Certain congressmen lately howled at the administration for requiring them to submit details of their projects for the 2013 budget. If you think of it, there is nothing wrong with that. If a lawmaker has projects for his district, what’s the big deal with submitting details? Are these details not needed before any projects get accepted by the congressman himself for the district? It is proper procedure that a study of a need first be taken before any project to meet that need be considered for financing using the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) allotted to the congressman. So a valid project must involve a valid study to justify the funding. These study documents are simply what can be submitted to the Palace to justify the projects.
The recent hullabaloos however tell us a lot of things.
First, certain congressmen believed that their PDAF is their own personal fund that they can spend without accountability to the government. They believe they are entitled to it, and no other branch of government, not even the administration, can put a check on its proper use. This is practically what happened in past administrations, something that the present administration is trying to stop, where “pork barrels” became political campaign monies often spent on projects that had no concrete benefits to the constituents, given they even reached the constituents in full. Projects that, under close scrutiny, cannot be justified.
Second, congressmen do not usually seek valid justifications—a study of need—for the projects they are spending on with their PDAF. If they have the documents that can validly justify the projects, they simply have to submit a copy to the Palace, or the staff can simply rewrite it for consumption of the administration.
Third, congressmen make no prior plans on what projects they want to give their constituents in line for the following year or two. That means they have not been in close contact with their constituents to know very well what problems their districts will be facing in the near future. The present requirements for PDAF release force them to look into the future needs of their district, and line up projects to address those. You can imagine how hard that would be for lawmakers who are not used to keeping in touch with the people they represent a full-time job. That explains the squirming.
Fourth, while they know by law that the PDAF is government money, they behave like it is their personal booty. Being government money, the administration has the duty to ensure that this tax money will be judiciously used for projects that matter most.
Lastly, the congressmen certainly are not fond of transparency and good governance. If they are, the trouble of submitting a need assessment study for each project is a small trouble to the positive system it can create in government. But what is transparency and good governance when these are not important values for them?
House Majority Leader Neptali Gonzales II complained that this system would be unfair to new congressmen elected in 2013 because it would deprive them of the right to identify their pork barrel projects. While this point of view appears on the surface defensive to the right of new congressmen, it appears to confuse the difference between serving the needs of the constituents and the right to identify projects. For a public servant who looks at what is truly good for his constituent, who identifies the projects, is of lesser importance than the benefits such projects will bring to his constituents. Did not the previous congressman work too for the service of his district? The new system that scrutinizes projects before they are funded assures that even previously aligned projects truly serve the need of the district.
It seems certain lawmakers have to go back to the basics of their duties in representing their respective districts. They are in the position to serve, and solve, the needs of their constituents; not to wallow in the honor of identifying projects.
At the end of the day, if Mr. Congressman is truly serving his constituents effectively using his PDAF, there is nothing to fear who gave which projects to his people. Neither is there to fear when the projects that reached the people came through rigorous scrutiny that ensures its effectiveness in addressing the need. The people will see their commitment to serve them. And that would be a strong card he can use in the campaign.
Comments
Post a Comment