Pork Barrel System in the Philippines

Originally established as the Countrywide Development Fund (CDF) in 1990, "pork barrel" was first created with an initial funding of P2.3 billion for projects in all congressional districts and the national constituency of Senators. 

The CDF aims to support small local infrastructure and other priority community projects which are not included in the national infrastructure program involving massive and costly projects. It has been regularly included in the annual General Appropriations Acts since 1990. In 2000, the CDF was transformed into the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF). (Nograles & Lagman, 2012) 

Mechanism and Process 

Upon the approval of the General Appropriations Act (GAA) or the national budget, the President, through the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), decides on the schedule of fund releases, i.e., number of tranches or portions, amount per tranche, and the dates of release of the PDAF and other congressional allocations. 

A total of P70 million a year is allocated for each district and party-list representative. House members may spend a maximum of P30 million on “soft” or education, health, and other social services projects and the remaining P40 million on “hard” or infrastructure projects. Senators meanwhile may spend P100 million on soft projects and another P100 million for hard projects for a total of P200 million a year (Ilagan, 2013).

The legislators prepare their lists of projects in accordance with the qualified project menu spelled out in the GAA. Moreover, legislators are also required to identify projects and designate beneficiaries that match their priority list and standards prepared by each implementing agency. These lists are submitted to the House Committee on Appropriations for congressmen or the Senate Committee on Finance for senators. These lists are then jointly endorsed to DBM by the chairperson of the House Committee on Appropriations and the Speaker of the House, in the case of the House of Representatives. For the Senate, the chairperson of the Senate Committee on Finance and the Senate President make the endorsement. 

Proposals will undergo a second review at the DBM, wherein it evaluates the legislators’ lists to check if these comply with the project menu and requirements set in the GAA. When a project proposal meets the necessary requirements, the DBM issues the Special Allotment Release Order, or SARO, which is a document that obligates funds for a project to its implementing agency. Legislators can only identify a project and allocate a certain amount for it, but it is the implementing agency that will take care of the project execution. Moreover, funds are released to the implementing agencies as indicated in the PDAF project menu. 

Only national government agencies, LGUs, and GOCCs identified in the GAA are allowed to implement PDAF-funded projects. Implementing agencies may engage with a contractor or supplier depending on the goods and services that need to be delivered. These agencies may also engage with NGO to execute social welfare or livelihood programs or projects.

Supreme Court’s Decision on its Constitutionality 

On November 19, 2013, the Supreme Court declared the controversial Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) unconstitutional. According to SC spokesperson Theodore Te, the high court voted 14-0-1 against the multimillion peso discretionary fund received by lawmakers every year. It was Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr. who abstained from the voting because his son is an incumbent congressman. The decision was penned by Associate Justice Estela Perlas-Bernabe, who is an appointee of President Benigno Aquino III. (Mark Merueñas, 2013) 

The verdict reads: 

“In view of the constitutional violations discussed in this Decision, the Court hereby declares as UNCONSTITUTIONAL: (a) the entire 2013 PDAF Article; (b) all legal provisions of past and present Congressional Pork Barrel Laws, such as the previous PDAF and CDF Articles and the various Congressional Insertions, which authorize/d legislators—whether individually or collectively organized into committees---to intervene, assume or participate in any of the various post-enactment stages of the budget execution, such as but not limited to the areas of project identification, modification and revision of project identification, fund release and/or fund realignment, unrelated to the power of congressional oversight; (c) all legal provisions of past and present Congressional Pork Barrel laws, such as the previous PDAF and CDF Articles and the various Congressional Insertions, which confer/red personal, lump-sum allocations to legislators from which they are able to fund specific projects which they themselves determine; (d) all informal practices of similar import and effect, which the Court similarly deems to be acts of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of discretion; and (e) the phrases (1) “and for such other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the President” under Section 8 of Presidential Decree No. 910 and (2) “to finance the priority infrastructure development projects” under Section 12 of PD 1869, as amended by PD 1993, for both failing the sufficient standard test in violation of the principle of non-delegability of legislative power."