PDAF

Priority Development Assistance Fund Scam

in the Philippines
Lindbergh Lendl S. Soriano
FOLLOW
The Priority Development Assistance Fund or PDAF is a pork-barrel discretionary fund in the
Philippines. The House of Representatives receives an annual PDAF of P70M while each senator
receives an annual allocation of a whopping P200 million! The President of the Philippines also
has what he calls a President's Social Fund (PSF) which is worth more or less P1 billion! Whew.
No wonder people are willing to die for politics. Where do these funds come from? The hard
earned money of the taxpayers.
The Priority Development Assistance Fund or PDAF is a pork-barrel discretionary fund in the
Philippines. The House of Representatives receives an annual PDAF of P70M while each senator
receives an annual allocation of a whopping P200 million! The President of the Philippines also
has what he calls a President's Social Fund (PSF) which is worth more or less P1 billion! Whew.
No wonder people are willing to die for politics. Where do these funds come from? The hard
earned money of the taxpayers.
Anyway, the PDAF and the PSF should be used for public purpose and for the general welfare of
society. Its purpose is very honorable and right and just. But what happens if these funds fall into
the wrong hands? Well, a 10 Billion Peso Scam results. This is the main issue in the Philippines
today. What the senators and other politicians do is that they give the funds to a "ghost"
organization or project which is operated by a person named Janet Lim-Napoles. Napoles
operates a holding company plus a lot of fake foundations and Non-Government Organizations.
These fake organizations of Napoles have separate bank accounts where the PDAF funds would
be deposited. Well, who benefits? Napoles and the Senators of course. These people are having
the time of their lives while the honest citizens of the Philippines are having a hard time to cope
up with the ever changing economy. Stuggles by the Filipino citizens are being shunned because
of the anomaly that these people are doing.
According to a report, 5 senators and 23 representatives are part of the scam. Among those
involved in the scam are senators Bong Revilla, Juan Ponce Enrile, Jinggoy Estrada and
Ferdinand Marcos Jr. I hope that all of the people involved would rot behind bars.
Why is it that it is very hard to get a raise in salaries when you are a government employee where
in fact these senators and other politicians easily do whatever they want with the millions of
funds given to them that is not even their money? These people are monkeys in sheeps clothing.
They look like monkeys, smell like monkeys and think like monkeys. They should pay for the

rest of their lives for making a fool out of the Filipino people. And as for Napoles? Stop treating
her like a special prisoner. Stop giving her air conditioned rooms and fine food. Throw here to
the deepest darkest cells in prison along with her cohorts.

8 Opinions About the PDAF Scam You Should Know

8 Opinions About the PDAF Scam You Should Know

The Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), better known as Pork Barrel, is a regular
allocation of public funds to members of the Philippine Congress. Its designed to give
legislators easy access to capital so that they can earmark projects for improving their respective
constituencies.
At the same time, Pork Barrel is a frequent target for critics who says it facilitates corruption.
They say it makes it easier for politicians to divert money into their own pockets, and perpetuates
the patronage politics that has kept the Philippines from progressing.
We at 8List have compiled 8 varied opinions on Pork Barrel, a hot-button issue ever since the
PDAF Scam involving Janet Lim-Napoles become the topic of discussions everywhere.
Representative Lani Mercado, 2nd District of Cavite

Representative Lani Mercado, 2nd District of Cavite

Basta huwag lang manghihingi sa amin ang mga tao! E, anong ibibigay namin [kung wala na
kaming Pork Barrel]?
Hindi naman puwede yung sa pinaghihirapan namin dahil sa personal naman namin yun, sa mga
anak, sa mga pang-araw-araw na panggastos namin.
Basta importante lang, may transparency.
Basta ako, meron akong ulat sa bayan. Isinusulat ko dun yung mga ipinapagawa ko.
Coincidentally, the 2nd Legislative District of Cavite comprises only the city of Bacoor, which
suffered heavy flooding thanks to Maring.
Senator Jinggoy Estrada

Senator Jinggoy Estrada

It is not up to the senators to determine whether an NGO [non-governmental organization] is

bogus or not.
Alangan naman na kami pa ang magsasabi na, Uy, bogus yan. How will we know?
Gusto ko lang malaman sa mga kinauukulan kung saan talaga napunta yong para sa ating
magsasaka dahil ang ating mga magsasaka, mga kababayan nating mahirap, sila mismo ang
nagre-request sa aking tanggapan na sila ay mabigyan ng ayuda
To summarize: Estrada said that its not his responsibility to check whether an NGO allocated
pork barrel funds is actually doing its job, but he does want to know where the money goes.

Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago

Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago

[Pork Barrel are the senators'] personal responsibility. You cannot just plead that other agencies
have been created for the sole purpose of checking those NGOs [who have been given Pork
Barrel funds]. That is such a lame excuse. Its an evasion of responsibility.
President Noynoy Aquino

President Noynoy Aquino

Maybe what we should do is that those who misuse the pork barrel should really face more
serious punishment
If we take it out, that means we rely on the national government to know the needs of every
district and to solve these all the time. Thats hard to do.
There [are] already huge improvements in safeguards which have lessened the chances pork
barrel can be misused, but I think there are more ways we can improve the process so there
would be no opportunities to take advantage of them
At the very least, the president is consistent with his positive stance on pork barrel allocations.
See what he said about them during an interview conducted before his election.
Update: Seems like the President has changed his mind. In a press conference yesterday, he
announced the abolishment of PDAF:

There are those who treat the PDAF as their own private fund, to use as they please. This is
clearly wrong: What is involved here is the peoples money; it should be used for the benefit of
the people, and not for the benefit of a few greedy individuals.
The shocking revelations of this misuse the latest being the COA (Commission on Audit)
Special Audit Report in the 2007-2009 PDAF which was released this past week are truly
scandalous.
Sorry pigs, youve lost an ally.
Clare Amador, Department of Budget and Management Employee

Clare Amador, Department of Budget and Management Employee

For the 2009-2010 data, there is no specific amount attributed per Legislator
In 2011, our first year to craft the budget [under the Noynoy administration], there was a
decision to officially state the cap on the amount of funds Legislators can identify projects for:
40M Hard (infra), 30M Soft (social services) for the lower house [representatives] and 100m
Hard and 100m soft for the upper house [senators] per member per year.
Amador is implying that its just a matter of setting clear rules and delineations for pork barrel.
She points people towards budgetngbayan.com for more layman-language information.
CODE-NGO

CODE-NGO

we firmly believe that any proposal to disqualify all NGOs/CSOs from receiving PDAF or
other government financial support is grossly unfair to the many legitimate CSOs doing good
work in many parts of the country and merely diverts attention from the true causes of the pork
barrel scam.
In their own words, CODE-NGO (The Caucus of Development NGO Networks) is the largest
coalition of competent, credible and committed development CSOs [Civil Service Organizations]
in the Philippines that influences public policies, shapes development and creates tangible impact
in its partner communities.
Citizens Congress for Good Governance (C2G2) Inc.

Citizens Congress for Good Governance (C2G2) Inc.

The pork barrel is the bargaining chip that the executive branch of government needs to bribe
and keep the lawmakers in tow. By not scrapping the pork barrel, President Noy Aquino is
showing to his Bosses (the people) that political expediency is the route to take in arriving at
his promised Daang Matuwid (the straight or righteous path) which in actuality is the short-cut
road to condemning the people to poverty.
This part of C2G2s online petition, which asks the Philippine Congress to abolish pork barrel.
Prof. Randy David

Prof. Randy David

Can pork be good after it is cured? Not in a political system dominated by insatiable swine.

The wordplay is beautiful, and summarizes the journalists stance against pork barrel.
Bonus: Makibaka, wag mag baboy!
The rallying cry used for organizing the upcoming August 26 anti-pork picnic/rally is inspired by
the classic 70s slogan Makibaka, wag matakot!, and is the sibling of the kolehiyala version:
Lets make baka, dont be takot!

Priority Development Assistance Fund scam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Priority Development Assistance Fund scam, also called the PDAF scam or the pork
barrel scam, is a political scandal involving the alleged misuse by several members of the
Congress of the Philippines of their Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF, popularly
called "pork barrel"), a lump-sum discretionary fund granted to each member of Congress for
spending on priority development projects of the Philippine government, mostly on the local
level. The scam was first exposed in the Philippine Daily Inquirer on July 12, 2013,[1] with the
six-part expos of the Inquirer on the scam pointing to businesswoman Janet Lim-Napoles as the
scam's mastermind after Benhur K. Luy, her second cousin and former personal assistant, was
rescued by agents of the National Bureau of Investigation on March 22, 2013, four months after
he was detained by Napoles at her unit at the Pacific Plaza Towers in Fort Bonifacio.[2] Initially
centering on Napoles' involvement in the 2004 Fertilizer Fund scam, the government
investigation on Luy's testimony has since expanded to cover Napoles' involvement in a wider
scam involving the misuse of PDAF funds from 2003 to 2013.
It is estimated that the Philippine government was defrauded of some 10 billion in the course of
the scam,[1] having been diverted to Napoles, participating members of Congress and other
government officials. Aside from the PDAF and the fertilizer fund maintained by the Department
of Agriculture, around 900 million in royalties earned from the Malampaya gas field were also
lost to the scam.[3] The scam has provoked public outrage, with calls being made on the Internet
for popular protests to demand the abolition of the PDAF,[4] and the order for Napoles' arrest
sparking serious discussion online.[5]

Contents

1 Background

2 Modus operandi

3 Accused parties

4 Investigation

5 Reactions

6 Protests

7 References

Background

Two infographs on the PDAF produced by the Assembly, the Political Science
Organization of the Ateneo de Manila University.
Main article: Priority Development Assistance Fund

Although the history of pork barrel-like discretionary funds in the Philippines dates back to
1922,[6] during the American colonial period, the PDAF in its current form was only established
during the administration of Corazon Aquino with the creation of the Countryside Development
Fund (CDF) in 1990. With 2.3 billion in initial funding, the CDF was designed to allow
legislators to fund small-scale infrastructure or community projects which fell outside the scope
of the national infrastructure program, which was often restricted to large infrastructure items.
The CDF was later renamed the PDAF in 2000, during the administration of Joseph Estrada.[7]
Since 2008, every member of the House of Representatives usually receives an annual PDAF
allocation of 70 million, while every senator receives an annual allocation of 200 million.[8]
The President also benefits from a PDAF-like allocation, the President's Social Fund (PSF),
worth around 1 billion.[9] Contrary to public belief, however, PDAF allocations are not actually
released to members of Congress. Rather, disbursements under the PDAF are coursed via
implementing agencies of the Philippine government, and are limited to "soft" and "hard"
projects: the former largely referring to non-infrastructure projects (such as scholarships and
financial assistance programs, although small infrastructure projects are also considered "soft"
projects), and the latter referring to infrastructure projects which would be coursed via the
Department of Public Works and Highways.[7]
Because presidential systems are often prone to political gridlock, the PDAF is often used as a
means to generate majority legislative support for the programs of the executive.[10] Furthermore,

because PDAF allocations are released by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM),
PDAF allocations are often dependent on the relationship a legislator has with the sitting
President.[10] For example, during the latter years of the Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo administration,
she was more generous in allocating PDAF funds in the annual national budget in order to win
the favor of legislators.[8] PDAF allocation has gradually increased over the years.[10] For
example, before Arroyo stepped down, the last PDAF allocated was for the year 2010 at 10.86
billion, but when the Benigno Aquino III administration passed its first budget for 2011, the
allocation more than doubled to 24.62 billion.[11]
The PDAF has proven to be very unpopular, with numerous calls for its abolition. In 1996, the
Philippine Daily Inquirer published an expos on systematic corruption in the CDF, with an
anonymous congressman (since identified as Romeo D. Candazo of Marikina) elaborating how
legislators and other government officials earned from overpricing projects in order to receive
large commissions. Public outrage over the misuse of the CDF was instrumental in the enactment
of reforms which led to the formation of the PDAF.[12] The constitutionality of the PDAF has also
been challenged in the Supreme Court. In 1994, the constitutionality of the CDF was challenged
by the Philippine Constitution Association, arguing that the CDF's mechanisms encroach on the
executive's power of implementing the budget passed by the legislature, but the Court ruled the
CDF constitutional under the legislative's "power of the purse".[13] This ruling was reaffirmed in
2001, when the PDAF was challenged again in the Supreme Court.[7] Legislators themselves are
torn on the abolition of the PDAF, with some supporting total abolition, others supporting
increased regulation to minimize abuse of PDAF disbursements, and others opposed to it.[14]

Modus operandi

A graphic representation of the PDAF scam's modus operandi produced by the

Assembly.

The PDAF scam involved the funding of "ghost projects" that were funded using the PDAF
funds of participating lawmakers.[15] These projects were in turn "implemented" through Napoles'
companies, with the projects producing no tangible output. According to testimony provided by
Benhur Luy's brother, Arthur, funds would be processed through fake foundations and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) established under the wing of the JLN Group of Companies,
the holding company of Janet Lim-Napoles, with Napoles' employeeseven a nannynamed as
incorporators or directors.[16] Each foundation or NGO served as an official recipient of a
particular legislator's PDAF funds, and each organization had a number of bank accounts where
PDAF funds would be deposited for the implementation of these projects.[15]
Napoles, who specialized in trading agricultural products, frequently used the procurement of
agricultural inputs in the propagation of the scam. Either her employees would write to
legislators requesting for funds for the implementation of a particular project (e.g. farm inputs),
or a legislator would indicate to the DBM a particular recipient agency for his or her PDAF
funds that would be pre-selected by Napoles.[17] Once received, this is forwarded to the DBM,
which would then issue a Special Allotment Release Order (SARO) indicating the amount
deducted from the legislator's PDAF allocation, and later a Notice of Cash Allocation (NCA)
given to the recipient agency. The NCA would then be deposited in one of the foundation's
accounts, and the funds withdrawn in favor of the JLN Group of Companies.[16] The funds would
then be split between Napoles, the lawmaker, the official of the DA responsible for facilitating
the transfer of funds and, for good measure, the local mayor or governor.[15] The JLN Group of
Companies offered a commission of 10-15% against funds released to local government units
and recipient agencies of PDAF funds, while a legislator would receive a commission of between
40-50% against the total value of his/her PDAF.[17]
Letters sent by Napoles' employees to participating legislators would also include a letter from a
local government unit requesting for funding, bearing the forged signature of the local mayor or
governor. All documents involving local government units were prepared by Napoles' staff, and
Benhur Luy would forge the signature of the local mayor or governor. Local government
officials who were used by Napoles were often unaware that they were participating in the scam.
[16]
In other instances, however, Napoles would use emissaries to establish contact with local
mayors in exchange for commissions that would come from the implementation of these
projects.[15]
Every recipient agency participating in the scam had employees or officials that maintained
contact with Napoles, allowing for the smooth processing of transactions and the expedient
release of PDAF funds to her organizations. Most importantly, Napoles was in regular contact

with the DBM through Undersecretary for Operations Mario L. Relampagos,[18] who had three
employees (identified as Leah, Malou and Lalaine) responsible for the processing of SAROs
destined for Napoles' organizations.[17]

Accused parties
In the initial report published by the Philippine Daily Inquirer, 28 members of Congress (five
senators and 23 representatives) were named as participants in the PDAF scam. Twelve of these
legislators were identified by the newspaper, and close to 3 billion in PDAF funds coming from
these legislators alone were exposed to the scam. Notably, the Inquirer named Bong Revilla,
Juan Ponce Enrile, Jinggoy Estrada, Ferdinand Marcos, Jr. and Gregorio Honasan as the five
senators who participated in the scam. Revilla was the largest contributor among the 28
legislators, with around 1.015 billion of his PDAF funds being transferred to organizations
identified with the JLN Group of Companies, although the extent to which legislators
participated in the scam varied widely.[19]

Iloilo City Students protest against Pork Barrel and Education Budget Cuts
Members of the Senate & Congress
identified by the Inquirer as
participants in the PDAF scam[19]
Legislat
or

Chamber

Bong
Revilla

Senate

Party

Amou
nt
expos
ed

Lakas

1.015
billion

Juan
Ponce
Enrile

Senate

PMP

641.6
5
million

Jinggoy

Senate

PMP

585

Estrada

million

Rizalina
House of
Seachon- Representati NPC
Lanete
ves
Ferdinan
d
Marcos,
Jr.

Senate

137.2
9
million

Nacionalis 100
ta
million

Conrado
House of
Estrella Representati NPC
III
ves

97
million

House of
Edgar L.
Representati APEC
Valdez
ves

85
million

House of
Rodolfo
Representati NPC
Plaza
ves

81.5
million

Erwin
House of
Chiongbi Representati Lakas
an
ves

65.35
million

House of
Samuel
Representati Lakas
Dangwa
ves

62
million

Robert
House of
Raymun Representati Abono
d Estrella
ves

41
million

Gregorio
Honasan

Senate

Independe 15
nt
million
TOTAL

2.928
billion

Other legislators identified by the Inquirer as participating in the scam include La Union
Representative Victor Ortega and former Representative Arthur Pingoy. Early reports had also
identified Senator Loren Legarda as one of the participants in the scam,[20] but Luy later denied
her participation.[19]

Legislators identified by the Inquirer as participants in the PDAF scamBong Revilla in

particularhave denied their participation in the scam. All senators except Jinggoy Estrada
denied any knowledge of the scheme (Estrada refused to comment), and Marcos denied being
acquaintances with Janet Lim-Napoles.[21] Revilla and Marcos have also claimed that the
investigation into the scam is politically motivated, saying that Malacaang is out to discredit
potential candidates for the 2016 presidential election who are not allied with President Aquino:
a charge that the administration denies.[22] However, both Revilla and Marcos, as well as
Honasan,[21] have indicated their willingness to participate in any investigation, saying that they
have nothing to hide.[23]
On August 16, 2013, the Commission on Audit released the results of a three-year investigation
into the use of legislators' PDAF and other discretionary funds during the last three years of the
Arroyo administration. The report not only affirmed the Inquirer's findings, but also pointed to
more legislators being privy to misuse of their PDAF funds. According to the report, between
2007 and 2009, 6.156 billion in PDAF funds coming from 12 senators and 180 representatives
were disbursed to fund 772 projects found to be implemented in ways that were "not proper and
highly irregular".[24] Of the 82 NGOs implementing those projects, ten are linked to Napoles.[25]
The report also elaborates on "questionable" transactions made using the PDAF: 1.054 billion
went to NGOs which were either unregistered, used multiple Tax Identification Numbers (TIN),
or issued questionable receipts; while 1.289 billion in PDAF disbursements spent were not
compliant with the Government Procurement Reform Act of 2003. Lawmakers from across the
political spectrum, both past and present, were cited in the report, some of whom (such as
Edgardo Angara, Ruffy Biazon, Neptali Gonzales II and Niel Tupas, Jr.) are closely related to
President Aquino.[26] Some legislators also donated PDAF funds to NGOs they themselves are
affiliated with: these include Angara, Victoria Sy-Alvarado and Matias Defensor, Jr..[27]
Other government officials have been implicated as well in the PDAF scam. Agriculture
Secretary Proceso Alcala, for example, was accused by Merlina Suas, Luy's fellow
whistleblower, of being complicit in the scam, as his department was responsible for transferring
at least 16 million in PDAF funds to livelihood projects managed by an NGO linked to
Napoles.[28] 97 mayors were also implicated in the scam in connection with the allocation of
Malampaya gas field royalties as reconstruction aid for areas affected by Typhoons Ondoy and
Pepeng which instead went to Napoles, after it was discovered that employees of the JLN Group
of Companies forged their signatures to make it appear that they were requesting for aid.[29] 44
other mayors were likewise implicated in the scam when Napoles, through fashion designer
Eddie Baddeo, reportedly facilitated requests for disbursements from the Department of
Agriculture's Agricultural Competitiveness Enhancement Fund (ACEF) on behalf of their
municipalities.[30] A number of mayors have denied involvement in the scam, including three
mayors from Bataan,[31] seven from Ilocos Norte,[32] one from Pangasinan,[33] and one from Iloilo.
[34]

Investigation
A number of investigations are currently ongoing or will be organized to determine the extent of
the PDAF scam. On July 16, 2013, the Office of the Ombudsman announced that it was forming
a special six-person panel initially to investigate the projects bankrolled by the 23 legislators
originally named in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, in parallel with the NBI investigation against
Napoles.[35] The next day, President Aquino ordered the Department of Justice to conduct and
"extensive and fair probe" of the scam,[36] which Napoles also asked for on July 27.[37] Despite
calls for the investigation to be made open to the public, Justice Secretary Leila de Lima refused,
stating at the time that it was too early for the DOJ investigation to be made public when the NBI
was still gathering data on the scam.[38]
Members of Congress have also called for parallel investigations in both the Senate and the
House of Representatives as to the extent of the scam. Despite calls by Senator Francis Escudero
to have the scam investigated,[39] the Senate initially agreed not to investigate the scam on August
5, instead opting to wait for the results of the investigations being conducted by the DOJ, the
Ombudsman, the NBI and the Commission on Audit before launching its own investigation.[40]
However, following the release of the CoA report which implicated more legislators in the scam,
the Senate eventually agreed to conduct its own investigation, which would be led by its Blue
Ribbon Committee.[41]
The House of Representatives, meanwhile, has refused to conduct a probe, with Speaker
Feliciano Belmonte, Jr. claiming that the House investigating its own members would be
"messy", instead preferring to wait for the results of the DOJ investigation.[42] This is despite the
clamor from a number of representatives, mostly from the minority bloc not allied with President
Aquino, that the House should conduct its own investigation into the matter.[43]
Following the release of the CoA report, the DOJ is expected to expand its investigation beyond
the evidence originally provided by Luy and the other Napoles whistleblowers. It is also looking
at forming either a joint or a parallel investigation with the Ombudsman and the NBI, although
its main focus for the time being is on Napoles' involvement in the scam.[44]
Napoles surrendered to President Benigno Aquino III at 9:37 pm on August 28. The president
gave the DILG secretary Mar Roxas and PNP director Gen. Alan Purisima custody over Napoles
for booking and processing.[45]
The NBI and Justice Secretary, Leila De Lima filed the cases of plunder and malversation of
public funds against businesswoman Janet Lim-Napoles, senators Ramon Revilla Jr., Juan Ponce
Enrile, Jinggoy Estrada and five former representatives on September 16.[46]

Reactions

Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle, Archbishop of Manila during a press conference

at the University of Santo Tomas, Cardinal Tagle described the scandal as part
of an "intricate web of corruption", and said that it is right that the issue be
investigated. He added that those involved in the scam have "lost touch with
the poor" and should visit a community of informal settlers to understand the
issues poor Filipinos face on a daily basis. "We have heard many other big
scandals in the past but these were buried and forgotten when a new issue
came up", the cardinal added.[47]

Renato Reyes Jr., Secretary-General of BAYAN coalition Reyes described the

scandal as a "bigger test for the Department of Justice". He also said that the
coalition remains doubtful if those involve in the alleged scam will be held
liable, including those perceived to be allied with the Aquino administration.
Reyes also accused the House of Representatives and Senate for covering up
the scam and refusing to open an investigation. BAYAN also re-iterated its call
for the complete abolition of the PDAF.[48]

The Philippine Supreme Court issuing (Sept 10, 2013) a temporary restraining
order (TRO) against the release of the remaining Priority Development
Assistance Funds (PDAF) of lawmakers for 2013 and Malampaya funds. [49]

Protests
See also: Million People March

On August 26, 2013, thousands of people came to Luneta Park in a protest against the pork barrel
scheme dubbed the "Million People March". After this, a prayer vigil dubbed "EDSA Tayo" was
set for September 11 at the EDSA Shrine. About 500-700 people attended the vigil.[50] Two days
later another protest was held at Luneta, where according to police estimates, about 3000
entered.[51] The organizers stated that another rally dubbed "Level Up" would be scheduled for
September 21 (with a noise barrage held before the event), and another "Million People March"
protest would be held in December.[51][5

The problem with pork

By The GUIDON on August 24, 2013

4

Janet Lim Napoles has gone from rubbing elbows with the countrys powerful politicians to
acquiring notoriety overnight.

Last July, Napoles was accused of taking P10 billion from the Priority Development Assistance
Fund (PDAF) or pork barrels of various congressmen and senators for her familys personal use.
Her business empire, JLN Corporation, has been linked to several fake non-government
organizations (NGO). These NGOs were allegedly used to transfer the stolen pork barrel funds to
various lawmakers and JLNs incorporators by way of ghost projects.
As scandalous as Napoles situation is, though, the PDAF has always been used and abused.
Created in the 1930s according to the General Appropriations Act, the PDAF is an annual
allocation for legislators to subsidize local development programs.
In theory, the PDAF is a good idea. The countrys legislators distribute the pork barrels to fund
projects such as the construction of roads and the development of public schools. Because the
central government cant oversee each and every district, a fund for isolated, local development
is practical.
However, history has proven the system to be greatly flawed. While measures are in place to
keep PDAF spending in check, these are circumvented often and easily.
In most pork barrel scams like Napoles, the materials and labor needed for the project never
appear or are only partially delivered. The money for the rest of the project is then distributed
among the legislators, local officials, contractors and other individuals involved.
The only tenable solution, it seems, is the abolition of the PDAF. Funds can thus be centralized at
the level of national departments. Corruption is undoubtedly still present at this level, but
accountability will be more easily established.
The greatest obstacle to such a system, however, is that the Senate and the House of
Representatives pass the annual budget and would not, by any means, approve a budget that
deprived them of their pork.
Whether or not legislators use their PDAF scrupulously, removing their funds will weaken these
legislators padrino relationships with their constituents. If congressmen cant provide
immediately tangible projects for their districts, what do they run on come the next election?
The answer is their track records, precisely, as legislators.
The abolition of the PDAF will require a significant culture changeone that moves from
systems of patronage to responsible use of government funds. Furthermore, without the PDAF,
congressmen and senators can focus on the task of actual legislation. On their part, citizens can
begin to elect legislators, rather than godfathers, into office.

Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago has proposed the gradual abolition of pork, which could be
more amenable to legislators and would be instrumental to bringing about that culture change.
The question remains, however, whether other senators and congressmen will agree to kick-start
the gradual death of a system thats made them so much richer at the expense of the constituents
they serve.
A contingent from Ateneo is marching on Monday, August 24, to support the abolition of the
PDAF. Click here for more information.

The problem with pork

By The GUIDON on August 24, 2013

4

Janet Lim Napoles has gone from rubbing elbows with the countrys powerful politicians to
acquiring notoriety overnight.
Last July, Napoles was accused of taking P10 billion from the Priority Development Assistance
Fund (PDAF) or pork barrels of various congressmen and senators for her familys personal use.
Her business empire, JLN Corporation, has been linked to several fake non-government
organizations (NGO). These NGOs were allegedly used to transfer the stolen pork barrel funds to
various lawmakers and JLNs incorporators by way of ghost projects.
As scandalous as Napoles situation is, though, the PDAF has always been used and abused.
Created in the 1930s according to the General Appropriations Act, the PDAF is an annual
allocation for legislators to subsidize local development programs.
In theory, the PDAF is a good idea. The countrys legislators distribute the pork barrels to fund
projects such as the construction of roads and the development of public schools. Because the
central government cant oversee each and every district, a fund for isolated, local development
is practical.
However, history has proven the system to be greatly flawed. While measures are in place to
keep PDAF spending in check, these are circumvented often and easily.

In most pork barrel scams like Napoles, the materials and labor needed for the project never
appear or are only partially delivered. The money for the rest of the project is then distributed
among the legislators, local officials, contractors and other individuals involved.
The only tenable solution, it seems, is the abolition of the PDAF. Funds can thus be centralized at
the level of national departments. Corruption is undoubtedly still present at this level, but
accountability will be more easily established.
The greatest obstacle to such a system, however, is that the Senate and the House of
Representatives pass the annual budget and would not, by any means, approve a budget that
deprived them of their pork.
Whether or not legislators use their PDAF scrupulously, removing their funds will weaken these
legislators padrino relationships with their constituents. If congressmen cant provide
immediately tangible projects for their districts, what do they run on come the next election?
The answer is their track records, precisely, as legislators.
The abolition of the PDAF will require a significant culture changeone that moves from
systems of patronage to responsible use of government funds. Furthermore, without the PDAF,
congressmen and senators can focus on the task of actual legislation. On their part, citizens can
begin to elect legislators, rather than godfathers, into office.
Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago has proposed the gradual abolition of pork, which could be
more amenable to legislators and would be instrumental to bringing about that culture change.
The question remains, however, whether other senators and congressmen will agree to kick-start
the gradual death of a system thats made them so much richer at the expense of the constituents
they serve.
A contingent from Ateneo is marching on Monday, August 24, to support the abolition of the
PDAF. Click here for more information.

Scratching pork
Aug 29th 2013, 6:20 by J.M. | MANILA

PEOPLE Power, which toppled the corrupt regime of Ferdinand Marcos in 1986, was in the
minds of protestors massed in Manilas main park on August 26th. From families and
schoolchildren to nuns, the tens of thousands of Filipinos were demanding an end to pork-barrel
politics, after a government audit earlier this month revealed that politicians had funnelled over 6
billion pesos ($135m) into 82 dodgy NGOs. Many demonstrating saw themselves as the heirs of
86.
Mr Marcos is long gone, but graft remains the bane of the Philippines. The country still ranks as
one of the most corrupt in South-East Asia, despite a boost in the tables last year (from 129th to
105th in Transparency Internationals corruption perceptions index). Since taking power in 2010,
Benigno Aquino, the Philippines president, has led a half-hearted campaign against fraud. His
neat election slogan, If theres no corruption, theres no poverty, won him the presidency,
because it suggested a tidy solution to the countrys two biggest problems. But for three years his
efforts have consisted of little else than the arrest and prosecution of his predecessor, Gloria
Arroyo, on trial for misusing millions in state lottery funds.
So Mr Aquino had an opportunity to advance his campaign when his governments chief auditor
reported this month that a dozen senators and scores of congressmen had directed billions in
pork-barrel money into fishy NGOs over three years. The money (given to members of Congress
to spend in their constituencies on projects of their own choosing) was disbursed during Mrs
Arroyos term. But Mr Aquinos first reaction was to defend the pork-barrel scheme. That is
because he is at the apex of the Philippines pyramid of political patronage, so has the final say
on whether other politicians get their pork. When he was member of Congress, he received porkbarrel funds. In the absence of an effective political party system, the pork-barrel arrangement
gives Mr Aquino a degree of influence over Congress.

The Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), a government programme, has

institutionalised pork barrel in the Philippines. Each of its 24 senators receives 200m pesos
($4.5m) per year and each of its 300-odd congressmen receives 70m pesos ($1.6m). The scheme
has its merits. Roads get paved. Poor students receive scholarships. A washerwoman asked her
congressman to pay for an urgent mastectomy (she now votes for him religiously). Politicians are
supposed to use the fund to finance their pet projects, but some use it to enrich themselves at
public expense. The arrangement shores up a political establishment made of powerful families
that monopolise elective positions generation after generation.
It was only once social media began to call for a mass protest (one-million strong, organisers
hoped) against pork that Mr Aquino changed his mind. On August 23rd, flanked by the president
of the Senate and the speaker of the House of Representatives, he pledged to scrap the PDAF.
The public received his bid with a dose of scepticismand it did not deter the porcine masks and
costumes from rallying. Congress must first agree to abandon the scheme. And an alternative setup for financing local development projects, proposed by Mr Aquino, sounded like pork-barrel
politics with a new name.
The protesters (numbering about 65,000) were nowhere near as numerous as their predecessors
who ousted Mr Marcos. But their demonstration was the biggest since Mr Aquino took office.
His approval rating, at 70%, is among the highest in the Philippines history. Demonstrators put
the president on notice that they expect not just slogans about corruption, but the demolition of
the political edifice that shelters it.

Why rationalize bad practice? Abolish pork barrel

by Carmel V. Abao
Posted on 08/17/2013 12:39 PM | Updated 08/21/2013 8:27 PM

The wheels of justice have started to turn. An arrest warrant has

been issued against Janet Lim-Napoles and her brother. While Napoles and her ilk have to be

held accountable for the scam, we should not lose our sight on the bigger, more fundamental
problem: how to stop our political system from churning out more Napoleses.
That the pork barrel is a source of corruption is an open secret. Many have come to refer to
cuts or kickbacks from pork as SOP or standard operating procedure. It is public
awareness of this open secret that is now fueling public disgust: people know that their hardearned taxpayers money is repeatedly being squandered by elected officials.
Everyone knows about the roads that lead to nowhere, the funds for fertilizer that were
distributed to local governments of non-agricultural highly urbanized cities, the daycare centers
without toilets, the substandard roads and bridges, and many others. The list of secrets is very
long and quite old. The Napoles scam could simply be the straw that will finally break the
camels back.
People are not surprised; they're angry and frustrated. Paulit-ulit na lang, kailan ba ito titigil?
It is thus alarming and saddening that PNoys earliest response to the scam was simply an offthe-cuff sarcastic remark. He first said that the fertilizer fund scam was a bigger scam,
obviously insinuating that the Arroyo administration under which that scam unfolded was more
fertile ground for corruption.
READ: Pork abolition up to Congress
Arroyo, though, did not have a daang matuwid or an anti-corruption campaign. It was PNoy
himself that set this bar. Based on this alone, his initial response can be deemed highly
inappropriate. Even a local chief executive knows that the ever-reliable this-is-just-an-inheritedproblem line has its limits.
The Presidents sarcasm is not the greatest cause for alarm, though, because that could just be a
communication faux pas that can be easily repaired. It is the Presidents emerging policy
preference for reforming the pork barrel system rather than abolishing it that should be
contested.
In the words of Budget Secretary Butch Abad, The lawmakers who used their pork barrel
prudently and well should not be punished for possible infractions committed by some. In 2013,
the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), or pork barrel, stood at P24.7B. For 2014,
the proposed allocation is P25.2 B. Each member of the House of Representatives will get P70 M
while each senator will receive P200 M.
Malacaang thus is not keen on abolishing the pork but only on improving safeguards to
eliminate pork-related corruption.

The Department of Budget and Management is said to be actively working on this matter. The
House of Representatives is also not for pork elimination. Marikina Rep Miro Quimbo, head of
the House Ways and Means Committee, has been quoted as saying that they are now discussing a
number of proposals regarding additional safeguards in the pork barrel system. These proposals
include giving the social welfare department the task of accrediting NGO-beneficiaries and
setting a cap on the amount of pork barrel projects that will be implemented by the LGUs.
But what is the point of improving an inherently anomalous and corrupting practice? Why
rationalize bad practice?
Abolish the system
To my mind, keeping (nay, increasing) the pork barrel given the Napoles scam is
tantamount to rewarding bad behavior. It serves no purpose other than keeping the open secret
alive and strengthening the norm of calling corruption any other name but.
Reforming the pork is not the answer. It is self-defeating to enhance something that is
intrinsically undesirable and unnecessary.
Abolishing the pork is the reform thats needed.
This reform may not eliminate corruption entirely but it will at least help develop a political
culture where money ceases to be the thing that matters the most in policymaking and where a
spade is called a spade.
Public spending for development is necessary. It has to be made clear that the PDAF as a
development fund allocation is not the problem. It is the pork barrel system or the institutional
arrangement of having legislators administer the PDAF that is the problem.
Below are the reasons why I think this system is inherently anomalous. I also argue that
abolishing the pork is not only necessary and desirable, it is also feasible.
Distorting the presidential system
Under a presidential system of government, the executive and legislative branches are co-equal
because they hold distinct but equally prodigious powers. The "power of the sword" belongs
solely to the executive while the "power of the purse" belongs solely to the legislature.
The budget prepared by the Executive including the PDAF is a policy proposal on public
spending that comes into force only upon the approval of the Legislative branch. The budget thus
is not an administrative matter but a policy matter. Therefore the budget allocation process is not

an administrative process but a political one. Moreover, the legislature holds oversight powers
over the implementation of the budget by the Executive branch.
The pork barrel system upsets the power-separation arrangement and distorts the presidential
system in at least 3 ways.
First, the power of the purse belongs to Congress as an institution. It does not belong to its
members. What this power means is that only Congress can decide how public money is to be
allocated. It does not, in any way, include giving House Representatives members and senators
the authority to use public money for purposes other than lawmaking.
Second, the pork barrel system undermines the independence of both the Executive and
Legislative branches because it promotes collusion and bends the principle of power separation.
In this system, the Executive practically offers the Legislature money by way of the inclusion of
the PDAF in its proposed budget. This offer itself speaks volumes because both branches very
well know that administering development projects is outside the Legislatures mandate. The
Legislatures acceptance of said offer by way of approving the inclusion of the PDAF in the
General Appropriations Act (GAA) cements the collusion.
Third, the pork barrel system creates a conflict-of-interest situation and compromises the
oversight function of Congress. Oversight entails impartial and objective scrutiny of
administrative performance. Obviously, Congress cannot exercise oversight on itself. There is
something intrinsically wrong with a Congress approving allocation/giving money to itself for
work that it is not mandated to perform. This practice might even be illegal under the 1987
Constitution which is very categorical on the separation of powers between the executive and
legislative branches.
Vicious cycle of patronage, weak parties
It has been argued that the pork barrel must stay because it is "for the good of the people," i.e., it
is good especially for far-flung local communities in dire need of development funds and which,
for some reason or another, have not been reached by either their local governments or by the
national government.
Only the politically nave will take this argument as true.
Pork barrel is not for development but for political alliance building. It is one way by which the
President or any president for that matter generates majority legislative support. This kind
of support generation becomes necessary especially when the President has to rein in on
recalcitrant legislators.

When the ties that bind the executive and the legislative involve money rather than an agenda or
a platform, alliance building transforms into patronage politics.
The name of the game then becomes one of wheeling-dealing: pork in exchange of legislative
support. This is highly evident in at least two instances: (i) when legislators shift to the camp of
the winning President even when they were staunch critics of this President in the previous
dispensation, and (ii) when the release of the pork of non-supportive legislators is withheld or
delayed by the executive; usually this is used as a bargaining chip when there is intense political
or policy contestation.
This patronage system cascades all the way down to the local communities and eventually to the
individual voter. The legislator, after all, has the discretion to select where the pork will go.
Needless to say, the pork goes to supporters and only to supporters or potential supporters. The
supporters, meanwhile, continue to vote/re-elect the legislator on the basis of sustained receipt of
the pork. Again, money considerations rather than common political ideas come into play in the
relationship between the legislator and his/her "constituency."
The pork barrel, too, serves as a disincentive for local development planning. Why would a
mayor want to take development planning seriously when a lawmaker can step into the process
anytime and say she/he wants a water pump here or a farm-to-market road there?
Pork-based alliance building has become widespread and sustained primarily because there are
no real political parties that could serve as the structural mechanism for building political
alliances. Many presidents, senators and congresspersons win not on the basis of a solid political
base or faithful following often organized through a party, rather, through a hodge-podge of
tentative supporters gathered through various ways (including patronage). Those who win on the
basis of platform or ideology are the exception rather than the rule.
The pork barrel arrangement perpetuates the weak party system because it takes out the necessity
of legislative voting based on platform or party lines. Only the pork is necessary in the political
equation. The system thus renders political parties irrelevant. And so, the vicious cycle of
patronage continues.
Inherently corrupting
The pork barrel system is inherently corrupting because it makes money matter the most in
political exercises where ideas are supposed to be the main if not sole consideration.
Moreover, the system is inherently non-transparent. This is because pork allocation is
fundamentally discretionary the legislator chooses who to give it to and what projects to

undertake. Institutionalization of monitoring mechanisms can be very difficult given this level of
discretion (read: individual freedom).
The system also creates another layer of "bureaucracy" and this is where wheeler-dealers come
in. Usually, public funds are disbursed through the national government agencies or the local
government units. It is national agency or LGU personnel who deal with contractors who have to
go through bidding processes.
Under the pork barrel system, the contractors now have to deal as well with legislators. The
legislators meanwhile deploy personnel ("operators" or "brokers") to deal with contractors and
implementing government agencies. The sheer number of personnel and the disparate nature of
processes involved (i.e, from selection to bidding to fund release and implementation) suggest
the impossibility of careful appraisal and auditing of each and every PDAF project.
The term "pork" is indeed most appropriate. In this system, it is possible for the public to see the
development projects, perhaps even the receipts of financial transactions but it is not possible to
see who exactly does what or how exactly things are done. In other words, the public sees only
the surface and not the inner workings of the system.
Pork is fat and fat works exactly in the same manner. One can see the "excess" (bulging skin,
love handles, bloated stomachs) but the real fat, the fatty tissues those are hidden inside the
body.
Possible to remove pork now
The removal of the pork requires a simple yet radical political act: non-inclusion of pork in the
national budget. This means scrapping the PDAF as a separate or special fund and reallocating it
to the more regular budget items.
For the 2014 budget proposal, this means scrapping the PDAF as a budget item and spreading
the 25.2M to the budgets of regular agencies or executive projects that are severely underfunded.
By doing this, government will hit two birds with one stone: eliminate an intrinsically anomalous
practice and retain badly needed funds for development. The budget process thus will now
necessitate a debate on "what" rather than "who" should be funded.
The fear that such abolition will marginalize constituencies that badly need the PDAF has no
basis.
In the first place, the Napoles scam already tells us that the funds do not often reach the desired
constituencies but simply end up in personal pockets. Lawmakers can still lead their
constituencies to the right direction given their participation in the budget process and
knowledge of budget allocations.

The real risk in pork abolition is not the displacement of development project beneficiaries but
the displacement of power holders whose interests have become well-entrenched in the
government machinery and in society primarily through patronage. It could also mean the
weakening of executive-legislative alliance building.
PNoy is likely to experience more difficulty in generating legislative support once the pork this
abolished. To me, this hardship seems a small cost to pay to clean up and transform a corrupt,
dysfunctional system.
Besides, PNoy might be the best President to do this: he continues to hold very high approval
ratings (which will of course influence the calculations of legislators), and, there is that political
moment, the Napoles moment. More importantly, if PNoy does this, he will be recorded in
Philippine history as the President who dared to abolish the pork barrel system.
The great political thinker Plato once asserted that justice is not simply about giving a man
(pardon the gender bias-language Plato really meant just men) his due for it would be unjust,
for example, to give a madman a weapon just because it is his weapon. For Plato, the just society
was not simply the "lawful" society. Justice should also be found in the political structures of
society and for Plato, these structures must include a clear division of tasks, the harmonious
exchange of services and the adequate satisfaction of societal needs.
If Plato were around today, he would thus probably say this: By all means, crucify yet another
plunderer. But that will not be enough to achieve justice.
My political science students in one class, meanwhile, conducted a mock vote: 27 voted for the
abolition of the pork and one abstained. The latters abstention turned out to be satirical:
Maam, pretend that I am a congressmans son -- why would I want to abolish the pork? It pays
for my education.
Another class, this time composed mostly of business management students, raised the concern
of the impact of the scam on the already-negative perception of the international community on
the level of corruption in the country.
As for me taking off my academic hat now and speaking as an ordinary citizen and faithful
taxpayer living off a university teachers salary this is what I ultimately want to say:
Prosecute Napoles and her cohorts and coddlers (from both the private and public sectors).
Abolish the pork barrel system.

the Philippines
Philippines Pork Barrel Graft Probe Has Lawmakers Squealing

Public protests against rampant culture of political corruption are gathering momentum
By Charlie Campbell Sept. 11, 20130

o
o
o
o
o
o

Read Later

Dondi Tawatao / Getty Images

The Philippines' student groups stage a protest against the misuse of the country's state funds in
Manila on Aug. 26, 2013

Email

Print

Share

Comment

Follow @TIMEWorld
The Philippines and corruption go together like pork and mustard. But a fresh inquiry into the
countrys so-called pork-barrel culture has produced some of the largest popular protests to hit
the nation in years, and they show no signs of abating. Up to 100,000 people took to the Manilas
Rizal Park to protest on Aug. 26 with further marches slated for Wednesday and Friday.
(MORE: Filipino Journalists Call for Action After Murderous Month)

Pork barrel is a pejorative term for Priority Development Assistance Funds discretionary
annual lump sums of $4.5 million and $1.6 million provided respectively to each of the countrys
24 Senators and 289 Congressmen to pay for local infrastructure and development works.
However, much of this cash is simply ferreted away through bogus NGOs and nonsensical
initiatives (like $115,000 for antidengue inoculants although no dengue-fever vaccine is
currently available). In addition, the cash is treated as a slush fund for ensuring political
patronage and successful re-election. It looks like everyone has their hands dipped in the cookie
jar, Malou Mangahas, executive director of the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism,
tells TIME.
Although graft is endemic in the Philippines, the sweeping scope of pork barrel has stunned even
the most cynical. The scale emerged after a businesswoman named Janet Lim Napoles was
accused of laundering staggering sums of money for lawmakers. From 2009 to 12, Napoles
allegedly provided at least six Senators and 26 Congressmen with $224.9 million, according to
an Aug. 16 report by the Philippines official Commission on Audit. The 49-year-old former
Laguna City housewife, who turned herself in to President Benigno Aquino III ostensibly out of
fear for her own life, reportedly took a cut of 30% while delivering the bulk back to the pockets
of politicians much of it cash delivered furtively in shopping bags.
The opulent lifestyle enjoyed by Napoles swanky houses, sports cars and a socialite daughter
seen hobnobbing with celebrities including Justin Bieber at L.A. parties spurred public
outrage. People were scandalized as you are dealing with a country where 80% of the people
are poor, and the minimum wage doesnt even reach the poverty line, only to find out that they
do have money but they cant have services because the officials are pocketing the money, says
Harry L. Roque, professor at the University of the Philippines College of Law.
In response, hordes of seething voters have taken to the street to demand an end to pork-barrel
discretionary funding. So far, however, Aquino has only gone as far as to offer more
transparency. Under touted reforms, each Senator and Congressman would maintain their current
$4.5 million and $1.6 million allocations but must reveal where it is being spent a halfmeasure described as misleading the people by Roque. Unless you remove the budgetary
entitlement of politicians, he tells TIME, there will always be pork.
(MORE: No End in Sight to the Energy Crisis That Plagues the Philippines)
Although Aquino remains untainted by the most serious allegations, he has not been immune to
criticism. Aside from lawmakers, the office of the President also comes with a sizable
discretionary budget like calamity relief and there are calls for this to also be abolished, as
well as discretionary development funds for the judiciary and other arms of government. This
comes with political risks. There could be mutiny in the Congress if all pork is phased out,
warns Mangahas.

Indeed, pursuing legal cases will likely prove troublesome, as both allies and enemies of the
executive have been implicated. It would be difficult to file suits against so many
Congressmen, says Mangahas. In addition, complex graft cases will take several years to reach
the courtroom especially for the expected charges of plunder during which time even
more people could be implicated. Investigation attempts are currently focusing on a paper trail
via illicit bank accounts, but the likelihood of numerous cash transactions could make gathering
primary evidence extremely problematic.
Nevertheless, the strength of public feeling means that inaction is not an option. The President
wants to finish his term and he will make sure [something is done] as people are very, very mad,
explains Roque, adding that some token convictions will likely be forced through as quickly as
possible. A long-awaited Freedom of Information Act is also receiving widespread public
backing as it will give media the tools to properly investigate alleged impropriety. Im hoping
that this anger will redefine Philippine politics and end the cycle of vote buying and corruption,
says Roque.
MORE: 10 Questions for Benigno Noynoy Aquino III
25 comments

Sign in
+ Follow
Post comment

Newest | Oldest

bolus2x/day

It pains me to see my country suffer. It pains me more to see my countrymen suffer and die from
hunger and calamities. But, I will never abandon nor demean nor be ashamed of my native land
just because some of its people are shameless to the core! It is a beautiful country marred by a
few. Sad to say, but I don't think graft and corruption will ever be erased off the map of the
Philippines ( I am hoping I am wrong with this). While some of its people running its
government are feeding themselves with my people's money, my country will continue to stand
on its own! And I will be there by it!

StPatrick

... corruption is endemic in the philippine culture, i know i used to be a govt employee... in our
office during my time in the 90's we had fake trainings/ projects, equipments used for private
business, expensive office equipments mysteriously missing, playing tong-it during office time,
under the table deals with suppliers etc...saw all of that. couldnt stomach it, so i went away
before i get infected..

TroyZarateDeLeon

Read this late (including the replies) but some idiotic & ignorant comments aside, the article and
most of the comments are correct except for saying that PDAF == Pork Barrel.
The PDAF is just one part of the large pork barrel fund which includes that of the President
Aquino and we are giving him a fixed amount of time to resolve the issue.

LittleGreenMen

MarianoRenatoPacifico
I am no big fan of the Philippines but you are horribly misinformed about how it stands in Asia.
In fact you are the reason why Filipinos cannot progress- channeling your energy in putting your
country down. Try getting something done in India or Cambodia and you will miss the efficiency
of the Philippines.
Vietnam built its industry on ripping off the whole world of intellectual property. Try even
walking the streets of Saigon alone as a foreigner. Don't even get me started about India and red
tape corruption. The overwhelming general ignorance and malaise that eclipses their tech savy is
mind -boggling. Thailand does not sit on the worst storm belt in the world and does make three
crops of rice per year which is how they progressed agriculturally not to mention stealing
Cambodian territory.

The problems of the Philippines can be fixed because there are smart people with the will and
courage to get them done as is being done now with the corruption issues. I think the biggest
problem in the Philippines are whiners like yourself.

rouj

this is the reason why politicians continue to retain their positions in the government ...to become
wealthy and rich...to help the people is bull crap to them

kitkilatis

Understandably, PNoy controls a sizable budget in the Philippines government all because he is
the President, for crying out loud. As a matter of fact, he virtually controls every single centavo
in the entire budget of the government.
But, that is not the issue at hand. The issue is the stealing of people's money by legislators, other
government officials, and their cohorts, plus the breakdown of mechanism intended to check
corruption in government.
Can we just expect the culprits to stand idly by while charges against them are being readied?
Not by a chance. And so, while we can expect nobody from those mentioned from earlier reports
to have enriched themselves out pork-barrel to admit, common sense would tell us that they
could be behind all these twister moves, the objective of which is to deceive the Filipino people
into believing that they should point their guns to PNoy and away from the real culprits.

pinoybreed808

@natashya_g @TIME So happy to see that the country future generations are involve in this.

MarianoRenatoPacifico

What Charlie Campbell do not know about Philippines and Filipinos:

1. In the Philippines whistleblowers do not have evidences just affidavits. In America
whistleblowers have evidences. Therefore, these Pork Barrel Scandal will go round and round
and boil down to he-said-she-said
2. Guilt by socialization and association. There are pictures flying around with pictures of Janet
Napoles with senators and congressmen and justices. Therefore those who are in the pictures are
already presumed guilty
3. President of the Philippines Benigno Aquino claimed that he doesn't know Janet Napoles, yet,
when Janet Napoles called Malacanang Benigno Aquino sent his Chief of Staff in the middle of
the night in darkened corner of the cemetery. Fetch her. Brought her to Malacanang, served
coffee and personally escorted her thru Presidential Escort Service to National Bureau of
Investigation.
This is like Madoff calling the White House and Obama sent his Chief of Staff to fetch him and
in Presidential Limousine One escorted him personally to FBI
Something is inherently genetically wrong with Filipinos. They cannot know what is right.

badsvp

@TIME @TIMEWorld bad #Philippines politics.

saywcgir

wait what?!?!?! 80% of the country is poor?!?! FALSE.

AMacarro1

@TIME @TIMEWorld Clever title!

vote4gino

This writer needs to check his sources, or just do a simple Google search. Napoles surrendered
due to a standing warrant of arrest for illegal detention and did not admit to any wrong doing
with regards to the pork barrel scam. Also "There could be mutiny in the Congress if all pork is
fazed out." Should there be a (sic) there or did you mean "phased out"?

eronsalazar

We, the Filipino people, are embarrassed by the news article. But our thick-faced politicians are
doing the damage! God help us!

emmancon

As far as I know, Janet Lim Napoles has denied any involvement in the pork barrel scandal. It
were the whistleblowers, who are former employees of Napoles, who accused Napoles and the
senators/congressmen of corruption.

Shiva_jangid

@TIME Islamic militant B- Haram kill many Nigeria aje.me/15bu5R4, No matter in which part
of world they live, work is same

MarianoRenatoPacifico

@LittleGreenMen India is way more advanced than Philippines, this statement cannot be
debated and not negotiable. Cambodia is now in the rear view mirror inching faster.
"overwhelming general ignorance" ... of India is Mind-boggling. Dude, you must have 'toopid

Filipino Channel (TFC) in your diet not to mention time spent on Facebook updating pictures.
Thaland does not have sit on the worst storm belt .... Filipinos that went to America without the
storm belt are still ..... aaaah .... remain Filipinos forever. Nothing doing.
The problem of the PHiliippines can be fixed, TRUE. It has been 500 years already and
Vietnam, Korea, North Korea, Taiwan, China has already fixed theirs in less than 500 years.
Here my advice to you @LittleGreenMen , stop watching TFC and free yourself from Facebook.
I do not watch TFC and I have Facebook-free life after 4 accounts been banned because of
Filipinos cannot stand my take on Manny Pacquiao and the Filipinos.

Boyer

@MarianoRenatoPacifico How dare you lumping all Filipinos together. Yes there are corrupt
politicians but there are also those who toil fair and square. And where were you born? Why is
it that you know so much about Filipinos and you seem to have the right to belittle an entire
nation.

MarianoRenatoPacifico

Philippine government should be outsourced to India or for instant efficacy to North Korea. The
Filipinos has no business running government.
Philippines used to be called Pearl of the Orient sea now it is not because the pearl has been
stolen
Philippines used to be 7,101 islands currently there are only 7,075 islands the rest were also
stolen.
Anything that Filipinos touches turns into controversy and corruption.
It is easier to teach an old dog new tricks then Filipino old tricks
Teach a Filipino how to fish and they starve praying for fish.

Filipinos has no future that is why Filipinos are voluntarily surrendering to their former colonial
masters for them to run their lives: U.S. Japan and other colonial masters.

MarianoRenatoPacifico

Oh, Charlie Campbell, I forgot one thing it is my number 4.

4. Whistleblowers armed with typewritten Affidavits is more acceptable evidence than
Commission on Audit Reports.

MarianoRenatoPacifico

@saywcgir as compared to other countries:

1 Vietname came out of the ashes of war in early 70s
2. South Korea is now leading industrial country after the war in the late 50s
3. China after cultural revolution in the 60s
4. Taiwan after escaping from China's cultural revolution
5. Thailand is more mentioned in business environment than Philippines
6. Indonesia
7. Singapore
Philippines? Well, they are still waiting for their prayers to be answered. If prayers are not
answered they blame colonial mentality without Filipinos knowing that their religion is part and
parcel of colonialism.

MarianoRenatoPacifico

@vote4gino The Filipinos know that they cannot be relied on with money. So, they'd rather
phase out Pork Barrel the cause of corruption not the politicians. Wonderful logic from
"brilliant" Filipinos.

MarianoRenatoPacifico

@vote4gino You should check your protocol becauser not anyone can just dial up Malacanang
and request personal escort service from the Republic of the Philippines. But this is a Banana
Republic run by Filipinos so what is wrong is right to them.

MarianoRenatoPacifico

@eronsalazar God cannot help the Filipinos. God has already escaped from the Philippines.
Philippines is the only Roman Catholic in southeast Asia and the most corrupt.

MarianoRenatoPacifico

@emmancon In the Philippines Commission on Audit report has no meaning at all but
whistleblowers waiving Affidavits is grand and heavy than forensic audits.

MarianoRenatoPacifico

@Boyer @MarianoRenatoPacifico I did study on Filipinos. Each Filipinos I polled says do not
lump them with other corrupt Filipinos. Each Filipinos said they are not corrupt. Therefore,
ALL FILIPINOS ARE NOT CORRUPT! Then why Philippines is still left-behind?
Because Filipnios when polled and studied they are all liars. Natural born liars.
vsssss