Former DSWD Sec.
Judy Taguiwalo on Pork Barrel
By
Bagong Alyansang
Makabayan (BAYAN)
October 13, 2017
QUEZON CITY –
Former Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) and
retired University of the Philippines (UP) professor Judy M.
Taguiwalo today reacted to the declaration of House Committee on
Appropriations chairman Karlos Nograles that the P3.767 trillion
budget for 2018 is “pork barrel free,” saying that while no pork
allocation is apparent in how the budget is presented or written,
the only way that a no pork assertion can be true is if lawmakers
refrain from demanding from national government agency heads for
“their money” and the agency heads stand firm in resisting the
pressure of these lawmakers.
After all, what was
declared by the Supreme Court as illegal pork is the post-enactment
hand of the lawmakers in the implementation of the budget. A number
of lawmakers sanitize the pork by asserting that they are merely
fighting for the money that they worked so hard for their
constituents when they know that such intervention post-enactment is
illegal, not to mention, that irregularities, including corruption
occur.
Taguiwalo said that when
she assumed office in DSWD, her commitment was to provide a
leadership that gives no room for corruption by ensuring that fund
allocation is guided by the General Appropriations Act (GAA) and by
shielding DSWD funds from external forces that sought to influence
how the department disbursed its funds and implemented its programs
beyond or outside the specifications in the national budget.
With the declaration of
the Supreme Court that any form of direct allocation to legislators
in the budget is unconstitutional, the former practice of specific
amount allocated to a legislator in the approved budget was
officially removed from the GAA. But it appears that some
legislators have not internalized this ruling or are finding ways to
circumvent it.
“I am not a lawyer, but I
know that the disbursement of funds is not among the functions of
legislators. Their function is primarily and strictly legislative,
not executive, but they choose to ignore this and continue to engage
in patronage politics. They use pork barrel funds to wield influence
over their constituents. There was even one lawmaker who in an
effort to talk me out of my opposition to specific allocation to
individual legislators assured me that it is not about corruption
but about patronage or ‘in aid of re-election’, making it sound as
if there is nothing wrong at all with patronage, not to mention that
I did not buy the idea that it’s just all about patronage,” she
shared.
“I believe there is a need
for us to continue the fight against pork. It did not end when cases
were filed against Napoles and her cohorts. It still exists and its
evils are staring us in the face.