of the

localities. However, it is also significant to note one astounding finding from the

study – first-termer-legislators don’t necessarily allocate more to infrastructure

projects although there is an assumption that hard projects provide higher and

easier likelihood for electoral manipulation.

Drazen, et al. (2006) in their study of Pork Barrel Cycles arrived at an

analysis that incumbents target susceptible voting behaviours by means of

allotting government spending to geographically concentrated investment

projects or specific demographic groups. During election-year or as the

21

researchers call “pork barrel spending” years, fiscal policies are loaded with

higher expenditures, transfers and tax cuts. The tax cuts are supported with an

increase in taxes of other electoral groups who show a lesser propensity for

electoral support.

The study is relevant because it gives the researchers a reasonable

explanation concerning the electorally motivated utilization of the pork barrel

fund. The Pork Barrel Cycle sheds light on the issue as to why rational voters still

support incumbents even if they know that they are only targeted with favourable

fiscal policies to get their votes. Moreover, the study also provides a wider picture

of the pork barrel cycle that involves not just the politician and their discretionary

allocation of funds but also the behaviour of voters as they support the perverse

fund allotment. Thus the participation of the voters, link pork barrel politics in a

cycle of incumbent-voters electoral relationship.

When pork barrel and politics mix in a few cases, there is a tendency for

conflict of interests to emerge. This is what the investigation of Mangahas and

Coronan (2012) of the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ)

suggested. In a data gathered in 2012, a total of P 5.78 billion of taxpayer’s

money was said to have been allocated to pork barrel funds to finance the pet

projects of 21 senators. When PCIJ conducted a study on the PDAF release

records in Senate from June 2010 to 2012, it showed that most senators used

their pork barrel funds to boost their re-election bids, by pouring big shares to

cities and provinces with the largest numbers of voters. While some of the

poorest provinces with a lower number of voters got smaller shares.

22

The investigation of the PCIJ is relevant to this research because it gave

the researchers a clear explanation on how the 21 senators used their pork

barrel funds from the year 2010 to 2012 in pursuit of their political interests. Also,

this investigation shows a clear justification to the so called tactical redistribution

or the use of pork barrel funds to secure one’s own good in the election, as

presented by Stokes. With the study, the researchers’ received data on the

projects usually used by the Legislators in trying to win the votes of pet localities

that may be of help to their political careers.

Walker (2010), in his study, “Pork Barrel Spending: Is It Unethical?”,

discussed the detrimental effects and disadvantages of Pork Barrel in which he

said that it is being used as fair shares of corrupt politicians. He also enumerated

the reasons on why Pork Barrel spending is unethical. First, he said that it wastes

billions of taxpayers’ dollars each year. Second, the projects they fund are not

only expensive, but are often trivial and completely unnecessary. Third, it

provides unfair advantages to politicians who use the legislation to gain favor in

upcoming elections. In contrast, pork barrel spending is known to directly lead

politicians to partake in other illegal or unethical political corruption mechanisms,

such as bribery and receiving illegal campaign contributions. It basically showed

how the pork is spent in order for politicians to grant their personal intentions.

The study is helpful because as the Philippines face highly controversial

issues on the PDAF nowadays, the study provides a set-up that focuses on

corruption as linked to Pork Barrel funds that is practiced abroad. Although the

researchers’ focus is not primarily inclined to answer questions of constitutionality

23

or ethics, the researchers see that it is also a good research material that could

aid the explanation of the behaviors of the legislators since it also generally

affects the distribution of projects. The assumption that is discretely undermined

in the study reflected the fervour of the legislators to protect their own electoral

interests even at the expense of the welfare of his district. The idea also

assumed that legislators spend more on many yet smaller projects instead of

investing on one large project in order to satisfy the interests of more target

electoral supporters.

Evan D. (2004) in his study entitled Greasing the Wheels, using Pork

Barrel Projects to Build Majority Coalitions in Congress, asserted that legislators

allocate projects for their own self interest in an attempt to secure the votes not

only of rank - file members, but also members whose support would be

especially valuable. According to this literature, pork barrel is the lubricant that

assists in the functioning of the legislative machine. It was deemed as the

lubricant for the reason that pork barrel in the United States Congress was

generally seen by legislators as a tool in influencing the votes of members across

the House and the Senate for general interest legislation. Aside from the

coalitions in the Congress, party leaders (majority or minority) may win the votes

of their own members or even that of the other party by using distributive benefits

through pork barrel appropriations. Hence, the majority party’s coalition might

yield a greater support while the minority party may lose. The study also

highlighted examples like the highway demonstration projects that would come to

measure the efficiency of leader`s attempts to influence members with pork

24

barrel benefits. It assumed that politicians are buying the loyalty of the people

who are going to support them in the next election using their demonstration

projects. Thus, popularistic projects that don’t provoke oppositions must be

secured by the legislators to advance their intentions or goals. In contrast, the

study also suggested that the President see some of the bills as budget buster or

an appropriation that does not really contribute to progress but still approves it for

the reason that it may secure support from the legislative branch.

The study is useful as it suggests the inevitability of more infrastructure-

funded projects rather than social programs or soft projects. The assumption

that, demonstration projects or projects that are material in nature and are easily

noticeable by the public protects the political careers of legislators than health

programs that may last for only a short time. Consequently, the greatest

contribution of this study is the new field of influence that may be brought about

by pork barrel spending. In this study we can assume that even the legislative

decisions are worked out through greasing the legislators with the funds. Even

party ideologies might be suspended in contrast to appropriation benefits that are

prioritized by the members of the Congress. Coalitions are made stronger or are

even weakened with distributive politics. General interest bills are then easily

processed when pork barrel is rounded up.

25

Non-Empirical Literature

Tamayo (2011) on his article entitled Pork Barrel, Philippine Politics and

the Economy defined pork barrel as the appropriations utilized as by legislators

to pump outside taxpayers’ money and resources into the local districts they

represent and as a means of getting re-elected. He also discussed the

separation of powers and the checks and balances mechanisms enshrined in the

Philippine Constitution. He then contextualized the system of pork barrel in

Philippine politics by citing the studies of some scholars. From the study of Rossi

and Inman (1998), Tamayo synthesized that pork barrel legislation will cut

expected efficiency of public finance and spending on distributive goods because

there is no spillover effect to non-constituents that have gave their share to the

general taxation where the pork barrel funds came from.

The article is helpful to this thesis for the reason that it gives the

researchers the deeper repercussions of inefficient public spending. With the

ideas presented by Tamayo, the researchers were also introduced to the concept

of Harberger triangle or the loss in the trade of a good or service due to

government intervention. This concept is important in understanding that using

the national government revenue to fund an identifiable constituent group will

only press harder the depressing conditions of the poor or thin out the slices of

pie.

Tiquia (2013) comprehensively discussed distributive politics by

characterizing it within Philippine politics. On her article distributive politics,

26

Tiquia mentioned the propensity for good pork in accordance to the theory of

distributive politics. She asserted that instead of a tedious and long deliberations

and debate on public policy that are the inherent mandate for legislators,

distributive politics gives legislators concrete accomplishments. According to her,

the proper question to be asked is whether the proper social purpose delivering

different benefits to districts and nationwide in a way that matches their different

utilities is met by the processes of distribution.

The commentary is significant because it balances the theory on

distributive politics. Basically, from what Tiquia explained, the researchers

became aware that distributive effects are major considerations in the decision

making of legislators. As she quoted “one man’s pork is another’s vital national

program”. Legislators don’t necessarily act in pursuit of re-election. Hence, what

we can understand from this is that the question on the importance of the pork is

dependent since it varies across constituencies. From the discussion, Tiquia

also added her inputs on the possible abuse of the President to executive

discretion as it may buy support from the Congress. This idea helped the

researchers understand the implicit relationship of the executive and the

legislative or more commonly termed political bargaining.

Understanding the Pork Barrel by Nograles and Lagman (2012) was a

discussion in defense of the pork barrel. The paper discussed the Ancestry of

Pork Barrel, Adoption in the Philippines, congressional initiatives after the EDSA

Revolution, legislative supremacy in the appropriation of public funds, legitimacy

of CDF as deemed by the Supreme Court, introduction to soft and hard projects,

27

parameters of transparency, accountability, utility and relevance and innovative

additional safeguards. From the paper, the policy on the PDAF was made clear.

It mentioned the special provision – No. 1 under XLVI on the PDAF (p. 950 of the

General Appropriations Act for 2008) which said that amount appropriated should

be used for the Ten-Point Legacy Agenda of the national government. The

website which was said to include the progress status and accomplishments of

the projects was the innovative safeguard provided in this paper.

The researchers find the paper helpful as it provides the other side of the

pork barrel issue by enumerating the innovations, checks, legitimacy, policy and

other measures to avoid abuse. The discussion also enumerated the particular

projects that can be funded through the PDAF as well as the implementing

agency involved in the deployment. In addition, the study challenged the

researchers to check whether the information on the strict implementation and

measures of the PDAF is really accurate.

Ellwood and Patashnik (n. d.) discussed on his paper In Praise of Pork

why their standpoint is different from the usual negative position on the issue.

They followed James Madison’s thinking in Federalist that men are not angels

and that we do not live in a perfect world. “The object of the government is

therefore not suppress the imperfections of human nature, but rather to harness

the pursuit of self-interest to public ends”. Moreover, the authors also believed

that the real value of pork lies on its ability to encourage legislators to take

electorally risky actions for the sake of the public good.

28

The idea stated may be considered by the researchers’ as it shows a

more favourable outlook towards the behaviour of legislators on distributive

politics. Moreover, the researchers also learned that abolishing pork really does

not answer the problem on a state’s finances. The Reductions in popular

programs and increases in taxes needed to managing the fiscal policies of a

state can be obtained through the support of key legislators induced by pork

barrel benefits.

On a commentary written by Miller (2010) at Sound Politics, he mentioned

that in general pork barrel allocations are concentrated in the states and districts

with popular high-ranking congressmen and senators, especially members of the

appropriations committees. Minority party members are less likely to get a huge

chunk from the pork barrel fund.

This discussion is significant to the present study as it tells the

researchers the advantage of popular congressmen in getting their share from

the pork. This also asks the question on whether popular and high-ranking

congressmen usually come from the highly-industrialized districts. Normally, the

representative of the most populated and most urbanized or progressive locality

gets the high popularity rate and therefore gets elected into a higher position in

Congress. This then means that highly-urbanized localities represented by the

high-ranking congressman receive the biggest allocation. 

Stokes (2009) in her paper Pork by Any Other Name: Building a

Conceptual Scheme of Distributive Politics used the analysis of Dixit and

29

Londregan paper that tactical redistribution is a kind of short–term shifts of

resources to groups of voters, in contrast to programmatic distribution which is

more driven by ideology. Dixit and Londregan in the paper of Stokes offered a set

of examples of tactical redistribution: subsidies of tariff protection to particular

industries, location of military bases and contribution projects in particular

districts. Hence, Stokes gave a formal sounding label of tactical redistribution as

“pork barrel politics” which in turn is defined as distributive strategies that are

called pork barrel politics.

The study is relevant because it gives the researchers a concrete example

of how politicians use an electoral technique called tactical redistribution by

which they loaded many projects in a particular place in order for them to win the

election. Also, the study sees pork barrel politics as more attractive in

campaigning than ideological platforms because it is always directed on the

context of short term resources projects. Therefore, pork barrel politics according

to this study is affects the voting behavior of the people particularly the locality

which receives the allocations.

Portillo (2011) on his study of Electoral System and Pork Barrel Politics

focused on the notion that electoral system creates incentives on legislators to

appeal to pork barrel strategies. Portillo used the analysis of Douglas (1989)

when he said that legislators seek re-election because legislators have more

incentives to allocate pork barrel projects in their constituencies. This is a type of

constituency service in which legislators seek to secure particularistic spending

for the constituencies they represent. This is because the more years they

30

assume in the office, the more pork barrel funds they will get through their

discreet strategies.

The study of Portillo is relevant because it gives the researchers an

explanation on the electoral strategies of incumbent candidates who seek re-

election. Incumbents simply utilize tactical redistribution to be able to get the

support of voters in the time of the election. Moreover it provided allusions to the

usual acts of Congressmen in securing particularistic allocations of pork barrel.

Following the conclusion of the paper, the electoral system strategy and pork

barrel politics helps the incumbents to win the race and secure taxpayer money

for his or her fancy, the researchers then have another contention or alternative

discussion with regards to the motivations on the use of the funds.

Kearney and Megumi (2012) on their study Pork Barrel Politics and

Candidates Policy Positioning says politicians in democratic countries make a

substantial effort in at least two dimensions to stay in office: (1) establishing

policy platform and (2) expertise and providing constituency services to their

districts. With the use of pork barrel and policy-based electoral competition,

legislators dictate the voter’s preference. Kearney and Megumi mentioned that

politicians who can bring pork barrel to their districts and those that provide well-

defined issue positions that align with peoples’ problem are usually elected in

position. For instance, they find that poor and smaller communities and rural

voters in far areas are more likely bought by the distribution of pork oriented

politicians.

31

The study is relevant because it gives the researchers an explanation of

the candidate’s policy positions to the voters which they use in order to win the

election. This kind of practice is susceptible to some democratic countries

because of the fact that people are represented by their chosen politician and

that politician struggle to win the sympathy of people through their prudent

agenda strategies. Thus, since the Philippines has the same set-up, the

researchers deem this the propensity of this study to occur in our local setting.

The argument of Earl Parreno against the move to abolish the pork barrel

in his article entitled The Perils of Pork, gives us an idea and a clear example of

the good side of the pork barrel system. According to Earl Parreno’s argument,

the abolition of pork barrel is a mistake because these might affect some places

particularly the Eastern Visayas that is always dependent in the assistance of the

pork barrel allocation. Parreno said that Eastern Visayas is an example on the

good side of pork barrel because it helps the impoverished localities that are

victims of the national government’s neglect. Like other remote places in the

country, most of the towns and barangays of Eastern Visayas remain poor. Thus

according to Parreno, if pork barrel will be abolished in the national budget, such

areas would continue to suffer from underdevelopment and lack of services of

national agencies.

This article is relevant to our study because it asserts that the negative

side of the pork is not mutually exclusive. Through this study, we can assume

that the legislators used their PDAF funds to answer the immediate needs of their

localities which are far from the Metro and thus from the eyes of the National

32

Government. The evaluation was not exactly grounded and the technicality of the

pork barrel system was not addressed but still, the study is significant because it

gives the substantial contribution and relief that the pork barrel serves when

deployed rightly.

Chapter III

Research Method

Research Approach

The approach of our study is qualitative. In this approach we intend to

gauge the significance as well as the consistency of the funded or implemented

projects to the development goals of the state and the priority platforms of the

District Representative. Consequently, we use the values – standard allocation

expenditures, actual expenditures on allocation, quality of the project or program

and uniformity to priority goals in the deployment of the PDAF. In addition,

following the same approach, we identify the key concerns of the respondents

that may give weight to the understanding of the impact of the PDAF projects.

We also measure in a quantitative approach, the different views and opinions of

the public, on the projects constructed or programs implemented by explaining it

through the numerical collection or by using mathematical equation (mean,

standard deviation etc).

33

Research Design

The research design that will be utilized in the study is the Descriptive

method which is a type of research design used for collecting and gathering

information in a current situation or phenomena to describe the relationship

between the observation of the researchers and the existing situation. The

primary objective of this is to give a veracious description of the status quo of the

subject of the study. In addition, descriptive method is a collection of data in

order to answer the current status of the subject or the study. Since our study is

concerned with the deployment of the PDAF in two municipalities of Rizal,

descriptive research was the most suitable method to be used in the study.

Respondents or Study Subjects

The respondents of this study are the local residents of the Second (2nd)

District of Rizal from the municipality of San Mateo and Rodriguez (Montalban)

aged 18 and above. The respondents which we can view as secondary potential

sources for our research are chosen based on cluster sampling by which the

entire population of the Second District of Rizal is divided into groups, namely

workers – professional and non-professional, students and government officials.

A random sample of these clusters are selected. The main respondents will be

categorized as students, professionals, tricycle drivers, street vendors and

ordinary residents. Officials such as barangay captains and kagawad will also be

recognized as valid respondents. The age of the respondent bears an

importance in the conduct of the study since only Filipinos of legal age and who

34

are entitled to vote may determine the influence of politicians in the deployment

of the PDAF. The barangays on the other hand, are selected based on

development and proximity to political influences.

To compute for the sample:

n= t²   x   p(1-p)

  m²

Description:

n = required sample size

t = confidence level at 95% (standard value of 1.96)

p = estimated prevalence of malnutrition in the project area

m = margin of error at 5% (standard value of 0.05)

Research Instrument

The researchers will utilize the available data provided by the Department

of Budget and Management (DBM) on the allocations of the PDAF to District

Representatives for the Fiscal Year 2011. Hard projects will also be checked

through data provided by the Department of Public Works and Highways

(DPWH). Post-audit Reports of the accomplishment or implementation of the

projects funded will be procured from the data of the Commission on Audit.

35

Validation of the Instrument

In this part of the study, validity will be based on survey questionnaires in

which chosen questions paired with reasonable choices will be provided for the

respondents in order to make a true measure of what they are designed to

measure. The questions given will be based on actual situations that

respondents have encountered within the definite time and place of the focused

subject. Researchers aim to provide consistent survey using valid questions to

respondents. It is wanted that questions should be clear and truthful in order to

attain precise and exact information. Moreover, questionnaires will be distributed

to determine whether Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) contributes

development to the locality or if it merely serves as a political survival tool of

government officials. Questionnaires were divided into three parts. First is the

evaluation of respondents on the PDAF, second is the need of the community

and the last concentrates on the political career of the District Representative.

Data Gathering Procedure

The researchers will gather data from government agencies namely the

Department of Budget and Management and the Department of Public Works

and Highways. The budget allocation for the fiscal year 2011 will also be

retrieved. The post-audit review of the allocations of the PDAF will be procured

from the Commission on Audit. Other statistics and data will be retrieved from the

report of the National Economic and Development Authority or NEDA, the Official

Gazette and the General Appropriations Act. Auditing reports will also be

36

retrieved from the office of Cong. Rodriguez to be able to compare the data with

the reports from the other government agencies.

Another instrument that will be used to collect the significant data is the

questionnaire. The questionnaire is made up of appropriate questions that will aid

in the understanding of the deployment of the PDAF in the Second District of

Rizal. The researchers will visit the barangays and will distribute the

questionnaires to respondents chosen based on cluster sampling. The

researchers will immediately retrieve the questionnaire after the respondents fill

up the necessary questions. The result of the study will then be tallied, analyzed

and interpreted by the researchers.

Statistical Treatment

To measure the figures collected from the questionnaires, the researchers

will tabulate the data using the following scale for levels of awareness,

satisfaction, progress and excellence.

To measure the levels of awareness, satisfaction, progress and

excellence, the following scale will be used:

SCALE DESCRIPTION

1.0 Not Aware, Strongly Disagree, No Progress at all, Unsatisfactory

1.1-2.0 Aware, Disagree, Slight Progress, Fairly Unsatisfactory

37

2.1-3.0 Moderately Aware, Slightly Agree, Moderate Progress, Average

3.1-4.0 Highly Aware, Agree, Progress, Fairly Satisfactory

4.1-5.0 Very much aware, Strongly Agree, Substantial Progress, Very

Satisfactory

The questions on the First Part of the questionnaire will be treated using

the mean and standard deviation as statistical tools. Mean was used to

determine the average rate of the respondents’ awareness, level of satisfaction

and the PDAF’s contribution through its excellence and an assessment of the

level of progress it brings about and.

To compute for the Mean

Mean = __Σ fx__

N

Where:

Σfx summation scores

N total number of respondents

Standard deviation, the square root of variance, was used to measure the

average deviation scores about the mean, thus reflecting the amount variability in

the data.

To compute for the Standard Deviation

38

Standard Deviation = √ NΣx² - (Σx)² N (N-1)

All questions in the questionnaire will be treated with the use of frequency

distribution and percentage. Frequency distribution refers to a rate of occurrence

or repetition of the responses. It provides the summary of the responses counted

to get the percentage value of the responses. Percentage describes the clear

fraction or division of respondents’ answers or ratings.

P= f/N x 100

P percentage N total number of respondents

F frequency

39

APPENDIX

SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

Part I. Profile

Direction: Please provide the information asked.Panuto: Mangyaring ilagay ang mga datos na hinihingi. 

Name: (optional)____________________________ Age: ____________  Sex: ___________Occupation: _____________________ Civil Status: _________

The questionnaire will serve as the instrument in gathering data for the research study entitled “The Deployment of the Priority Development Assistance Fund on Infrastructure and Social Development of Rodriguez and San Mateo Rizal: An Assessment.

Ang palatanungan na ito ay magsisilbing instrument sa pangangalap ng mga datos na kinakailangan sa pag-aaral na pinamagatang “Ang Paggamit sa Priority Development Assistance Fund sa Imprastraktura at Panlipunang Pag-unlad ng Rodriguez at San Mateo Rizal: Isang Pagsusuri”.

Use the scale below in evaluating your awareness of the following. Please 

Part II.

Put a check mark on the appropriate column that corresponds to your answer.

Gamitin ang iskala na nakalagay sa baba sa pagsuri ng iyong kamalayan sa mga sumusunod. Mangyaring ilagay ang marka na tsek sa angkop na hanay na tumutukoy sa iyong kasagutan.

Level of Awareness

1Not at All aware

2Slightly Aware

3Somewhat Aware

4Moderately 

Aware

5Extremely Aware

1.PDAF-funded projectsPinondohang Proyekto mula sa PDAF

2.Date of implementation or constructionPetsa ng Pagpapatupad o Paggawa

3.Materials UsedMateryales na Ginamit

4.Expenditures

40

Presyo ng Ginugol 5.Implementing AgencyAhensyang Tagapagpatupad

6.Quality of the ProjectKalidad ng Proyekto

Level of Satisfaction

1Completely Dissatisfied

2Mostly 

Dissatisfied

3Somewhat Dissatisfied

4NeitherSatisfied

OrDissatisfied

5SomewhatSatisfied

6MostlySatisfied

7CompletelySatisfied

Hard Project (Infrastructures)

1.Materials UsedMateryales na ginamit

2.Allocation of Fund / Choice of ProjectPinaglaanan ng Pondo oNapiling Proyekto

3.Services DeliveredSerbisyong Inihatid

4.Span of ConstructionNagugol na Panahon sa Pagbuong Proyekto

5.Current ConditionKasalukuyang Kalagayan

6.Entire ProjectKabuuan ng Proyekto

Soft Project (Financial Assistance)

41

1.Amount ProvidedHalagang Ibinigay

2.Consistency of ProvisionTuloy-Tuloy na Pagbibigay

3. Promptness of DistributionAgarang Pagbibigay

4.Requirements NeededKinakailangang Rekisito

5.Span of ServiceHaba ng Panahon ng Serbisyo

Level of Quality

1Poor

2Fair

3Good

4Very Good

5Excellent

Hard Project (Infrastructure)1.Durability of ProjectTibay ng Proyekto

2.Materials UsedMateryales na Ginamit

3.Construction StandardsPamantayan sa Konstruksyon

Soft Project (Financial Assistance)

1.Availability of ProjectPakinabang ng Proyekto sa Lahat

2.Efficiency of ServicesKahusayan ng Proyekto

Level of Appropriateness

1Absolutely Inappropriate

2Inappropriate

3Slightly 

Inappropriate

4Neutral

5Slightly

Appropriate

6Appropriate

7Absolutely Appropriate

1.Needs of CommunityPangangailangan ng Komunidad

42

2.Location  of ProjectLokasyon ng Proyekto

3.Platforms of CongressmanPlataporma ng Kongresista

1. What are the immediate needs of your locality? Please rank. 1 being the most immediate need and   5   being   the   least.Ano ang mga pangunahing pangagailangan sa inyong distrito. Mangyaring pagsunud-sunurin, 1 bilang   pinakamataas   na   pangangailangan   at   5   bilang   pinakamababa.  

a. Infrastructures ____________  Educational programs ____________Health Services ____________Livelihood programs  ____________Security ____________

OtherNeeds:______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Level of Agreement

1StronglyDisagree

2Disagree

3Neither Agree or Disagree

4Agree

5Strongly Agree

1.PDAF-funded projects contribute towards District’s developmentAng mga proyektong pinondohan mula ng PDAFay nakakaambag sa pag-unlad ng Distrito

43

Bibliography

Almario, M. (2013). Pork’s Dictatorial Root. Retrieved from the Philippine Daily

Inquirer.

Bacani, L. (2013). Miriam files resolution abolishing pork barrel. Retrieved on

August 18, 2013, from

http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2013/07/31/1035471/miriam-files-

resolution-abolishing-pork-barrel

Atwell, R. (2005). The Pork Barrel Revisited. US: American Council on

Education.

Baron, D. (2001). Majoritarian Incentives, Pork Barrel Programs, and

Procedural Control. US: University of Texas Press.

Baron, D. (1989). A Noncooperative Theory of Legislative Coalitions. US:

American Journal of Political Science.

Baron, D. & Ferejohn J. (1988). Instrumental Rights and Fair Democratic.

Institutions. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Chambers, R. (2005). Critical Reflections of a Development Nomad. Kothari:

Zed Books.

Chua, Y. & Cruz, B. (2004). Pork is a political tool, not a developmental tool.

Retrieved on August 18, 2013, from http://pcij.org/stories/2004/pork.html.

44

Coronel S. S. (1998). Investigating Corruption, A-Do-It – Yourself Guide.

Metro Manila, Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism.

Eaton, K. (2001). Political Obstacles to Decentralization: Evidence from

Argentina and the Philippines, Development and Change, Wiley

Online Library.

Evans D. (2004). Greasing the Wheels, Using Pork Barrel Projects to Build

Majority Coalitions in the Congress, The Pitt Building, Trumpington

Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom, University of Cambridge.

Faith R.L., Leavens D.R., & Tollison R.D. (1982). Antitrust Pork Barrel, Journal

of Law and Economics.

Ferejohn, J. (1974). Pork Barrel Politics: Rivers and Harbors Legislation.

Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Finnigan K. (2007). All About Pork: The Abuse of Earmarks and the Needed

Reforms, Citizens Against Government Waste. Washington: CWC.

In search of a human face. (2010). USA: Human Development Network.

Kawanaka T. (2007). Who Eats the Most?: Quantitative Analysis of Pork

Barrel Distributions in the Philippines. Japan: IDE.

Luo, R., Zhang, L., Huang J., & Rozelle, S. (2010). Village Elections, Public

Goods Investments and Pork Barrel Politics, Chinese-Style. US:

Taylor Francis.

45

Mangahas, M. and Coronan, R. (2012). PCIJ: An Investigation on The Misuse

of Legislators PDAF “Pigging out on Pork a la PNoy”. Retrieved from

http://pcij.org/stories/senators-pdaf-floodsbr-ncr-vote-rich-provinces.

Mayhew, D. (1974). Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven: Yale

University Press.

McCann, G. & McCloskey S. (2003). From the local to the global. England:

Pluto Press.

Miller, J. (2010). Thinking about pork barrel spending. Retrieved on October

6, 2013 from http://soundpolitics.com/archives/014338.html.

Mullins, M. (2010). Pork Barrel politics rolls regional Australia. Retrieved on

August 29, 2013 from www.eurekastreet.com.au.

Noda, K. (2011). Politicization of Philippine budget system: institutional and

economic analysis on pork barrel. Unpublished undergraduate’s thesis.

Philippines: University of the Philippines.

Nograles, P. & Lagman, E. (2008). Understanding the pork barrel.

Philippines: House of Representatives.

Portillo, J.M. (2011). Electoral System and Pork Barrel Politics. Dublin: Dublin

City University Press.

46

Coronel, C. (1998). Pork & other Perks, Corruption & Governance in the

Philippines, Ortigas Center, Pasig, Metro Manila Philippine Center for

Investigative Journalism.

Ribaya, R. (2013). Pork barrel scam targeting Aquino critics. Retrieved on

August 21, 2013, from http://ph.news.yahoo.com/-pork-barrel--scam-

targetting-aquino-critics--102052888.html.

Roskin, M. (2009). Countries and Concepts. USA: Pearson Education Inc.

Stokes, S. (2009). Pork, by Any Other Name:Building a Conceptual Scheme

of Distributive Politics. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Walker, P. (2010). Pork barrel spending: is it unethical. Kentucky: Gatton

Student Research Publication.

.

47

48