Did Malacañang offered bribes or incentives to lawmakers using the so-called Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) to convict former chief justice Renato Corona? We all know the answer to this question, right?
Unless you are trying to pretend that you are blind and brainless, then the obvious answer is no. Why? Because Senator Bongbong Marcos who did not convict the chief justice received funds from DAP on December 2011, while Senator Pia Cayetano who convicted Corona did not receive anything in 2012.
However, on the insistence that DAP is not a 'pork barrel' is really trying to push it strongly down our throats.
Pork barrel is the appropriation of government spending for localized projects secured solely or primarily to bring money to a representative's district. It means fund allocated to the members of Congress’s two chambers to spend as they see fit without going through the normal budgetary and procurement process (i.e. bidding).
The only difference between DAP and those that are commonly known as Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) or Countryside Development Fund (CDF) or Congressional Initiative Fund (CIF) is that it was sourced not from the national budget allocation but from the savings generated by under-performing agencies. That is it. No more, no less.
Whatever they call it or whatever fancy name they coin to fool people into thinking that it was meant to uplift the standard of living, it functions the same way as any other ‘pork barrel.’ Let us define it again, pork barrel refers to the funds used by lawmakers to "unofficially" undertake projects that benefit a small group of citizens in a district or municipality as they see fit.
Did the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) released funds to support projects that were proposed by the lawmakers? Yes. Are these identified projects implemented in a small area for a specific ethnic or regional group? Yes.
Don’t be fooled by the term "acceleration" in DAP because there is nothing in there that was fast-tracked since it was started in 2011. In fact some of the funds saved in 2011 and 2012 are still being used to implement programs and projects identified by lawmakers in 2013.
Once again, let’s stop this foolishness. Lawmakers have no business implementing local projects. They should do what they are supposed to do, craft, refine and amend laws. If the regional implementing and executing agencies don’t know what are the local projects needed, then they too had no business operating.
Unless you are trying to pretend that you are blind and brainless, then the obvious answer is no. Why? Because Senator Bongbong Marcos who did not convict the chief justice received funds from DAP on December 2011, while Senator Pia Cayetano who convicted Corona did not receive anything in 2012.
However, on the insistence that DAP is not a 'pork barrel' is really trying to push it strongly down our throats.
Pork barrel is the appropriation of government spending for localized projects secured solely or primarily to bring money to a representative's district. It means fund allocated to the members of Congress’s two chambers to spend as they see fit without going through the normal budgetary and procurement process (i.e. bidding).
The only difference between DAP and those that are commonly known as Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) or Countryside Development Fund (CDF) or Congressional Initiative Fund (CIF) is that it was sourced not from the national budget allocation but from the savings generated by under-performing agencies. That is it. No more, no less.
Whatever they call it or whatever fancy name they coin to fool people into thinking that it was meant to uplift the standard of living, it functions the same way as any other ‘pork barrel.’ Let us define it again, pork barrel refers to the funds used by lawmakers to "unofficially" undertake projects that benefit a small group of citizens in a district or municipality as they see fit.
Did the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) released funds to support projects that were proposed by the lawmakers? Yes. Are these identified projects implemented in a small area for a specific ethnic or regional group? Yes.
Don’t be fooled by the term "acceleration" in DAP because there is nothing in there that was fast-tracked since it was started in 2011. In fact some of the funds saved in 2011 and 2012 are still being used to implement programs and projects identified by lawmakers in 2013.
Once again, let’s stop this foolishness. Lawmakers have no business implementing local projects. They should do what they are supposed to do, craft, refine and amend laws. If the regional implementing and executing agencies don’t know what are the local projects needed, then they too had no business operating.