 |
| Dean Tony La Viña. Rappler |
On November 19, 2013, the Supreme Court of the Philippines by a unanimous vote declared unconstitutional the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) and the use of Malampaya funds for other purposes other than energy-related projects. Dean Tony La Viña of the Ateneo School of Government writes about the implication of this ruling. He writes:
The SC decision on PDAF is historic. The implications of the decision on our life as a nation cannot be underestimated. With this decision, nothing will be the same again.
In the past politicians could dip their hands in government coffers with impunity and use them as if they had proprietary rights. But with the abolition of pork barrel, a whole system is eradicated that, in the words of Justice Leonen, “historically encourage dole-outs; inculcates a perverse understanding of representative democracy; encourages a culture that misunderstands the important function of public representation in Congress and does not truly empower those who are impoverished or found in the margins of our society.”
The SC decision is also revolutionary. Typically revolutions are initiated by the “masses,” in the Philippines often with the help of a faction of the military. The Supreme Court, by the nature of its constitutional mandate, does not normally lead a revolt. In EDSA I and II, the Supreme Court merely lent legitimacy to a fait accompli when it recognized the new order established by the people. But if revolution means to radically and drastically change a whole system, then the SC decision on PDAF may be considered a revolution of sorts.
The decision practically upended the status quo. It reengineers government’s use of public funds. It has direct or indirect effects on the electoral system. It diminishes patronage system. It puts a new perspective on how to look at fundamental principles of government like separation of powers, non-delegability of legislative power, and operational aspects of budgeting. And finally, it raises the bar of accountability and transparency in government.
As a result of the pork barrel scandal, the people have become more vigilant and pro-active in fighting corruption. The scandal has afforded the public a new-found courage to assert their right to prevent the misapplication and wastage of public funds, and to demand accountability from their public officials.
The Supreme Court’s decision is a resounding affirmation of the strident clamor by the people to scrap the anomalous and graft-ridden pork barrel system in the country. While it is true that the pork barrel system is not a novelty in a democratic set-up having originated from the United States, the pork barrel Philippine style has evolved into some species that perpetuates patronage and systemic corruption.
It has metamorphosed into a milking cow of sorts from which some politicians and their accomplices could line their pockets to the detriment of the taxpayers and the intended beneficiaries. Having transgressed all constitutional principles of accountability, transparency and good governance, the pork barrel system has lost its very reason for existence, with utterly no place in a democracy.
By a mere stroke of a pen, the SC had done through peaceful means what normally would have been done through mass action, protest rallies, and even violent confrontations. Without doubt, this SC decision may just be an opportunity to eradicate greed, which has plagued us for so long and, in the words of Justice Leonen, “build a government that has a collective passion for real social justice.”
How can that not be revolutionary?
Read the full piece on Rappler
