The Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) is a discretionary fund in the Philippines available to

members of Congress. Originally established as the Countrywide Development Fund (CDF) in 1990, it is
designed to allow legislators to fund small-scale infrastructure or community projects which fell outside the
scope of the national infrastructure program, which was often restricted to large infrastructure items.
The PDAF is commonly called the "pork barrel", and has been the subject of much public criticism following
exposs on abuses perpetuated by members of Congress on use of the fund in 1996 and 2013.

Immediately after socialite Ruby Tuason came out and corroborated chief whistleblower Benhur Luy on the
alleged pork-barrel scam of businesswoman Janet Lim-Napoles, Department of Justice (DOJ) Secretary Leila de
Lima declared they have a slam dunk case. Subsequently, truckloads of documents from the DOJ and the
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) were transported to the Office of the Ombudsman.
The documents were attached as supporting evidence mostly Commission on Audit (COA) reports on how
each of the accused lawmakers channeled their respective Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF)
allocations to alleged bogus non-government organizations (NGOs) of Napoles.
The first batch of plunder and graft cases was filed against Senators Juan Ponce Enrile, Jinggoy Estrada and
Ramon Bong Revilla Jr. De Lima even personally led the ceremonial filing of the plunder and graft cases
against the three senators, Napoles and the rest of their co-accused at the office of Ombudsman Conchita
Carpio-Morales on September 16 last year.
A total of 38 individuals, including the three senators were indicted. Five former congressmen and 30
individuals and government people were also named in this first batch of DOJ-NBI complaints. Field
investigators and lawyers of the Ombudsman spent supposedly almost nine months to go through with fine-
toothed comb each and every evidence submitted to them.
It was, however, only last June 6, or nine months after that the Ombudsman was finally able to file the plunder
and graft cases before the Sandiganbayan against all the accused. This set into motion the process that led to
the arrest and temporary detention one after the other of Senators Revilla and Estrada at the Philippine
National Police (PNP) in Camp Crame, Quezon City while the rest charged with graft posted bail.
Sandiganbayan presiding justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang whose third division won the raffle to handle Enriles
cases is expected to issue anytime this week the arrest order on the 90-year old senator. Aside from bail
petition, Enriles lawyers have asked the anti-graft court to consider house or hospital detention due to their
clients age and frail health.


How it began
The expos of the countrys grandest corruption scandal this year begins with the unlikeliest of events in the
unlikeliest of places. It results in the detention of a wealthy woman whose sphere of influence spans the
executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government.
The story opens with 31-year-old Benhur Luy, a medical technology graduate and trusted cousin of Janet Lim
Napoles. Starting out as her personal assistant, Benhur becomes her bookkeeper and later president of a fake
non-governmental organization created to divert public money from the lawmakers Priority Development
Assistance Fund into personal pockets.
Because of suspicions he was attempting to fleece his wealthy cousin, he is allegedly kept against his will on
Dec 19, 2012, as punishment. He would not be seen by his parents and be brought to different places in a span
of 3-4 months, prompting fears of a kidnap. Benhur is unheard from for days. His parents Arturo and
Gertrudes, as well as his siblings Arthur and Annabelle, seek help from the justice department and say they
lost contact with Benhur starting December 15.
Unknown to them, Benhur is brought to at least 4 important places that are witness to alleged collusion,
thievery, and deception.
Was Benhur held against his will?
1) 25th floor, Discovery Suites, Ortigas Center, Pasig City
Headquarters of JLN Corporation, Napoles' primary business
Where lawmakers, government officials, and their aides go to collect kickbacks
Luy is detained on December 19, his belongings seized, and some P800,000 (suspected to be earnings from his
own private deals) forcibly taken from his Metrobank account
From here, Luy is moved to a nearby hotel; this is the last time fellow employees see him until his rescue

2) Lafayette Condominium, Eastwood, Quezon City
Condominium allegedly owned by Napoles but occupied by Luy

Also on December 19, several JLN employees search the unit for Luys laptop, which they believe contains
confidential files, but dont find it
Luys childhood friend Mariaflor Villanueva eventually delivers the laptop to his mother Gertrudes.
On February 23, Gertrudes goes to lawyer Levito Baligod seeking help to rescue her son. They eventually go to
the National Bureau of Investigation on March 1 to plan a rescue that takes place one month later. The files in
the laptop provide basis for possible motives for Benhurs detention.

3) Bahay ni San Jose, 52 Lapu-Lapu Street, Magallanes Village, Makati City
Retreat house run by Monsignor Josefino Ramirez, one of Napoles' favored priests

Napoles brother Reynald Jojo Lim chooses to transfer Luy here because a retreat house is the least likely to
be raided by authorities. This will later be used as a defense in the illegal detention case: that Luy was on
spiritual retreat.
Luy, guarded by Lim, is brought here to see his family on a few occasions. He is warned, however, not to tell
them that this is where he is staying.

4) South Garden Unit, Pacific Plaza Towers, Fort Bonifacio, Taguig City
Residential unit owned by Napoles but occupied by Reynald Lim

Luy is brought here on Jan 9, 2013, to meet and speak to his parents and siblings. Luy is described by his
mother as looking sad and scared. During the meeting, Reynald Lim talks to the Luy family about Benhurs
transactions. Lim warns them not to go to the authorities.
On February 23, the family gets to see Benhur Luy again. He gives sister Annabelle a letter, which he hopes will
give her a clue that hes being held against his will in Magallanes.
On March 22, Luy is rescued by NBI agents, Lim is arrested and taken to nearby St. Lukes hospital, but is
released months later after the Justice Department junks the NBIs complaint
After Benhurs rescue, he exposed their intricate web of corruption whose magnitude was unimagined. Never
in their dreams did those in this exclusive circle think that their biggest secret would be found out.
The whistleblowers tales recorded in affidavits detail a perfected art. From accomplices who knew the
inner workings of what operated like a syndicate, the whistleblowers turned state witness. And like thieves,
they split millions of pesos among lawmakers, private individuals and their principal, Janet Lim Napoles.
To this day, the story remains unfinished, as Senate investigations into unexplained wealth, conspiracy among
lawmakers, government officials and private individuals to pocket funds supposed to go to development
projects, remain uncompleted.

Evolution of the Pork Barrel System in the Philippines
Since the pork barrel controversy erupted in July of this year the phrase pork barrel has been
interchangeably used with PDAF (Priority Development Assistance Fund). What is the pork barrel or PDAF?
How did it come to be a sensational issue in Philippine public governance? Under the pork barrel system, each
branch of government (legislative, executive and judiciary) has its own pork barrel allocation. The latest
controversy, however, has centered more on the legislators pork barrel.

PDAF Watch defined pork barrel as those funds allocated to politicians such as congressmen and senators, to
be used, based on their decision, to fund programs, projects in their districts. According to G. Luis Igaya of the
Institute for Popular Democracy, the pork barrel is a practice of the Congress to divert national funds into
their districts whether it be in the form of public works (such as highways or bridges), social services (such as
education funds or public school buildings) or special projects (such as livelihood programs or community
development projects). Simply said, the pork barrel is a public fund intended only for public purposes.
Unfortunately, the pork barrel fund has become the center of controversy because of its potential as a source
of massive and wholesale corruption in government agencies.

The Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) reported that according to Sen. Panfilo Lacson the
pork barrel fund is a big, big mafia or syndicate involving the executive and legislative branches of the
government. This grand conspiracy of executive and legislative agencies, according to Lacson, has involved
various agencies in circles of kickbacks, corruption, patronage politics, and wasteful spending.

History of Pork Barrel
The pork barrel system is a Western practice brought into the Philippine public governance practice by the
United States. Chua and Cruz (VERA Files, 2013) report that in 1823, the US Congress enacted the first
appropriation for rivers and harbors for the different states. However, the practice drew criticisms from
opponents who claimed that it was purely political in purpose. Hence, it was branded as pork barrel
legislation. Pork barrel is also present in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand. In Denmark, it is called election
pork because it represents promises made before an election (Nograles and Lagman).

The pork barrel system is a pre-Civil War practice in the US. Chua and Cruz (2013) mentioned in their report
three possible origins of the pork barrel in the US: (1) the practice of landowners of setting aside a definite
portion of pork salted in wooden barrels for their black slaves; (2) the practice of American farmers of
preserving pork in barrels in anticipation of the hardships of winter, when the pork was shared with their
needy neighbors; and (3) that it comes from the old adage, Bring home the bacon.

In the Philippines, the pork barrel system was first introduced in 1922 with the passing of the Public Works Act
separately from the General Appropriations Act (GAA). The first pork barrel was legitimized under Public
Works Act 3044 which divided public works into two types: (1) national and other buildings, roads and bridges
in provinces, buoys and beacons, necessary mechanical equipment of lighthouses and (2) police barracks,
normal school and other public buildings, certain types of roads and bridges, artesian wells, wharves, piers,
and other shore protection works, cable telegraph and telephone lines. The latter is the forerunner of the
infamous pork barrel. It was under the control and supervision of the Secretary of Commerce and
Communications. However, before these could be distributed, prior approval from the joint committee
elected by the Senate and the House of Representatives was needed (Chua and Cruz, 2013).

In 1925, Senate Minority Leader Juan Sumulong spoke before Congress citing the misuse of public funds in the
form of pork barrel appropriations. In 1950 the pork barrel system was stopped, particularly the practice of
releasing lump sums for which no projects were specified. For the first time, the discretion of choosing
projects was transferred from the Secretary of Commerce to the legislators. Subsequently, the law carried the
identified projects of the members of Congress being the representatives of the people, either on their own
account or by consultation with local officials or civil leaders.

The pork barrel system practice was further refined under the public works act. It was intended to fund
community projects which were divided into two: miscellaneous community projects for congressmen,
and nationwide selected projects for senators.

Although the pork barrrel system is inevitably associated with politics as shown by the quid pro quo or the
carrot-and-stick relationship, it could still be said that during this time the system was functional in terms of
the check and balance mechanism between the legislative and the executive. Interest groups have their space,
too, in the administration of government-funded projects under the system. This went on for some 50 years,
although briefly interrupted by the outbreak of war in 1942.

The 1960s
President Benigno Simeon Aquino III delivers his 2nd State of the Nation Address (SONA) during the joint
Senate and House session of Congress at the Plenary Hall, House of Representatives Complex, Constitution
Hills, Quezon City
However, in the mid 60s there was a stalemate between the House and the Senate. No pork barrel funds
were released. In 1982, during the Marcos reign, a new item was introduced in the annual General
Appropriations Act by the Batasang Pambansa. It was called National Aid to Local Government Units
(NALGUs). Under NALGUs there was the Support for Local Development Projects or SLDP. This was the
closest to the pork barrel system according to journalist Belinda Olivarez Cunanan. Each assemblyman would
get P500,000.00. SLDP could be used both for public works projects (now referred to as hard projects) and soft
projectsproviding medicines, fertilizers, fumigants, insecticides, paints, sports equipment, etc. Under the
SLDP scheme the assemblyman conveyed his preferences for projects to the Ministry of Budget and
Management (MBM) which had the power to approve projects. MBM then released the allocation papers to
the Ministry of Local Government (MLG) which issued checks to the treasurer of the city or district where the
assemblymans constituency was located.
During the Marcos reign, the pork barrel took a twist with the abolition of Congress. The sole power and
discretion to dispense pork barrel was lodged only in one person, the President himself. This gave rise to the
phenomenon called cronyism. One had to be within the sphere of power and influence of the then dictator
president to enjoy special favors and privileges. According to Miranda (in Nograles and Lagman), When
former President Ferdinand Marcos governed through martial rule, the problem earned a new name
cronyismand reached its height. The other difference is that at that time, the dispenser of pork was
concentrated in one personMarcos himselfwith absolutely no check on any abuse committed. The
national tragedy that followed was unprecedented in the countrys history.



The Cory Aquino presidency (1986)
When Pres. Corazon Aquino rose to the presidency she restored the pork barrel system. In 1989, it started as a
lump sum appropriation of P480 million and P240 million called the Mindanao Development Fund and the
Visayas Development Fund, respectively. Representatives from these regions were authorized to identify
development projects worth P10 million per district. Luzon representatives soon demanded their share. In
1990, the pork barrel assumed a new name: the Countrywide Development Fund, or CDF. Starting in 1992,
each congressional district across the country was allocated P12.5 million and P18 million for each senator.
Unlike in the past, there was no restriction on the kind of project the district representatives and senators
may want to implement for their respective constituents.

The Ramos presidency (1992)
Elected in 1992, Pres. Ramos was a minority president. His problem was how to muster support from the
legislators especially for the presidents deemed priority bills, or to strengthen the power base of the
presidency. The pork barrel was a convenient means to achieve that purpose. In 1994, however, the
constitutionality of the CDF was challenged.
The Supreme Court ruled that the CDF was valid and constitutional. In the case of Philconsa vs. Enriquez et al.,
Nograles and Lagman cited the ruling of the Supreme Court thus:
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 President may propose the budget, but still the
final say on the matter of appropriations is lodged in Congress. The power of appropriation carries with it the
power to specify the project or activity to be funded under the appropriation law. It can be detailed and as
broad as Congress wants it to be.

Ramos opened other avenues to strengthen his power base. In 1996, he restored the Public Works Fund, the
School Building Fund, the Congressional Initiative Allocation or CIA, the El Nino Fund, and the Poverty
Alleviation Fund.
CIAs as pork barrel version
CIAs were not clearly provided in the GAA. Legislators were allowed to insert certain amounts in the budget of
government agencies (executive) with the approval of the House Speaker and the House Appropriations
Committee. Legislators had a hand in directing the utilization of the CIAs which were mostly incorporated in
the budgets of the departments of public works and highways, education, health, and interior and local
government. Monitoring the projects funded by the legislators pork barrel was not given due attention. Only
the officials of the departments of finance, budget, the implementing agency and the lawmakers themselves
would know the status of the funds. At one time, CIA was reported to run up to P28 billions.

The birth of PDAF
During his installation as the countrys 13th president then Pres. Erap Estrada was quite emphatic on his stand
on the pork barrel issue. In his inauguration speech (June 30, 1998) he said:
Government can provide basic services without the extra cost of pork barrel or kickback; roads for work;
infrastructure for productivity; schools for skills; clinics for health; police for safety, and a lean and mean
military machine for national defense. This I promise and I will deliver. Government cannot afford to give all
the youth the complete education promised by the Constitution, but it would be a crime if any money for
education was misspent on inferior textbooks and substandard classrooms built by pork barrel. I appeal to
the coming Congress to search its conscience for a way to stand behind me, rather than against me, on the
pork barrel issue and find a way to convert pork into tuition subsidies in the public and private schools.
But during his short-lived two-year stay in power as president, Estrada did not entirely scrap the legislators
discretionary funds. He retained the School Building Fund and still allowed the CIAs. But he also instituted his
own version of the executive pork barrel fund called the Lingap para sa Mahirap. He introduced the Rural
Development Infrastructure Fund (RUDIF), the same as the Public Works Fund, but with a P30M allocation for
each congressman. However, the sole power to dispense pork to the legislators rested on the Executive. A
legislator had to beg for a share of RUDIFa case of executive supremacy over the legislative. In 1999, the
congressmen lobbied for a share of the huge executive pork barrel, Lingap para sa Mahirap Program Fund.
They were able to get a share equivalent to 2/3 of the Fund. Estrada reintroduced the CDF, but renamed it the
Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF). Under PDAF, at least on paper, the congressmen would identify
projects from a narrow set of project categories determined by the Executive.
PDAF during the Arroyo administration
In 2001, with the assumption to the presidency of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo after the impeachment of Pres.
Estrada, the PDAF was retained. Again, the constitutionality of CDF was challenged. The Supreme Court in
Sarmiento et al. vs. The Treasurer of the Philippines, et al. (G.R. No. 125680 and 126313, September 4, 2001)
reaffirmed its previous ruling in 1994 (Philconsa vs. Enriquez) saying:
The Countrywide Development Fund attempts to make equal the unequal. It is also a recognition 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 consitituents and the priority to be given each project.
In 2008, there was an initiative to safeguard and rationalize the use of the pork barrel allocation. Nograles and
Lagman cited in their report Special Provision No. 1 under XLVI on Priority Development Assistance Fund (p.
950 of the GAA for 2008):
1. Use and Release of the Fund. The amount appropriated herein shall be used to fund priority programs and
projects under the Ten-Point Legacy Agenda of the national government, and shall be released directly to the
implementing agencies as indicated
The list includes projects on education, health, livelihood/CIDSS, rural electrification, water supply, financial
assistance, public works, irrigation, peace and order, housing, forest management, and historical/arts/culture.
The Act also providesThat in the procurement of common-use supplies, the implementing agencies shall
adhere to the price list and the rules and regulations to be issued by the Government Procurement Policy
Board
During the Arroyo administration, there were several cases of corruption that had their roots in the misuse
and abuse of the pork barrel fund especially to perpetuate herself in power which rocked her administration
on several occasions. Sen. Antonio Trillanes, for example, expressed his disappointment with the abuse of
the pork barrel by the Arroyo administration.

PDAF under the PNoy administration
PNoy kept the PDAF legacy, and even nurtured it. Before Pres. Arroyo stepped down, the last PDAF allocated
in 2010 was P10.86B. This figure was doubled (P24.62B) during the first budget allocation of the PNoy
presidency in 2011. Despite the prominent emphasis on the theme of his electoral campaignKung walang
kurap, walang mahirapuntil his inauguration as the 15th President whose inaugural speech centered on the
theme, Tungo sa daang matuwid, the PNoy administration was not spared from the massive corruption
scandal brought about by the glaring abuse of the pork barrel fund. In fact, although the issue started with the
legislators pork barrel, the huge lump sum discretionary fund of the President and that of the Vice-President
have also become a major issue that would make the legislators pork barrel fund scam pale in comparison.
The recent pork barrel scandal of P10B (the amount involved could be much much more) has rocked the
nation and exposed the extent of the systemic nature of corruption and its various modalities in the various
levels of government bureaucracy. The demand for transparency and accountability was so potent as to draw
millions of people to the streets demanding the rechanneling of the pork barrel allocation or the outright
abolition of the pork barrel system. Added to this is the latest scandal involving the unconstitutional
Disbursement Acceleration Fund (DAF). With the ongoing government investigation and the progress of the
plunder cases already filed against the initial list of accused legislators, every Filipino hopes for the restoration
of transparency, accountability, decency, and rationalized use of peoples money as pillars in public
governance and to breathe more life and meaning to the Constitutional provision that a Public office is a
public trust.