People would be justified if they are skeptical in President Aquino’s statement that the irregular use of pork barrel funds has significantly decreased under his administration. There are also valid reasons why the public doubts his promise that no one will be spared, even his political allies, in the ongoing investigation into PDAF misuse. The misgivings about the seriousness of the President’s position on misuse of the so-called “pork barrel” by legislators is founded on how the President has dealt with the issue of the alleged corruption committed by one of his closest allies — Presidential Adviser for Environment Protection Secretary. Nereus Acosta. Mr. Aquino is already constrained from expressing outrage on the “pork barrel” issue considering the soft position he has taken on the corruption case of Acosta, precisely on the issue of misuse of the Priority Development Assistance Fund — more popularly known as the pork barrel — when the latter was still a congressman. Acosta and his mother, former Manolo Fortich mayor Socorro Acosta, have been accused by the Ombudsman before the Sandiganbayan of illegally transferring P5.5 million of pork barrel to the Bukidnon Vegetable Producers Cooperative run and owned by their relatives. The Acostas are facing charges for violation of Republic Act 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards of Public Officials and Employees and RA 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Despite the Sandigan graft case against Acosta, President Aquino appointed him presidential adviser with Cabinet rank as well as chairman of the Laguna Lake Development Authority. This was a clear indication that the President does not give much weight to the accusations of pork barrel abuse against Acosta. There was even news at the start of the Aquino administration that Acosta was going to be appointed as secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Apparently, this did not push through because Acosta’s graft case would have made a big controversy in the confirmation of his appointment at the Commission on Appointments. In fact in a clear message of what he thinks of the graft charges against Acosta the President said he was considering paying the P6,000 bail of Acosta in a case of perjury related to his graft case. He made claims in his counter-affidavit in response to the graft charges that the alleged irregular transfer of some P5.5 million from Acosta’s pork barrel allocation to the Bukidnon Vegetable Producers Cooperative had the approval of the Sangguniang Bayan of Manolo Fortich town when it appears it did not have such approval. The bail of P6,000 is a small amount and Acosta can certainly afford to pay it. But the offer of the President to post bail for Acosta is a gesture and a statement of his strong support for Acosta in his cases before the Sandiganbayan. President Aquino has done this before. He paid the P70,000 bail of acting Comelec Commissioner Grace Padaca from his personal funds. Padaca is facing charges before the Sandiganbayan for awarding P25 million in credit facilities for a farmers’ NGO. Many Aquino political allies are being implicated in the current controversy on the misuse of PDAF by senators and congressmen particularly those funnelled to dubious NGOs or to NGOs owned and run by their relatives. Glancing through the names of senators and congressmen named in the 2007-2009 report of the Commission on Audit (COA) on the use of PDAF we can see the names of legislators identified with Pres. Aquino and the ruling Liberal Party. True, the report covered the last three years of the administration of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. Still, among the 12 senators and 180 congressmen named in the reports are members of the Liberal Party or has since joined the party when Pres. Aquino took power. These political allies of the President are expected to ask Malacanang for the same treatment extended to Acosta and Padaca who have been accused of funds misuse through NGOs. It is unfortunate that leaders of both the Senate and the House of Representatives have refused to investigate the issue of the misuse of the pork barrel. A probe would have resulted in drastic reforms that would put in place mechanisms to avoid abuses committed in the past — and which are still being committed. They say that people might not believe the results of their investigation because those who would be investigated are their own colleagues. They want the Executive through the NBI and the Department of Justice to investigate. But isn’t there a conflict of interest here, too, since all the alleged misuse of billions of pork barrel necessarily involves the Department of Budget and Management and other implementing agencies of the Executive as well?
Posted on: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 01:30:44 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015