Media Didn’t Explain What Qualifies as “Pork”

IS THE controversial and unconstitutional pork barrel back?

“Pork,” the lump-sum discretionary funds allotted to lawmakers for their pet projects was revealed to be used in a large-scale scam in 2013, when the Philippine Daily Inquirer uncovered how the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) was used to channel kickbacks for senators and representatives through fake NGOs. This led to the Supreme Court’s decision declaring pork barrel as unconstitutional.

But the forbidden pork in the budget has made a comeback, and with a vengeance – judging from the furor it has sparked in Congress.

During the Senate debate on the budget early this month, Senator Panfilo “Ping” Lacson revealed that the general appropriations bill held billions of pesos in questionable “insertions.”  He singled out two congressional districts as having received billions in infrastructure projects: Camarines Sur with PHP1.9 billion and Pampanga with PHP2.4 billion. The media identified the districts as held by Majority Leader Rolando Andaya Jr. and House Speaker Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.

But the reports did not explain how these “insertions” are pork barrel funds.

The media recorded the protests of Andaya and Arroyo about being “singled out,” both lawmakers also singling out previous House leaders as having received even larger sums.

Media followed up the exchange of accusations between legislators and Department of Budget and Management Secretary Benjamin Diokno. Reports included technical issues, but with little explanatory background, but coverage left out information that would have clarified the value of Lacson’s “expose.”

CMFR monitored the three Manila broadsheets Philippine Daily Inquirer, The Philippine Star, and the Manila Bulletin; four primetime news programs (ABS-CBN 2’s TV Patrol, GMA-7’s 24 Oras, TV5’s Aksyon, CNN Philippines’ News Night); and selected online news sites from December 4 to 16.

Claims and Counter-claims

Not a single report actually looked at the GAB itself to explain why the billions of pesos both sides were identifying as such qualify as “pork.”

The media diligently reported the claims of Arroyo’s allies in the House, who blamed Diokno and called for his resignation, and those of Malacanang officials including Duterte, who vouched for Diokno’s integrity.

Only two reports went to sources who offered their insight into the seeming break between the House and Malacanang. Quoting the Makabayan bloc, reports by TV Patrol and the Bulletin’s online counterpart said the passage of the national budget was being held back by the apparent struggle for power between the president’s economic managers and Arroyo’s camp.

“Parked Pork”

Media stretched out the coverage of the conflict between Diokno and lawmakers for more than a week. The all the finger-pointing did not help to identify who should be held accountable for the “insertion” of pork in the budget.

Media should follow up the suggestion that there may be another large-scale scam similar to the PDAF and not be distracted by the blame game among public officials.

The Inquirer moved the story forward when it reported a new scheme for kickbacks that Lacson said he had discovered. The senator called it “parked pork,” in which a “well-connected” representative offers shares of pork to other legislators who received little or no allocations, on the condition that the lawmaker offering his or her pork chooses the contractor of the projects. Lacson said he learned about the scheme from a “congressman friend.”

Unfortunately, few reports followed up on this lead and media seemed content only to quote Senators Franklin Drilon and Vicente “Tito” Sotto III who asked Lacson to identify his source. The media’s seeming lack of enthusiasm in reporting in-depth the return of congressional “pork” is disturbing as it is surprising. Their lukewarm treatment of the issue actually helps lawmakers to distract the public from pressing for greater accountability and from demanding an end to corruption, as promised by the president.