SEN. Panfilo Lacson, pursuing a tough stance against alleged pork-barrel funds inserted in the P4.1-trillion national budget for 2020, is set to elevate his crusade to Malacañang before President Duterte signs the annual money measure into law.
Lacson said over the weekend he is set to meet Monday with Senate President Vicente Sotto III before going to meet with Duterte, hoping to provide the President a clear presentation of what could be considered for line-item veto, following guidance of the Supreme Court decision outlawing pork barrel.
In a radio interview on Sunday, Lacson explained the rationale for his and Sotto’s meeting with the President: “Anyway sabi ko may last hope na idedetalye nating mabuti ito at ipapadala sa Pangulo, at irerekomenda natin kung pwede i-line item veto, at bibigyan namin ng explanation. Kung pakinggan ng Pangulo, maraming salamat at umaasa ako, dahil nagawa niya ito noong 2019 [I said my last hope is to detail these well before the President, and suggest which can be subject to line-item veto. If he listens, thank you very much; he did this before in 2019].”
On the other hand, if the Palace finds the last-minute budget insertions of pork funds to be okay, he will take it as “a presidential prerogative” to avert further debates that could delay enactment into law of the 2020 national budget.
“And if Malacañang deems it okay to include some items, then that’s fine, because that’s the President’s prerogative. That’s why I relented, rather than for us to keep debating in the bicameral conference committee and risk delaying the budget again, considering we were under a strict timeline to submit an enrolled bill. Our last chance was to have the Senate President sign the enrolled bill; and of course, the budget documents have to be printed,” the anti-pork crusader conceded, in a mix of English and Filipino.
Still, Lacson stressed the need to have a detailed budget law listing down amounts for specific projects, as stated in a 2013 Supreme Court ruling outlawing “post-enactment identification” in the disbursement of P70 million for each congressman and P200 million for projects identified by senators.
“The SC ruling said post-enactment identification of projects is prohibited. If you recall, when the court had not yet declared pork barrel unconstitutional, each congressman had P70 milliion and each senator, P200 million, for projects they will identify after the budget is passed. So that’s clearly pork barrel,” Lacson recalled, citing findings this is tantamount to “grave abuse of discretion” as such projects to be funded were not identified in the budget law signed by the President.
Comparing this to the current items he questioned for being “vague” in the 2020 budget bill, Lacson said the proposed P50-million asphalt overlay attributed to an entire city—“without us knowing the specific location”—also smacks of post-enactment identification that the SC ruling had called pork barrel and unconstitutional. “It’s the same. It’s still a post-enactment identification of a project. It’s impossible that they meant to propose the asphalt overlay of an entire city. Your P50 million won’t be enough.”
Lacson cited more examples of lump sums for nonspecific projects:
■ P25 million for road repairs in Nasugbu, “but it did not specify where exactly in Nasugbu.”
■ P50 million for asphalt overlay in Catbalogan City.
■ P25 million for “asphalt overlay, various roads in Quezon City.”
■ P15 million for “concreting, rehabilitation of roads in Alaminos City, Pangasinan.”
■ P22 million for “construction works” in Candaba, Pampanga;
■ P18 million for “construction of roads” in apalit, Pampanga; and
■ P30 million for “concrete widening of roads” in Tumauini, Isabela.
“This is what I will point out to be clear pork because it constitutes post identification of projects after a budget law is signed—something the Supreme Court ruling prohibited,” Lacson said.
He reminded officials that apart from the Supreme Court ruling defining pork-barrel funds, the SC said lump-sum allocations without a clear description of projects are considered pork funds.
Lacson recalled that another definition of pork includes “all informal practices of similar import and effect that the SC deemed to be tantamount or subject to grave abuse of discretion pork.” He cited the Tulong Dunong program that he sought to be removed, adding, “why do we need a scholarship program for college, when we already legislated free tertiary education?” He expressed worry that the scholarships might be used for sheer political patronage.
The senator said earlier that based on his findings, the pork funds were inserted in two files he described as “source and list.”
Other questionable items he cited were flood control projects worth P3.179 billion. He said Sen. Christopher “Bong” Go had wondered aloud why eight flood control projects got a uniform P60 million. “Are the waterways there the same; and the work that must be done, are they the same?”
In response, the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) submitted details for such by way of an “errata.”
The DPWH also did the same when they questioned the P507-million allocation for Kennon Road’s construction and repair. The DPWH later submitted details of the project, with kilometer by kilometer specifics. “So, we allowed that because when they clarified with the subsequent submission, it was clear it was just an oversight or typographical error.”