February 8, 2000 NEWS RELEASE

Special provisions requiring "prior concurrence from members of Congress" for government-funded projects are unprecedented, contrary to claims of legislators attempting to downplay the existence of P41.9 billion pork barrel funds in the 2000 national budget.

This was stressed today by the Caucus of Development NGO Networks (Code-NGO) and the Union of Local Authorities of the Philippines (ULAP) which also said that initial findings of a joint study into details of the proposed General Appropriations Act (GAA) of 2000 indicate "what appear to be brazen moves to go around President Estrada’s wish for a pork-free budget."

ULAP president and Laguna Gov. Joey Lina said a review of previous GAAs particularly those of 1999 and 1998 showed no "prior concurrence" requirements. What was required in 1999, he said, was "prior consultation" for nine budget items and in 1998, for one item only—the special and work study grants to returnees in the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) budget.

Lina and Dan Songco of the Code-NGO, a group of 12 networks representing 3,000 non-government organizations and cooperatives, insist that special provisions using the words "in/with/upon prior concurrence / consultation with members of Congress" are undoubtedly sources of pork barrel funds.

"Consultation may appear to be innocuous but when applied to the budget on ground level, it is concurrence or approval just the same. Officials of national agencies are just too afraid to oppose senators and congressmen who can threaten to cut their budgets if they don’t toe the line," Lina said.

The Code-NGO said that among "what appears to be brazen moves" to create "pork items" is the newly-introduced P3.33 billion Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) that require consultation and P8.89 billion added by the bicameral committee for projects of the Department of Public Works and Highways requiring prior concurrence from senators and congressmen.

ULAP information director Angel Tugado said the joint study has uncovered what NGOs describe as an "unconscionably pork-laden" budget that virtually sequestered a huge portion of the internal revenue allotment of local government units to augment pork barrel funds for senators and congressmen amounting to at least P41.9 billion.

He said the detailed study was triggered by widespread resentment among local officials over the P15 billion LGUs’ IRA cut and that initial findings had unraveled an "intricate web of political complexities" to camouflage numerous sources of pork barrel in the various provisions and items in the budget.

The study revealed that among the items "laden with pork" are from the Education Department, P2 billion for school building projects; Department of Public Works and Highways, P27.45 billion for infrastructure projects; and the National Commission on Indigenous People, P68.5 million intended for livelihood and scholarships, Tugado said.

Other "pork items" which require prior consultation are those of Agriculture Department, P6.15 billion for agriculture and fisheries modernization; PDAF, P3.33 billion; National Housing Authority, P1.87 billion for resettlement and housing projects; National Electrification Administration, P500 million for rural electrification and energy generating facilities, he said.

Also included are CHED, P449.40 million for grants and subsidies, Department of Social Welfare and Development, P69.21 million; and the Department of Trade and Industry, P18 million. Currently being determined are "pork items" for Departments of Interior, Energy, and Health, Tugado added.

"This is not only one of the worst budget bills ever passed but it is truly unconscionable for legislators to sequester P15 billion from the rightful IRA share of LGUs discharging frontline devolved services for the people, just to augment their pork barrel," Lina said. "(Senate Finance Committee Sen. John) Osmena is right when he said that what they ratified was a historic budget. The staggering amount of pork is unprecedented."

"This is a question of whether it is proper for Congress, in order to give way to their pork barrel, to reduce LGU funds and cause a drastic cutback in basic services for the people including less medicines for the poor who are sick and dying in dilapidated hospitals in the 4^th, 5^th, and 6^th class provinces, cities, and municipalities," ULAP officials lamented.

Lina said that the "prior concurrence or consultation" clause specified in about 32 special provisions "clearly shows not only the illegal intrusion of Congress into the authority and functions of the executive branch of government but that the President is virtually being held hostage by the legislative branch in the implementation of programs."