AFFIRMATIVE REBUTTAL

Good day ladies and gentlemen. I am the second speaker of the affirmative side
and my task is to rebut the arguments presented by the first speaker of the negative
side and to present additional arguments in favor of the affirmative side. In fulfilling
this task, let me begin my speech in pointing out the flaws of the arguments presented
by the first negative speaker.

The speech of the first negative speaker can be summed up in a meager one
sentence: They believe that the Priority Development Assistance Fund, in short PDAF,
also known as the Pork Barrel System, should not be abolished because through this
system our members of the Philippine Congress can serve their constituents better by
directing government resources to the urgent needs of their communities. The negative
side believes that the pork barrel system should not be abolished but instead should
only be rectified or corrected through installation of more safeguards to the pork barrel
system.

To be very frank and honest, ladies and gentlemen, the argument of the first
negative speaker that the pork barrel is necessary because our Congreesmen can
serve better their constituents through it is a poor attempt to jusitfy the existence of the
prok barrel system. This reminds me of former Soviet Premier Nikita Krushchev when
he said that Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build a bridge even
where there isno river. In a way, the same can be said of our very own politicians in
general. In this part of the globe, lawmakers strive to make good of their promises.
They feign generosity to their constituents through pork funds to cover up their
lackluster

performance

in

law-making

and

parliamentary

debates.

As promised, policymakers in this country are rather preoccupied with the

construction of bridges, roads, waiting sheds and health centers etc., only that most of

these public works projects are substandard. Because our lawmakers visualize
themselves as pseudo-DPWH, they utilize pork funds to support pet projects, mostly
public works, to impress upon their constituents that they have done well with their
fund. But beneath all this, lawmakers wallow in a grand conspiracy to deceive the
public. These rent-seeking vultures are more concerned with paperless deals that
would put them in a better light come election time. But the stench of institutionalized
corruption is hard to contain. It stinks. And most Filipinos are not unaware of the fact
that

pork

barrel

is

source

of

evil.

The scenario is all too familiar: Mr. Congressman identifies his pet projects
for his district. The pork fund is channeled through the implementing agency,
say DPWH, to execute the public works project. Next is the bidding process.
Studies show, and rightly so, that PDAF projects normally attracts just one
bidder for each of the competitive tenders conducted by the implementing
agency. Consequently, with no real competition in the bidding process, your
mighty Congressman exerts influence in the selection of contractors to carry
out PDAF-funded projects. The favored contractor, the one tasked to undertake
the project, is obligated to hand over at least 30-50 percent rebates of the pork
fund, known as kick back or cuts, to your honorable congressman. 30 percent
goes to the contractor, the remainder, or 20 percent of the Fund would now go to
the cost of the project.This is why most public works projects are substandard, and
are in need of continuous repairs despite hefty allocations ostensibly given to them.
Worse, in between these projects, lawmakers would get to flaunt their names and
vapid faces on project tarps to make sure that constituents would praise their hallowed
names to high heavens during elections. Now, whether the pork barrel funds go to the
deep pockets of politicians, LGUs, and bogus NGOs the underlying purpose is the
same:

Its

all

for

the

money.

What

nerve,

what

conceit!

The proposition of the negative side of rectifying or correcting the flawed and
abused pork barrel system is the same with the idea of attempting to put make up and

beautify a stinky pig to make it appear presentable and acceptable to the public. No
matter how much make up we put, the odor of a pig will always come out. This is the
same with the proposition of the negative side. The first negative speaker himself
admitted that the pork barrel system has been abused by out politicians and is
definitely flawed. Why should we retain the pork barrel system, ladies and gentlemen,
when it has been flawed, abused and has been the source of evil and corruption in this
country?

It is therefore the stand of the affirmative side that we should abolish and junk
the PDAF or pork barrel system.

As defined by PDAF Watch, a civil society organization, pork barrel funds are
those allocated to politicians such as congresspersons and senators, to be used,
based on their decision to fund programs or projects in their districts. In reality, pork
barrel is a spoiling incentive used by the President to gain political support in both
houses

of

Congress.

In

return,

he

gets

to

have

his

wishes

done.

Under the principle of separation of powers, the Constitution distributed the

powers of government among its three distinct departments, each superior in its own
sphere-- the legislative makes laws, the executive implements it, and the judiciary
interprets the law. But the separation is not absolute. There are instances when these
powers blend with each other owing to its corollary mechanism of checks and
balances. In this way, at least in theory, separation of powers enables the three great
branches to check each other thereby preventing concentration of powers that might
result

to

tyranny.

There is, however, a flipside to it. The principle of separation of powers was
never intended to promote efficiency. The price of interdependence among the great
departments, while notable for its purpose, exacts a high price that could create an

impasse in the workings of the government. Needless to say, political compromises are
often the result of executive-legislative gridlocks especially when their personal
interests transcend constitutional boundaries. It is my view that even if the theory of
separation of powers rests on the premise that tyranny can be avoided by allocating
distinct powers among the three departments, the same line of argument is no
guarantee against determined despots. What if the holders of powers decide to band
themselves together in a grand conspiracy to something that is oppressive like the
infamous

pork

barrel

system?

Essentially, this is how the dynamics of executive-legislative work: legislation is

the exclusive domain of Congress, but the Constitution does not prohibit the president
to introduce legislation through party lines in the legislature. Because party-principles
in Philippine politics are subservient to personal interests or patronage network,
alliances and coalitions usually appear like mushrooms, frantically aligning themselves
to the central leadership of the ruling party. What made them tow the line? The 1987
Constitution provides as with a simple answer: Discretionary funds appropriated for
a particular official shall be disbursed only for public purposes to be supported
by appropriate vouchers and subject to such guidelines as may be prescribed
by law. Discretionary funds had evolved in various names hoping to dispel the
negative connotation of the term. But whether you call it as Discretionary Fund or
Countrywide Development Fund or Priority Development Assistance Development
Fund still, the stench of a sullen past exudes a venal odor of anomalyit
institutionalizes patronage politics. In the Philippines, as one American legislator
observed, all politics is local. Congressional power depends largely at the local level.
Members of the House of Representative are elected by legislative districts where
patronage politics is at its all time high. Thus politicians, especially the incumbents,
have an immense advantage in protecting local networks through their control of pork
barrel, and they will do almost anything to preserve the system of corruption. Senators,
on the other hand, although elected at large had their fair share of a systematize

distribution of spoils. Except for some lawmakers who eschewed their pork barrel
allocations, most senators had funneled their shares on the basis of specific
geographic vote-rich districts. Most of these areas or political districts are highly
urbanized cities and provinces with dense population obviously with high voters
turnout every election. In the end, all things being equal, the pork barrel system hardly
benefits the people in terms of goods and services. Instead, the pork barrel system
has further cemented the hold of political dynasties and money politics in local
fiefdoms.

We the negative side believes that the PDAF should be abolished. We submit
that the pork barrel system runs contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution
when it reminded us that public office is a public trust. It also frontally violates the timehonored principle of separation of powers by sneaking loopholes through the
backdoor, masquerading PDAF-funded projects as executive function when in fact
lawmakers have taken responsibility over project implementation more than passing
laws. One of the lessons I learned in construing provisions of the Constitution is the
rule which says,What cannot be legally done directly cannot be done indirectly. I think
the rule finds application, one way or another, with the pork barrel funds in relation to
constitutional proscriptions. But more that the legality of PDAF, it takes a strong
leadership to eradicate corruption. The President, as one commentator opined, can
easily abolish pork barrel by not including in its budgetary proposals. Congress, by
way of tradition and under the 1987 Constitution, cannot add anything outside the
specified budget recommended by the President, the most that they can do is to
decrease the figures.
Again, we the affirmative believes that the PDAF should be abolished. Thank you and
Good day!

NEGATIVE REBUTTAL

Good day ladies and gentlemen. I am the second speaker of the negative side
and my task is to rebut the arguments presented affirmative rebuttal and to present
additional arguments in favor of the negative side. In fulfilling this task, let me begin
my speech in pointing out the flaws of the arguments presented by the speaker for the
affirmative rebuttal.

The affirmative side believes that the PDAF should be abolished altogether.
They

argue

provide

services

institutionalize

that
to

while

pork

constituents,

patron-client

they

relations,

barrel
foster

strengthen

funds

political
the

do

patronage,
chances

of

We the negative side believes that the pork barrel should not be abolished and should
only be corrected.
Is pork barrel spending inconsistent with the principle of separation of powers in
a democratic system since members of Congress are elected to pass laws and not
implement projects? A look at the major democracies in the worldUS, Canada, UK,
Australia, Japan, among otherseasily disproves this point. Pork barrel is alive and
well in all major democracies in the world, and they do not suffer the same economic
maladies that we have. Pork barrel goes hand in hand with democratic processes and
institutions. Governments all over the world use their power to tax and spend to favor
certain

constituencies

with

special

benefits.

Democratically elected officials have geographic-specific electoral bases that they

represent (that is why members of Congress are called representatives) and
legislator-constituency relations are often defined in terms of providing location-specific
projects like roads, livelihood projects, courthouses, airports, and schools.
Those who argue that legislators are elected only to make laws fail to grasp the
meaning of democratic representation. Legislators articulate the interests and
demands of their constituents to the national government. In many instances, the
solutions to these problems cannot be found in making laws but in ensuring that the

needs of their constituents are addressed. In a perfect world, executive agencies

provide these projects. In an imperfect world, pork barrel projects meet these
demands.
American political scientist Diana Evans even argues that pork barrel facilitates
legislative decision-making. She asserts that pork barrel benefits, while reviled by
many, are routinely used by political leaders to build coalitions to pass much-needed
legislation on social welfare, health, and education. Buying votes with pork, in this
instance, enables Congress to enact laws that are contentious and difficult to pass.
Should we abolish the pork and transfer all funds to the executive branch? This
contention assumes that: 1) the choices made by legislators in the use of their PDAF
are
irrational
and
even
corrupt;
and 2) that executive decision-making is more rational (and ethical) than those of
legislators.
While there is no question that there are many examples of bad pork (such as
a former senator who built nothing but basketball courts, or a movie actor-turnedcongressman who constructed road humps all over his district) there are also many
innovative PDAF projects that fulfill constituency needs but get poor press.
Examples of good pork are numerous. Senate Presidents Drilons collaboration with
the Filipino-Chinese Chamber of Commerce (FCCC) has reduced the price of
constructing
a
two-room
school
building
from
P700,000 (Department of Public Works and Highways cost) to P350,000 (FCCC cost).
Drilon has put P205M of his PDAF in this initiative, effectively doubling the number of
school
buildings
constructed
using
government funds.
Senate Minority Leader Nene Pimentel has given PDAF funds to the U.P. to train
some 350 SUC (state universities and colleges) student council presidents and
editors-in-chief on leadership and legislative advocacy; award outstanding local
government leaders, recognize cooperatives-LGUs (local government units)
partnerships, and sponsor workshops on federalism, tax reforms, party list
representation,
and
globalization.
Senator Juan Flavier used P300M of his PDAF to complete the construction of the
Baguio General Hospital and P65M in a LandBank-administered credit program for
cooperatives and a scholarship program for students in the 20 poorest provinces of the
Philippines.
And former Negros Oriental congressman, now LandBank President Margarito
Teves used his pork barrel to provide incentives to mayors who implemented
successful family planning programs.

Do these projects promote political patronage and corruption? No. Would regular
government agencies implement these types of projects if funds were given exclusively
to them? No! In these instances, the abolition or transfer of the PDAF would result in
overpriced government services, the non-completion of vital infrastructure, or the
neglect of projects that executive agencies routinely disregard because these do not
fall within their priorities.
Abolishing the pork barrel will have a disastrous effect on many local
communities where a legislators pork barrel project is often the only capital investment
in the area. Pork barrel projects in 5th and 6 th class municipalitiesroad construction,
repair of day care centers, schools, and barangay halls, livelihood projectsprovide
employment and much-needed infrastructure.
The budget of these LGUs can barely pay for salaries and operating expenses,
and their needs tend to fall out of the radar screen of national and provincial
authorities.
A
reduction
in
the
pork
barrel
coupled with a reduction in their IRA (Internal Revenue Allotment), as GMA has
proposed, will be disastrous to poor communities.
Finally, PDAF abolition or reduction will further exacerbate executive dominance
over Congress. Under the present system, the President, through the Deparment of
Budget
and
Management
(DBM),
controls
the
release of PDAF funds through the issuance of SAROs (Special Allotment Release
Orders) and NCAs (Notices of Cash Allocation) and administration allies tend to get
their
releases
faster
than
those
in
the opposition.
Members of the House are most vulnerable to executive pressure because any
delay in the PDAF release can jeopardize projects promised to their constituents.
Senators
can
be
more
independent
because
their
electability is not anchored exclusively on serving constituency needs.
Abolishing the pork barrel will further weaken legislative-executive checks-andbalances and tilt the balance of power to create an Imperial Presidency.
The solution to the pork barrel issue is not abolition but greater transparency,
accountability and rationality in its utilization. What can be done?
1. Promote greater transparency in the use of the pork barrel funds by
requiring projects to be listed in publicly available reports through the
internet and print media. Sunshine is still the best disinfectant
for wasteful government spending. Transparency and accountability
can be required through a resolution passed by each chamber of
Congress, the exercise of legislative leadership by the Speaker and
Senate

President, and the observance of the freedom of information provision

of the Constitution;
2. Form advocacy and watchdog groups that will monitor public
spending and force government to open public documents for
scrutiny. Groups like Citizens Against Government Waste and
Taxpayers for Common Sense have successfully monitored pork
barrel
spending in the US. In the Philippines, the USAID-initiated
Transparent Accountable Governance project (www.tag.org.ph) has
data on aggregate pork barrel spending. Unfortunately, it does not
track the type of projects implemented by legislators, making it
impossible to identify bad pork versus good pork. The neutrality or
independence of some of the partners and implementing agencies is
also questionable since they themselves are beneficiaries of pork
barrel projects;
3. Reform-minded legislators can take the cue from U.S. Senator
John McCain whose website www.mccain.senate.gov has a special
page called pork barrel spending that lists questionable pork
projects. They can then link up with watchdog groups to ensure
access to government documents on pork barrel spending; and
4. Enact a Freedom of Information (FOI) law similar to those in
Sweden, US, Canada, and the EU that gives citizens the right to see
public records and requires public disclosure of government
transactions. In the Philippines, Action for Economic Reforms has
been collaborating with reformist legislators for a law on the citizens
right to public information.
If we adopt at least one of these suggestions, the public would have a better
appreciation of the pork barrel. Then the President would be forced to find better ways
to plug the deficit, as well as intelligently and bravely address the chronic problems of
the economy. incumbents for re-election, and engender corruption.
In consideration of these arguments, we the negative side believes that the
PDAF should not be abolished but instead be corrected by implementation of better
safeguard measures. Thank you ladies and gentlemen

LAST AFFIRMATIVE SPEAKER

Good day ladies and gentlemen. I am the last speaker of the affirmative side
and my task is to rebut the arguments presented in the negative rebuttal and to
summarize the arguments presented by our side, the affirmative side. In fulfilling this
task, let me begin my speech in pointing out the flaws of the arguments presented by
the negative side.

LAST NEGATIVE SPEAKER

Good day ladies and gentlemen. I am the last speaker of the negative side and
my task is to summarize the arguments presented by our side, the negative side. Our
side believes that PDAF should not be abolished and instead be corrected. Our side
has presented ample arguments to support our position, namely: