THE DEPLOYMENT OF THE PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE FUND

(PDAF) ON INFRASTRACTURE AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF

RODRIGUEZ AND SAN MATEO RIZAL: AN ASSESSMENT

An Undergraduate Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the Political Science

Department
Institute of Arts and Sciences
Far Eastern University

In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements Needed for the Degree of Bachelor

of Arts Major in Political Science

Bianca Nerizza A. Infantado

Jade Clevert M. Garcia
Rommarie Angelei C. Dela Rosa
Hennessy O. Martinez
Efren Anthony Rizaldy R. Lamorena
Oliver Julius G. Aquino

October 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

PAGE

Introduction

Background of the Study

Setting of the Study

Theoretical Framework

Research Paradigm

Statement of the Problem

Hypotheses

Significance of the Study

Scope and Delimitation

10

Definition of Terms

11

2. RELATED LITERATURE

Empirical

12

Non-Empirical

18

3. RESEARCH METHOD

PAGE

Research Approach

22

Research Design

22

Respondents or Study Subjects

23

Research Instrument

24

Validation of the Instrument

24

Data Gathering Procedure

25

Statistical Treatment

26

4. Bibliography

28

5. Appendix

32

Chapter I
The Problem and Its Background
Introduction
The Priority Development Assistance Fund is a lump-sum appropriation
(Noda, 2011) in the annual General Appropriations Act (GAA) to fund priority
development programs and projects of the government, specifically the Executive
and Legislative Branch. The objective of the PDAF in the legislative branch is to
finance significant small-scale projects in congressional districts which cannot be
addressed by national agencies due to their concentration on large-scale
projects. According to the express statement on lump-sum amounts, the PDAF of
2011 allocates P200 million to each senator, broken down into P100 million
allocation each for hard and soft project while P70 million to each congressman
broken down into P40 million for hard projects and P30 million for soft projects
(R.A. 10147). The allocations are most commonly directed to projects in the form
of infrastructure, health, education and social aid packages. But, the PDAF
Articles also deem the priority list requirement upon which projects directed shall
strictly conform to the implementing agencys priority list.
The PDAF was preceded by the Countrywide Development Fund (CDF),
which was abolished in 2000 due to lack of transparency in disbursement. In the
pursuit of anti-corruption measures, the PDAF was also changed to include a
menu of projects that may be funded. The release of the appropriations was then
based on requests passed to the Department of Budget and Management

(DBM). Such requests include the nature and location of the proposed projects,
the implementing agency and the amount of the funds required.
However, certain problems and issues surfaced against the PDAF. One
problem is that due to the discretionary privileges of the legislators, the allocation
spurs the intentions to spend big on particular localities, normally found in highlyurbanized cities with thick population that can assure a high voter turn-out. The
misuse of the appropriations to ensure the political survival and the patron-client
relationship of the legislator and the constituents associates PDAF to the lexicon
- pork barrel. In a study conducted by Yvonne Chua and Booma Cruz (2004) of
the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ), the standard
commission of a legislator ranges from 20 to 50 percent in every project financed
through

the

PDAF. Moreover, financial

benefits

from

cuts,

kickbacks,

commissions, rebates and discounts also added much weight to this controversy.
Aside from being termed as a political and electoral instrument used to
secure the position of public officials, the PDAF was also highly questioned on
the projects that it seek to prioritize. According to the shortlist of projects provided
under the General Appropriations Act (GAA), the soft projects include scholarship
programs, medical assistance to indigent patients in government hospitals,
livelihood support programs, purchase of IT equipment and financial assistance
to local government units (LGUs) for the latters priority projects and programs.
The hard projects or projects for the construction of roads, bridges, multipurpose
buildings and waiting sheds are reflected as well in the GAA under individual
district allocations and under the DPWH locally funded nationwide lump sum
4

appropriations. Since the projects are supposed to encompass mechanisms or

resolutions for the achievement of the Philippine Development Plan 2011-2016,
major contentions on the legitimacy and the appropriateness of these priority
projects are raised.

Background of the Study

In the course of this study, there have been issues on the utilization of the
PDAF. Janet Lim-Napoles, a businesswoman had been linked together with his
brother, Reynald Jojo Lim to an alleged P10 billion pork barrel scam that
involved the misuse and transfer of the PDAF of several legislators to fraudulent
non-governmental organizations. According to Abakada Party-list Representative
Jonathan Dela Cruz (Ribaya, 2013), about P2.2 billion in the PDAF had been
given to 244 non-governmental organizations. Five Senators namely Former
Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile,

Sen. Ramon Bong Revilla Jr., Sen.

Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada, Ferdinand Bong-Bong Marcos Jr. and Gregorio

Honasan and 23 members of the House of Representatives had their PDAF
available to the scam based on the sworn statements of the whistleblowers
submitted to the Department of Justice.
The scam was exposed through affidavits of at least ten whistle-blowers,
of which Benhur K. Luy, cousin and assistance in JLN Corporation was the
primary witness. According to Luy, Napoles offered commissions to lawmakers,

equivalent to 40 to 60 percent of the amount of the PDAF in exchange of the right

to determine the implementing agency and fund beneficiary.
According to Commission on Audit (COA) Chief Maria Gracia Pulido-Tan,
their 2007-2009 report showed that most of the 82 non-governmental
organizations addresses had been traced to shanties or actual home addresses
of some members. In addition, the supposed recipients of the PDAF questioned
the inclusion of their names in COA audit reports as they have not received
goods or any financial aid. Ghost beneficiaries were predominant in the report as
names of board passers were also distinctively used.
The issue is heightened by the fact that President Benigno Noynoy
Aquino III increased the allocation from P24.8 billion on 2012 to P25.2 billion this
year due to the additional number of members in the House of Representatives.
With such cases at bench, there have been resolutions filed before the Senate
including the proposal of Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago to cut in half the
allocation on PDAF by the year 2014 and further slash it in half by 2015 to
efficiently abolish the PDAF by 2016 (Bacani, 2013). Other measures such as
line-item budgeting and complete abolition were called for by legislators.
However, the public clamoured to entirely abolish the pork barrel system.
From the case of the Philippine Constitution Association (PhilConsA) vs.
Enriquez et al (235 SCRA 507 [1994]), the Supreme Court held that Under the
Constitution, the spending power called by James Madison as the power of the
purse, belongs to Congress, subject only to the veto power of the President. The

Court ruled that the creation of the fund is an attempt to make equal the
unequal. An emphasis was supplied to the ruling that individual members of
Congress, far more than the President and their congressional colleagues, are
likely to be knowledgeable about the needs of their respective constituents and
the priority to be given each project (Nograles et al, 2008).
However, the Supreme Court, in a unanimous vote, declared the PDAF
unconstitutional on November 19, 2013 following the petitions of several parties.
Three issues were considered by the High Tribunal namely: procedural issues
which include the legitimacy for judicial review, substantive issues on the
congressional pork barrel which pertain to possible violations to constitutional
provisions and substantive issues on the Presidential pork barrel which relate to
questionable Presidential Decrees that direct delegation of legislative power.
On the first issue; the Supreme Court ruled that the petition complied with
the legal requisites for judicial inquiry. On the second issue, the Supreme Court
ruled that the pork barrel system present through the PDAF violated the principle
of separation of powers. According to the ruling, the legislative branch was given
the post-enactment authority in the implementation and enforcement of budget
through the means of participation in the identification of the projects, release
and realignment of funds which exclusively manifest an encroachment to the
power of the Executive Branch. Moreover, the PDAF was ruled to have violated
the principle of non-delegability for the reason that the legislators were allowed to
exercise the power of appropriation as an individual and not through legislation.
The system also impairs the Presidents power of item veto because the
7

President can only accept the PDAF without knowing the projects that are to be
funded and therefore can also reject the entirety of the allocation without
cognizance as well. The court also saw the propensity for abuse of power or lack
of accountability with the power vested to the Legislators. In addition, the
Supreme Court agreed with the petitioners contention that the PDAF is in conflict
with the constitutional principles of local autonomy since it allows District
Representatives, known to be national officers, to utilize public funds for local
development. Lastly, the Supreme Court also declared void the power of the
President to use the Malampaya fund and the Presidential Social Fund (PSF) for
other purposes such as in financing infrastructure development projects.
Following the decision penned by Associate Justice Estela PerlasBernabe, the government cannot disburse the remaining budget allocated for the
PDAF which amounts to P24.79 billion.
Setting of the Study
As we are focusing on the Philippine Development Plan of 2011-2016, the
researchers want to know if the PDAF or the Priority Development Assistance
Fund is the solution to provide the basic social development and infrastructure
services needed by the people. To answer the question on whether the PDAF
provides assistance needed by the people or act as a tool for political survival
and corruption of funds for their self-interest, the researchers focused the study
on the Second District of Rizal. The Demography of the study focuses on the
Second District of Rizal particularly in the municipalities of San Mateo and

Rodriguez. Presently San Mateo has a population of 220,702 while Rodriguez

also known as Montalban has a population of 326,668. San Mateo and
Rodriguez are first class urban municipalities in the province of Rizal. San Mateo
is in the west border of the Rizal Province, while Rodriguez (Montalban) is in the
North. The border of Rodriguez to its south is San Mateo and Antipolo, in its
north is Bulacan Province and in its East is Quezon Province.One of the sources
of taxes of San Mateo is the growing number of poultry and piggery estates and
also small eateries and restaurants and markets and retail stores and even in
Rodriguez, the sources of taxes is the same.
Theoretical Framework
Several scholars have studied pork barrel by considering formal theories
on distributive politics by examining legislative bargaining to pass bills that does
not include general interest provisions and that benefits only a majority of
legislators districts. According to Weingast (1979) on his paper A Rational Choice
Perspective on Congressional Norms, the theory assumes that members seek
distributive benefits for their constituents

in order to get reelected. In

addition, the formal distributive politics theory is consistent with the study
conducted by Ferejohn (1986) Incumbent Performance and Electoral Control,
when he said that voters will base their decisions on what can greatly maximize
their well-being subject to the constraint that politicians are pursuing their selfinterests. This connotes that if politicians deliver goods to a particular locality, the
connection between the legislator and the voters, bind voters to support the
legislator despite poor policy performance. This is known according to Keefer
9

and Khemani (2008) as pursuing the politics of patronage or clientelism by

delivering services in exchange for local vote mobilization. To simply put it,
Keefer and Khemani (2008) pooled the ideas of Ferejohn, 1974, Shepsle and
Weingast, 1981 and synthesized that the incentives of individual politicians or
legislators to target public spending to specific projects in their constituencies to
win elections or to gain rents.
Research Paradigm

Independent
Variable

Dependent
Variable

Deployment of
the PDAF

Development

Philippine
Development Plan
2011-2016 (Plan VInfrastructure and
VIII: Social Devt )

Involvement of

Amount of
Allocations
Statement of the Problem
Projects Funded

Statement of the Problem

The problem is whether the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF)
contributes to the attainment of the goals specified in the Philippine Development
Plan 2011-2016.
Other questions pertinent to the problem:
1.

What were the projects funded and where were these deployed?

10

2.

What is the public opinion (respondents) towards the social development

contribution of the PDAF funded projects in the research site?

3.
What insights on the involvement of politicians can be generated out of the
study?
4.
What policy recommendation may be proposed?
Hypotheses
The Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) contributes to the
attainment of the goals specified in the Philippine Development Plan 2011-2016.
The Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) is tool for political
survival.
Significance of the Study
This thesis provides studies on the effectiveness of the Priority
Development Assistance Fund to the public through proper evaluation and
assessment of the projects funded. It studies the validity of the PDAF projects
initiated by a District Representative in the locality of the Second District of Rizal
through the assessment given in the questionnaire. This study thus helps the
constituents of the Second District of Rizal as well as the general public to be
aware of the contribution of the PDAF in attaining the development goals of the
country. In addition, the study is significant to students, professors and
researchers who feed their social awareness from governmental issues and who
aim to forward the discipline of the academe as well as their cause. This study
helps the society in understanding the issue on the pork barrel politics that beset
the country nowadays by means of providing data on the level of effectiveness of
11

the utilization of the PDAF. This study is significant as it encourages awareness

in political, moral and social issues affecting our nation and their localities in
extent.

Scope and Delimitation

The study is constrained on the assessment of the PDAF of the
Representative of the 2nd District of Rizal - Isidro S. Rodriguez, Jr. This study will
focus on the deployment of the PDAF on the two municipalities of the 2 nd District
of Rizal- San Mateo and Montalban on Fiscal Year 2011; the priority projects; the
projects of the Local Government Units or Non-government Organizations (NGO)
supported through the PDAF; the political career of the Representative; and the
Agencies, Departments, Private Institutions attached in the delivery of the
projects..
Definition of Terms
In order to understand our study, here are the following terms that have been
defined:
1. Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) - a lump-sum appropriation in
the annual General Appropriation Act to fund the priority development programs
and projects of the government.
2. Pork barrel - collective body of rules and practices that govern the manner by
which lump-sum, discretionary funds, primarily intended for local projects, are
12

utilized through the respective participations of the Legislative and Executive

branches of government, including its members.
3. Assessment - the process of gathering, analyzing, interpreting and using
information about the study; to identify and give clarity the usage of the subject.
4. Deployment to distribute strategically or systematically; utilization
5. Development - the process in which projects are being effectively implemented
and enforced for the attainment of general welfare and progress; simply defined
as good change as progress towards a desired state (Chambers, 2005)
6. Development Goals- quantitative targets set for poverty reduction and
improvements in health, education, gender equality, the environment, and other
aspects of human welfare employed by States
7. Poverty Alleviation - aims to reduce the negative impact of poverty on the lives
of poor people, but in a more sustained and permanent way than poverty relief
programmes through social grant programmes.
8. Political Survival- an act of surviving to remain in his electoral position; usually
correlated with abuse of power and exploitation of political advantages for private
gain
9. District - a type of administrative division managed by a local government.

13

10. Expediency- an act of doing what is right for his own interest without thinking
the effects of his decision to the others. Following ones own will rather than the
common good of his constituents.
11. Corruption- operationally defined as the misuse of entrusted power used for
private gain. Transparency International further differentiates "according to rule"
corruption and "against the rule" corruption facilitation payments, where a bribe is
paid for a preferential treat for something that the bribe is required to do by the
law, constitute the former. The latter, on the other hand, is a bribe paid to obtain
the services the bribe receiver is prohibited from providing .
12. Disbursement- an act of spending money that is given to a politician for the
funding of their projects.
13. Patronage Politics - prioritizing projects not on the basis of needs but on the
basis of votes that were delivered during the last elections
14. Lump-Sum - appropriated for a stated purpose without specifying maximum
amounts that may be spent for specific activities or individual objects of
expenditure
15. NGO - any non-profit, voluntary citizens' group which is organized on a local,
national or international level to perform a variety of service and humanitarian
functions, bring citizen concerns to Governments, advocate and monitor policies
and encourage political participation.

14

Chapter II
Related Literature
Empirical Literature
Finnigan (2007) said that a pork barrel project is a line item in an
appropriations or authorization bill that designates funds for a specific purpose in
circumvention of the normal procedures for budget review. It is requested by only
one chamber of Congress; not specifically authorized; not requested by the
president; greatly exceeds the President`s budget request or the previous year`s
funding; not the subject of congressional hearings; or serves only a local or
special interest. The pork label is not a subjective judgment of a project`s merit,
rather, it refers to lapses in the procedures erected by Congress to review and
consider the wise expenditure of taxpayer dollars. The study also delineated the
reasons on why pork is bad. He said that pork is used in the biased redistribution
of taxpayer dollars because it serves particular needs; it destroys the competitive
marketplace; leads lawmakers to neglect more important duties and allows
members of Congress to indulge their narcissistic vices. Also, according to
Finnigan, to reduce overall spending, curtail corruption, and hold elected officials
accountable for wasteful spending, pork barrel spending should be eliminated.

The study is useful because corruption and pork barrel misuse in the
government were sufficiently discussed, just as in the recent controversy flooding
the Philippines headlines. With the different pork barrel systems employed in
different governments and countries, the illustrations given in this study can then
15

be used to be able to depict the possibilities of abuse in our own current system.
In addition, the study is also significant in determining the factors that yield to the
inefficiency of the system and the reasons on why pork barrel funds are used
arbitrarily to suit ones self-interests. Consequently, according to the author, in the
United States, these funds may also never get spent or the projects never get
done. The fund for the development ends up stuck in federal coffers because
pork barrel funds cannot be spent on other projects without permission from
Congress.

Just like what happened in Hurricane Katrina, the Transportation

Department `s inspector general examined accounts of the Federal Highway

Administration and found significant amounts of unspent funds, some earmarked
as far back as 1983. Thus, conference reports that are more than a foot thick can
include thousands of pork-barrel projects that have not been seen or voted on by
either the House or the Senate. This then leads us to the idea that allocations
may still be left unattended. This goes to show that, amidst all overspending or
abuse of the pork barrel funds, there is still likelihood for it to remain unutilized.

Stein and Bickers (1994) study of Congressional Elections and the Pork
Barrel explained three assumptions. The first assumption is the ability of the
legislator to influence the distribution of services to his own district. The second
rests on the assumption that the constituents are aware of the benefits that their
locality had been receiving from the allocations distributed through the
legislature. The third assumption says that the public award the legislator with
their support in the next election. From the results of the study, the authors were

16

able to come up with the following findings: not all incumbents have the same
incentive to seek an increased flow of particularized benefits to their districts;
those who are electorally vulnerable seek new particularized benefits; not all
constituents are expected to be equally attentive to the procurement activities of
incumbents; it is the awareness of new grants that is expected to have an impact
on a constituents vote choice.
This study is notable since it presented a relationship between distributive
politics and re-election margins. The behaviour of incumbents, whether
vulnerable or not as well as the behaviour of the voters, affect the decisions on
appropriation or pork barrel spending. Studying the attentiveness of the citizens
to politics and the presence of interest groups also show the extent of influence
that could be casted from them through the allocations. The study is helpful as it
provides a guide for the researchers on the validation of the instrument.
Kawanakas (2007) discussion on his paper Who Eats the Most?
Quantitative Analysis of Pork Barrel Distribution in the Philippines, basically
tested the theory of pork barrel distributions through the use of quantitative data
from the 12th Congress. But aside from this, one important discussion presented
was the explanation of the two categories of the theories of pork barrel
distribution. Kawanaka made the distinction between the supply-side explanation
and the demand-side explanation by defining the former as to emphasize the
discretion of national leaders (party center or president) or the leaders control
over the members of the Congress and the latter as the attributes of legislators
status in Congress, expertise, seniority, etc.
17

This study contributed to the researchers thesis since it provided a new

outlook on distributions. Aside from the fundamental support of this study to the
assertion that politicians struggle to win positions in Congress in order for them to
greatly benefit from the pork barrel funds, the study also aided the researchers in
defining how the process works in the senate as leaders and coalitions compete
against each other, against the system and against public trust. With this study,
the researchers also became aware of the key distinctions of legislators based
on their tenure, position, status, etc. Consequently, it introduced the palatability of
pork barrel funds to individual legislators. As time progress, changes in the
mechanisms of the distribution discreetly happen with the intentions of different
legislators or coalitions. A conclusion can be drawn from the study - legislator
makes it a point to use his power in deciding the procedural aspects of planning
and disbursing the fund in order to secure the funds that sustain their being.

The report of the PDAF Watch (2007), a Non-Governmental Organization

from the studies they conducted assessed the transparency of local government
units,

the

compliance

of

the

PDAF

projects

with

specifications,

the

appropriateness of PDAF projects and perception of corruption. From the study, it

was shown that the senate (15-35% positive response) is more transparent than
the House of Representatives (6% positive response). On the other hand, the
study also presented that from 37 Congressional Districts, 80% were road
projects: 64% of which are completed without defects, 28% with defects, 2%
18

incomplete, 3% being constructed and 3% missing; 9% -IT Computer Projects

86% were overpriced and 11% Priority Programs of LGUs.
This study is imperative in the thesis because it laid down the irregularities
present during the 2 year span (2005-2007) in connection to the use of the
PDAF. Basically, with the criterion on appropriateness, the researchers became
familiar with the perception of the people on the utility of the PDAF. Although
public opinion vary in time due to different social factors and influences, this
study will guide the researchers as comparisons to the consistency of the
perception of the people are made since perception vary due to present issues.
This also gave the researchers the idea of the most common programs or
projects funded through the PDAF.
Noda (2011), on a study conducted in the Philippines, entitled
Politicization of Philippine Budget System: Institutional and Economic Analysis on
Pork Barrel, the author distinguishes the particular process or stages of budget
formulation specifically on pork barrel politics. The four stages include: a. lumpsum allocations, b. congressional insertions, c. disbursement specification or
impoundment and d. initial basic allocation. Moreover, certain economic
inefficiency of budget distribution was studied. It was believed that economic
inefficiency may be caused by particularism of budget distribution when a
regional differentiation in funding is a result of lobbying activities by the districts
to the central government or to the President.

19

The study is useful in understanding the budget procedure in the

Philippines. With the integration of corruption through kick-backs and plutocracy,
and other problems such as the delayed approval in the budget process, the
researchers became aware of the technical processes in the deployment of the
PDAF. Problems on the whole budget process also help identify the possible
loopholes, opportunities for abuse, and discrepancies of the budget system. The
policy recommendation of the researchers may then get its basis from this
discussion as well. The numerous institutions of the budget process also became
interesting points of study to the researchers since some institutions were
believed to have taken part in the pork barrel scam particularly non-government
organizations.
The research paper of Bangsal (2004) entitled An Analysis of the
Determinants of Congressional Funds or Pork Barrel Spending in the
Philippines tried to answer the following questions: a. whether pork barrel funds
respond to the actual needs and conditions widespread in particular
congressional districts or b. serves its political nature as a largesse in order to
secure the position for the incumbent legislator. The study utilized several
determinants in order to justify the significance of the utilization of the pork:
infrastructure per capita (hard projects), social per capita (soft projects), term or
tenure of office, party affiliation, population, population of legislative district, land
area, population density (pop/area), average road density, (km/sq km of land
area), length of unpaved national roads, implementation difficulty factor of the
district, 1997 average family income, human development index, life expectancy
20

index, combined enrolment rate, education index and literacy rates. Based on the
assessment of the named determinants, the study concluded that the allocation
was poorly inconsistent with economic, political and social factors. The projects
implemented were known to be relatively insignificant to the provision of
economic and social services that localities primarily needed.
The research is significant because it gave a general picture on how the
209 district representatives of the 12 th Congress utilized their pork barrel funds in
congruence to the purpose to which it is called for. The indicators are indeed
helpful due to its relevance in determining the influences on congressional
spending decisions and thus are good models in the operation for the allocation
formula that will be relevant in the assessment of the projects or programs
implemented. In addition, the study also introduced a grounded finding on the
pursuit of re-election instead of a more development-driven allocation. It basically
suggested that the process starts off with the allocation based on the number of
legislators and the affiliation they hold instead of the genuine needs of the
localities. However, it is also significant to note one astounding finding from the
study first-termer-legislators dont necessarily allocate more to infrastructure
projects although there is an assumption that hard projects provide higher and
easier likelihood for electoral manipulation.
Drazen, et al. (2006) in their study of Pork Barrel Cycles arrived at an
analysis that incumbents target susceptible voting behaviours by means of
allotting government spending to geographically concentrated investment
projects or specific demographic groups. During election-year or as the
21

researchers call pork barrel spending years, fiscal policies are loaded with
higher expenditures, transfers and tax cuts. The tax cuts are supported with an
increase in taxes of other electoral groups who show a lesser propensity for
electoral support.
The study is relevant because it gives the researchers a reasonable
explanation concerning the electorally motivated utilization of the pork barrel
fund. The Pork Barrel Cycle sheds light on the issue as to why rational voters still
support incumbents even if they know that they are only targeted with favourable
fiscal policies to get their votes. Moreover, the study also provides a wider picture
of the pork barrel cycle that involves not just the politician and their discretionary
allocation of funds but also the behaviour of voters as they support the perverse
fund allotment. Thus the participation of the voters, link pork barrel politics in a
cycle of incumbent-voters electoral relationship.
When pork barrel and politics mix in a few cases, there is a tendency for
conflict of interests to emerge. This is what the investigation of Mangahas and
Coronan (2012) of the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ)
suggested. In a data gathered in 2012, a total of P 5.78 billion of taxpayers
money was said to have been allocated to pork barrel funds to finance the pet
projects of 21 senators. When PCIJ conducted a study on the PDAF release
records in Senate from June 2010 to 2012, it showed that most senators used
their pork barrel funds to boost their re-election bids, by pouring big shares to
cities and provinces with the largest numbers of voters. While some of the
poorest provinces with a lower number of voters got smaller shares.
22

The investigation of the PCIJ is relevant to this research because it gave

the researchers a clear explanation on how the 21 senators used their pork
barrel funds from the year 2010 to 2012 in pursuit of their political interests. Also,
this investigation shows a clear justification to the so called tactical redistribution
or the use of pork barrel funds to secure ones own good in the election, as
presented by Stokes. With the study, the researchers received data on the
projects usually used by the Legislators in trying to win the votes of pet localities
that may be of help to their political careers.
Walker (2010), in his study, Pork Barrel Spending: Is It Unethical?,
discussed the detrimental effects and disadvantages of Pork Barrel in which he
said that it is being used as fair shares of corrupt politicians. He also enumerated
the reasons on why Pork Barrel spending is unethical. First, he said that it wastes
billions of taxpayers dollars each year. Second, the projects they fund are not
only expensive, but are often trivial and completely unnecessary. Third, it
provides unfair advantages to politicians who use the legislation to gain favor in
upcoming elections. In contrast, pork barrel spending is known to directly lead
politicians to partake in other illegal or unethical political corruption mechanisms,
such as bribery and receiving illegal campaign contributions. It basically showed
how the pork is spent in order for politicians to grant their personal intentions.
The study is helpful because as the Philippines face highly controversial
issues on the PDAF nowadays, the study provides a set-up that focuses on
corruption as linked to Pork Barrel funds that is practiced abroad. Although the
researchers focus is not primarily inclined to answer questions of constitutionality
23

or ethics, the researchers see that it is also a good research material that could
aid the explanation of the behaviors of the legislators since it also generally
affects the distribution of projects. The assumption that is discretely undermined
in the study reflected the fervour of the legislators to protect their own electoral
interests even at the expense of the welfare of his district. The idea also
assumed that legislators spend more on many yet smaller projects instead of
investing on one large project in order to satisfy the interests of more target
electoral supporters.
Evan D. (2004) in his study entitled Greasing the Wheels, using Pork
Barrel Projects to Build Majority Coalitions in Congress, asserted that legislators
allocate projects for their own self interest in an attempt to secure the votes not
only of rank - file members, but also members whose support would be
especially valuable. According to this literature, pork barrel is the lubricant that
assists in the functioning of the legislative machine. It was deemed as the
lubricant for the reason that pork barrel in the United States Congress was
generally seen by legislators as a tool in influencing the votes of members across
the House and the Senate for general interest legislation. Aside from the
coalitions in the Congress, party leaders (majority or minority) may win the votes
of their own members or even that of the other party by using distributive benefits
through pork barrel appropriations. Hence, the majority partys coalition might
yield a greater support while the minority party may lose. The study also
highlighted examples like the highway demonstration projects that would come to
measure the efficiency of leader`s attempts to influence members with pork
24

barrel benefits. It assumed that politicians are buying the loyalty of the people
who are going to support them in the next election using their demonstration
projects. Thus, popularistic projects that dont provoke oppositions must be
secured by the legislators to advance their intentions or goals. In contrast, the
study also suggested that the President see some of the bills as budget buster or
an appropriation that does not really contribute to progress but still approves it for
the reason that it may secure support from the legislative branch.
The study is useful as it suggests the inevitability of more infrastructurefunded projects rather than social programs or soft projects. The assumption
that, demonstration projects or projects that are material in nature and are easily
noticeable by the public protects the political careers of legislators than health
programs that may last for only a short time. Consequently, the greatest
contribution of this study is the new field of influence that may be brought about
by pork barrel spending. In this study we can assume that even the legislative
decisions are worked out through greasing the legislators with the funds. Even
party ideologies might be suspended in contrast to appropriation benefits that are
prioritized by the members of the Congress. Coalitions are made stronger or are
even weakened with distributive politics. General interest bills are then easily
processed when pork barrel is rounded up.

25

Non-Empirical Literature

Tamayo (2011) on his article entitled Pork Barrel, Philippine Politics and
the Economy defined pork barrel as the appropriations utilized as by legislators
to pump outside taxpayers money and resources into the local districts they
represent and as a means of getting re-elected. He also discussed the
separation of powers and the checks and balances mechanisms enshrined in the
Philippine Constitution. He then contextualized the system of pork barrel in
Philippine politics by citing the studies of some scholars. From the study of Rossi
and Inman (1998), Tamayo synthesized that pork barrel legislation will cut
expected efficiency of public finance and spending on distributive goods because
there is no spillover effect to non-constituents that have gave their share to the
general taxation where the pork barrel funds came from.
The article is helpful to this thesis for the reason that it gives the
researchers the deeper repercussions of inefficient public spending. With the
ideas presented by Tamayo, the researchers were also introduced to the concept
of Harberger triangle or the loss in the trade of a good or service due to
government intervention. This concept is important in understanding that using
the national government revenue to fund an identifiable constituent group will
only press harder the depressing conditions of the poor or thin out the slices of
pie.
Tiquia

(2013)

comprehensively

discussed

distributive

politics

by

characterizing it within Philippine politics. On her article distributive politics, Tiquia

26

mentioned the propensity for good pork in accordance to the theory of distributive
politics. She asserted that instead of a tedious and long deliberations and debate
on public policy that are the inherent mandate for legislators, distributive politics
gives legislators concrete accomplishments. According to her, the proper
question to be asked is whether the proper social purpose delivering different
benefits to districts and nationwide in a way that matches their different utilities is
met by the processes of distribution.
The commentary is significant because it balances the theory on
distributive politics. Basically, from what Tiquia explained, the researchers
became aware that distributive effects are major considerations in the decision
making of legislators. As she quoted one mans pork is anothers vital national
program. Legislators dont necessarily act in pursuit of re-election. Hence, what
we can understand from this is that the question on the importance of the pork is
dependent since it varies across constituencies. From the discussion, Tiquia
also added her inputs on the possible abuse of the President to executive
discretion as it may buy support from the Congress. This idea helped the
researchers understand the implicit relationship of the executive and the
legislative or more commonly termed political bargaining.
Understanding the Pork Barrel by Nograles and Lagman (2012) was a
discussion in defense of the pork barrel. The paper discussed the Ancestry of
Pork Barrel, Adoption in the Philippines, congressional initiatives after the EDSA
Revolution, legislative supremacy in the appropriation of public funds, legitimacy
of CDF as deemed by the Supreme Court, introduction to soft and hard projects,
27

parameters of transparency, accountability, utility and relevance and innovative

additional safeguards. From the paper, the policy on the PDAF was made clear. It
mentioned the special provision No. 1 under XLVI on the PDAF (p. 950 of the
General Appropriations Act for 2008) which said that amount appropriated should
be used for the Ten-Point Legacy Agenda of the national government. The
website which was said to include the progress status and accomplishments of
the projects was the innovative safeguard provided in this paper.
The researchers find the paper helpful as it provides the other side of the
pork barrel issue by enumerating the innovations, checks, legitimacy, policy and
other measures to avoid abuse. The discussion also enumerated the particular
projects that can be funded through the PDAF as well as the implementing
agency involved in the deployment. In addition, the study challenged the
researchers to check whether the information on the strict implementation and
measures of the PDAF is really accurate.
Ellwood and Patashnik (n. d.) discussed on his paper In Praise of Pork
why their standpoint is different from the usual negative position on the issue.
They followed James Madisons thinking in Federalist that men are not angels
and that we do not live in a perfect world. The object of the government is
therefore not suppress the imperfections of human nature, but rather to harness
the pursuit of self-interest to public ends. Moreover, the authors also believed
that the real value of pork lies on its ability to encourage legislators to take
electorally risky actions for the sake of the public good.

28

The idea stated may be considered by the researchers as it shows a more

favourable outlook towards the behaviour of legislators on distributive politics.
Moreover, the researchers also learned that abolishing pork really does not
answer the problem on a states finances. The Reductions in popular programs
and increases in taxes needed to managing the fiscal policies of a state can be
obtained through the support of key legislators induced by pork barrel benefits.
On a commentary written by Miller (2010) at Sound Politics, he mentioned
that in general pork barrel allocations are concentrated in the states and districts
with popular high-ranking congressmen and senators, especially members of the
appropriations committees. Minority party members are less likely to get a huge
chunk from the pork barrel fund.
This discussion is significant to the present study as it tells the
researchers the advantage of popular congressmen in getting their share from
the pork. This also asks the question on whether popular and high-ranking
congressmen usually come from the highly-industrialized districts. Normally, the
representative of the most populated and most urbanized or progressive locality
gets the high popularity rate and therefore gets elected into a higher position in
Congress. This then means that highly-urbanized localities represented by the
high-ranking congressman receive the biggest allocation .
Stokes (2009) in her paper Pork by Any Other Name: Building a
Conceptual Scheme of Distributive Politics used the analysis of Dixit and
Londregan paper that tactical redistribution is a kind of shortterm shifts of

29

resources to groups of voters, in contrast to programmatic distribution which is

more driven by ideology. Dixit and Londregan in the paper of Stokes offered a set
of examples of tactical redistribution: subsidies of tariff protection to particular
industries, location of military bases and contribution projects in particular
districts. Hence, Stokes gave a formal sounding label of tactical redistribution as
pork barrel politics which in turn is defined as distributive strategies that are
called pork barrel politics.
The study is relevant because it gives the researchers a concrete example
of how politicians use an electoral technique called tactical redistribution by
which they loaded many projects in a particular place in order for them to win the
election. Also, the study sees pork barrel politics as more attractive in
campaigning than ideological platforms because it is always directed on the
context of short term resources projects. Therefore, pork barrel politics according
to this study is affects the voting behavior of the people particularly the locality
which receives the allocations.
Portillo (2011) on his study of Electoral System and Pork Barrel Politics
focused on the notion that electoral system creates incentives on legislators to
appeal to pork barrel strategies. Portillo used the analysis of Douglas (1989)
when he said that legislators seek re-election because legislators have more
incentives to allocate pork barrel projects in their constituencies. This is a type of
constituency service in which legislators seek to secure particularistic spending
for the constituencies they represent. This is because the more years they

30

assume in the office, the more pork barrel funds they will get through their
discreet strategies.
The study of Portillo is relevant because it gives the researchers an
explanation on the electoral strategies of incumbent candidates who seek reelection. Incumbents simply utilize tactical redistribution to be able to get the
support of voters in the time of the election. Moreover it provided allusions to the
usual acts of Congressmen in securing particularistic allocations of pork barrel.
Following the conclusion of the paper, the electoral system strategy and pork
barrel politics helps the incumbents to win the race and secure taxpayer money
for his or her fancy, the researchers then have another contention or alternative
discussion with regards to the motivations on the use of the funds.
Kearney and Megumi (2012) on their study Pork Barrel Politics and
Candidates Policy Positioning says politicians in democratic countries make a
substantial effort in at least two dimensions to stay in office: (1) establishing
policy platform and (2) expertise and providing constituency services to their
districts. With the use of pork barrel and policy-based electoral competition,
legislators dictate the voters preference. Kearney and Megumi mentioned that
politicians who can bring pork barrel to their districts and those that provide welldefined issue positions that align with peoples problem are usually elected in
position. For instance, they find that poor and smaller communities and rural
voters in far areas are more likely bought by the distribution of pork oriented
politicians.

31

The study is relevant because it gives the researchers an explanation of

the candidates policy positions to the voters which they use in order to win the
election. This kind of practice is susceptible to some democratic countries
because of the fact that people are represented by their chosen politician and
that politician struggle to win the sympathy of people through their prudent
agenda strategies. Thus, since the Philippines has the same set-up, the
researchers deem this the propensity of this study to occur in our local setting.
The argument of Earl Parreno against the move to abolish the pork barrel
in his article entitled The Perils of Pork, gives us an idea and a clear example of
the good side of the pork barrel system. According to Earl Parrenos argument,
the abolition of pork barrel is a mistake because these might affect some places
particularly the Eastern Visayas that is always dependent in the assistance of the
pork barrel allocation. Parreno said that Eastern Visayas is an example on the
good side of pork barrel because it helps the impoverished localities that are
victims of the national governments neglect. Like other remote places in the
country, most of the towns and barangays of Eastern Visayas remain poor. Thus
according to Parreno, if pork barrel will be abolished in the national budget, such
areas would continue to suffer from underdevelopment and lack of services of
national agencies.
This article is relevant to our study because it asserts that the negative
side of the pork is not mutually exclusive. Through this study, we can assume
that the legislators used their PDAF funds to answer the immediate needs of their
localities which are far from the Metro and thus from the eyes of the National
32

Government. The evaluation was not exactly grounded and the technicality of the
pork barrel system was not addressed but still, the study is significant because it
gives the substantial contribution and relief that the pork barrel serves when
deployed rightly.
Chapter III
Research Method
Research Approach
The approach of our study is qualitative. In this approach we intend to
gauge the significance as well as the consistency of the funded or implemented
projects to the development goals of the state and the priority platforms of the
District Representative. Consequently, we use the values standard allocation
expenditures, actual expenditures on allocation, quality of the project or program
and uniformity to priority goals in the deployment of the PDAF. In addition,
following the same approach, we identify the key concerns of the respondents
that may give weight to the understanding of the impact of the PDAF projects.
We also measure in a quantitative approach, the different views and opinions of
the public, on the projects constructed or programs implemented by explaining it
through the numerical collection or by using mathematical equation (mean,
standard deviation etc).

33

Research Design
The research design that will be utilized in the study is the Descriptive
method which is a type of research design used for collecting and gathering
information in a current situation or phenomena to describe the relationship
between the observation of the researchers and the existing situation. The
primary objective of this is to give a veracious description of the status quo of the
subject of the study. In addition, descriptive method is a collection of data in order
to answer the current status of the subject or the study. Since our study is
concerned with the deployment of the PDAF in two municipalities of Rizal,
descriptive research was the most suitable method to be used in the study.
Respondents or Study Subjects
The respondents of this study are the local residents of the Second (2 nd)
District of Rizal from the municipality of San Mateo and Rodriguez (Montalban)
aged 18 and above. The respondents which we can view as secondary potential
sources for our research are chosen based on cluster sampling by which the
entire population of the Second District of Rizal is divided into groups, namely
workers professional and non-professional, students and government officials.
A random sample of these clusters are selected. The main respondents will be
categorized as students, professionals, tricycle drivers, street vendors and
ordinary residents. Officials such as barangay captains and kagawad will also be
recognized as valid respondents. The age of the respondent bears an
importance in the conduct of the study since only Filipinos of legal age and who

34

are entitled to vote may determine the influence of politicians in the deployment
of the PDAF. The barangays on the other hand, are selected based on
development and proximity to political influences.
To compute for the sample:

n=

t x p(1-p)

m
Description:
n = required sample size
t = confidence level at 95% (standard value of 1.96)
p = estimated prevalence of malnutrition in the project area
m = margin of error at 5% (standard value of 0.05)
Research Instrument
The researchers will utilize the available data provided by the Department
of Budget and Management (DBM) on the allocations of the PDAF to District
Representatives for the Fiscal Year 2011. Hard projects will also be checked
through data provided by the Department of Public Works and Highways
(DPWH). Post-audit Reports of the accomplishment or implementation of the
projects funded will be procured from the data of the Commission on Audit.

35

Validation of the Instrument

In this part of the study, validity will be based on survey questionnaires in
which chosen questions paired with reasonable choices will be provided for the
respondents in order to make a true measure of what they are designed to
measure. The questions given will be based on actual situations that
respondents have encountered within the definite time and place of the focused
subject. Researchers aim to provide consistent survey using valid questions to
respondents. It is wanted that questions should be clear and truthful in order to
attain precise and exact information. Moreover, questionnaires will be distributed
to determine whether Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) contributes
development to the locality or if it merely serves as a political survival tool of
government officials. Questionnaires were divided into three parts. First is the
evaluation of respondents on the PDAF, second is the need of the community
and the last concentrates on the political career of the District Representative.

Data Gathering Procedure

The researchers will gather data from government agencies namely the
Department of Budget and Management and the Department of Public Works
and Highways. The budget allocation for the fiscal year 2011 will also be
retrieved. The post-audit review of the allocations of the PDAF will be procured
from the Commission on Audit. Other statistics and data will be retrieved from the
report of the National Economic and Development Authority or NEDA, the Official
Gazette and the General Appropriations Act. Auditing reports will also be
36

retrieved from the office of Cong. Rodriguez to be able to compare the data with
the reports from the other government agencies.
Another instrument that will be used to collect the significant data is the
questionnaire. The questionnaire is made up of appropriate questions that will aid
in the understanding of the deployment of the PDAF in the Second District of
Rizal. The researchers will visit the barangays and will distribute the
questionnaires to respondents chosen based on cluster sampling. The
researchers will immediately retrieve the questionnaire after the respondents fill
up the necessary questions. The result of the study will then be tallied, analyzed
and interpreted by the researchers.

Statistical Treatment
To measure the figures collected from the questionnaires, the researchers
will tabulate the data using the following scale for levels of awareness,
satisfaction, progress and excellence.
To measure the levels of awareness, satisfaction, progress and
excellence, the following scale will be used:
SCALE

DESCRIPTION

1.0

Not Aware, Strongly Disagree, No Progress at all, Unsatisfactory

1.1-2.0

Aware, Disagree, Slight Progress, Fairly Unsatisfactory

37

2.1-3.0

Moderately Aware, Slightly Agree, Moderate Progress, Average

3.1-4.0

Highly Aware, Agree, Progress, Fairly Satisfactory

4.1-5.0

Very much aware, Strongly Agree, Substantial Progress, Very

Satisfactory

The questions on the First Part of the questionnaire will be treated using
the mean and standard deviation as statistical tools. Mean was used to
determine the average rate of the respondents awareness, level of satisfaction
and the PDAFs contribution through its excellence and an assessment of the
level of progress it brings about and.
To compute for the Mean
Mean =

__fx__
N

Where:
fx

summation scores

total number of respondents

Standard deviation, the square root of variance, was used to measure the
average deviation scores about the mean, thus reflecting the amount variability in
the data.
To compute for the Standard Deviation

38

Standard Deviation =

Nx - (x)
N (N-1)

All questions in the questionnaire will be treated with the use of frequency
distribution and percentage. Frequency distribution refers to a rate of occurrence
or repetition of the responses. It provides the summary of the responses counted
to get the percentage value of the responses. Percentage describes the clear
fraction or division of respondents answers or ratings.
P=

f/N

percentage

frequency

100
N

total number of respondents

39

APPENDIX

SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
Part I. Profile
Direction: Please provide the information asked.
Panuto: Mangyaring ilagay ang mga datos na hinihingi.
Name: (optional)____________________________ Age: ____________
Sex:
___________
Occupation: _____________________
Civil Status: _________
The questionnaire will serve as the instrument in gathering data for the
research study entitled The Deployment of the Priority Development Assistance
Fund on Infrastructure and Social Development of Rodriguez and San Mateo Rizal:
An Assessment.
Ang palatanungan na ito ay magsisilbing instrument sa pangangalap ng mga
datos na kinakailangan sa pag-aaral na pinamagatang Ang Paggamit sa Priority
Development Assistance Fund sa Imprastraktura at Panlipunang Pag-unlad ng
Rodriguez at San Mateo Rizal: Isang Pagsusuri.
Use the scale below in evaluating your awareness of the following. Please
Part II.
Put a check mark on the appropriate column that corresponds to your answer.
Gamitin ang iskala na nakalagay sa baba sa pagsuri ng iyong kamalayan sa mga
sumusunod. Mangyaring ilagay ang marka na tsek sa angkop na hanay na
tumutukoy sa iyong kasagutan.

Level of Awareness
1
Not at All
aware

2
Slightly
Aware

3
Somewha
t Aware

4
Moderatel
y Aware

5
Extremel
y Aware

1.
PDAF-funded
projects
Pinondohang Proyekto
mula sa PDAF
2.
Date of
implementation or
construction
Petsa ng
Pagpapatupad o
40

Paggawa
3.
Materials Used
Materyales na Ginamit
4.
Expenditures
Presyo ng Ginugol
5.
Implementing
Agency
Ahensyang
Tagapagpatupad
6.
Quality of the
Project
Kalidad ng Proyekto
Level of Satisfaction
1
Complet
ely
Dissatisf
ed

2
Mostly
Dissatisf
ed

3
Somewh
at
Dissatisf
ed

4
Neither
Satisfed
Or
Dissatisf
ed

5
Somewh
at
Satisfed

6
Mostly
Satisf
ed

7
Complete
ly

Satisfed

Hard Project
(Infrastructures
)
1.
Materials
Used
Materyales na
ginamit
2.
Allocatio
n of Fund /
Choice of
Project
Pinaglaanan
ng Pondo o
Napiling
Proyekto
3.
Services
Delivered
Serbisyong
Inihatid
4.
Span of
Construction
Nagugol na
Panahon sa
Pagbuo
ng Proyekto
5.
Current
Condition
Kasalukuyang
41

Kalagayan
6.
Entire
Project
Kabuuan ng
Proyekto
Soft Project
(Financial
Assistance)
1.
Amount
Provided
Halagang
Ibinigay
2.
Consiste
ncy of
Provision
Tuloy-Tuloy na
Pagbibigay
3.
Promptness of
Distribution
Agarang
Pagbibigay
4.
Require
ments
Needed
Kinakailangan
g Rekisito
5.
Span of
Service
Haba ng
Panahon ng
Serbisyo
Level of Quality
1
Poor

2
Fair

3
Good

4
Very
Good

5
Excellent

Hard Project
(Infrastructure)
1.
Durability of
Project
Tibay ng Proyekto
2.
Materials Used
Materyales na Ginamit
3.
Construction
Standards
Pamantayan sa
Konstruksyon
42

Soft Project (Financial

Assistance)
1.
Availability of
Project
Pakinabang ng Proyekto
sa Lahat
2.
Efficiency of
Services
Kahusayan ng Proyekto
Level of Appropriateness
1
Absolute
ly

2
Inappropria
te

Inappropria
te

3
Slightly
Inappropria

4
Neutr
al

te

5
Slightly
Appropriat
e

6
Appropriat
e

7
Absolute
ly
Appropriat
e

1.
Needs of
Community
Pangangailan
gan ng
Komunidad
2.
Location
of Project
Lokasyon ng
Proyekto
3.
Platforms
of
Congressman
Plataporma
ng
Kongresista
1. What are the immediate needs of your locality? Please rank. 1 being the most
immediate
need
and
5
being
the
least.
Ano ang mga pangunahing pangagailangan sa inyong distrito. Mangyaring
pagsunud-sunurin, 1 bilang pinakamataas na pangangailangan at 5 bilang
pinakamababa.
a. Infrastructures
Educational programs
Health Services
Livelihood programs
Security

____________
____________
____________
____________
____________

OtherNeeds:
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
Level of Agreement
43

1
Strongly
Disagree

2
Disagree

3
Neither
Agree or
Disagree

4
Agree

5
Strongly
Agree

1.
PDAF-funded
projects contribute
towards
Districts development
Ang mga proyektong
pinondohan mula ng
PDAF
ay nakakaambag sa
pag-unlad ng Distrito

Bibliography
Almario, M. (2013). Porks Dictatorial Root. Retrieved from the Philippine Daily
Inquirer.
Bacani, L. (2013). Miriam files resolution abolishing pork barrel. Retrieved on
August

18,

2013,

from

http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2013/07/31/1035471/miriam-filesresolution-abolishing-pork-barrel
Atwell, R. (2005). The Pork Barrel Revisited. US: American Council on
Education.
44

Baron, D. (2001). Majoritarian Incentives, Pork Barrel Programs, and

Procedural Control. US: University of Texas Press.
Baron, D. (1989). A Noncooperative Theory of Legislative Coalitions. US:
American Journal of Political Science.
Baron, D. & Ferejohn J. (1988). Instrumental Rights and Fair Democratic.
Institutions. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Chambers, R. (2005). Critical Reflections of a Development Nomad. Kothari:
Zed Books.
Chua, Y. & Cruz, B. (2004). Pork is a political tool, not a developmental tool.
Retrieved on August 18, 2013, from http://pcij.org/stories/2004/pork.html.
Coronel S. S. (1998). Investigating Corruption, A-Do-It Yourself Guide.
Metro Manila, Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism.
Eaton, K. (2001). Political Obstacles to Decentralization: Evidence from
Argentina and the Philippines, Development and Change, Wiley
Online Library.
Evans D. (2004). Greasing the Wheels, Using Pork Barrel Projects to Build
Majority Coalitions in the Congress, The Pitt Building, Trumpington
Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom, University of Cambridge.
Faith R.L., Leavens D.R., & Tollison R.D. (1982). Antitrust Pork Barrel, Journal
of Law and Economics.
45

Ferejohn, J. (1974). Pork Barrel Politics: Rivers and Harbors Legislation.

Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Finnigan K. (2007). All About Pork: The Abuse of Earmarks and the Needed
Reforms, Citizens Against Government Waste. Washington: CWC.
In search of a human face. (2010). USA: Human Development Network.
Kawanaka T. (2007). Who Eats the Most?: Quantitative Analysis of Pork
Barrel Distributions in the Philippines. Japan: IDE.
Luo, R., Zhang, L., Huang J., & Rozelle, S. (2010). Village Elections, Public
Goods Investments and Pork Barrel Politics, Chinese-Style. US:
Taylor Francis.
Mangahas, M. and Coronan, R. (2012). PCIJ: An Investigation on The Misuse
of Legislators PDAF Pigging out on Pork a la PNoy. Retrieved from
http://pcij.org/stories/senators-pdaf-floodsbr-ncr-vote-rich-provinces.

Mayhew, D. (1974). Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven: Yale

University Press.
McCann, G. & McCloskey S. (2003). From the local to the global. England:
Pluto Press.
Miller, J. (2010). Thinking about pork barrel spending. Retrieved on October 6,
2013 from http://soundpolitics.com/archives/014338.html.

46

Mullins, M. (2010). Pork Barrel politics rolls regional Australia. Retrieved on

August 29, 2013 from www.eurekastreet.com.au

Noda, K. (2011). Politicization of Philippine budget system: institutional and

economic analysis on pork barrel. Unpublished undergraduates thesis.
Philippines: University of the Philippines.
Nograles, P.

&

Lagman, E. (2008). Understanding the pork barrel.

Philippines: House of Representatives.

Portillo, J.M. (2011). Electoral System and Pork Barrel Politics. Dublin: Dublin
City University Press.
Coronel, C. (1998). Pork & other Perks, Corruption & Governance in the
Philippines, Ortigas Center, Pasig, Metro Manila Philippine Center for
Investigative Journalism.
Ribaya, R. (2013). Pork barrel scam targeting Aquino critics. Retrieved on
August 21, 2013, from http://ph.news.yahoo.com/-pork-barrel--scamtargetting-aquino-critics--102052888.html.
Roskin, M. (2009). Countries and Concepts. USA: Pearson Education Inc.
Stokes, S. (2009). Pork, by Any Other Name:Building a Conceptual Scheme
of Distributive Politics. New Haven: Yale University Press.

47

Walker, P. (2010). Pork barrel spending: is it unethical. Kentucky: Gatton

Student Research Publication.
.

48