4Ps, TUPAD, AICS. These terms can be heard or read frequently these days, often associated with a politician’s name. It has come to a point that one Board Member was heard to remark, “If you call for a meeting in a community these days, no one will show up unless you are giving ayuda.”
More than a decade ago, the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), commonly called the “pork barrel,” was the subject of extreme public criticism following exposés on abuses perpetrated by members of Congress regarding the use of the fund.
In 2013, the Supreme Court declared the PDAF unconstitutional, thereby abolishing it. Before such declaration, on April 9, 2013, then-Sen. Teofisto Guingona Jr. introduced a bill in the Senate to abolish PDAF.
Unfortunately, it was overtaken by events that led to the above-mentioned Supreme Court decision. The pending bill was transmitted to the Congress’ archives for safekeeping and preservation.
The Court found that the PDAF and its previous forms (CDF) were unconstitutional as these violated the separation of powers; the power to execute the budget rests solely on the Executive. Legislators are expected to pass laws, and exercise oversight functions over the Executive Department’s implementation of existing laws. Legislators are not expected to build roads, bridges, and other infrastructure projects. It is necessary to draw the line between public accountability and patronage politics by being truthful to the constitutional allocation of powers and prerogatives.
The Senate itself, in a resolution for the pork barrel’s abolition, acknowledged “that it can no longer be ignored as it debilitates integrity, honesty, accountability, and transparency in governance, especially in both Houses of Congress.”
After the CDF and PDAF, many similar projects were launched. They were presumably designed to perk up the economy, and ultimately promote socio-economic development.
The Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps) which was launched in 2008 was institutionalized about 10 years later. It is the national poverty- reduction strategy and human capital investment program that provides conditional cash transfers to poor households for a maximum period of seven years to improve health, nutrition, and education.
A similar program is the Tulong pang-Hanapbuhay sa ating Disadvantaged/Displaced Workers (TuPaD) which was allocated with billions of funding for the last two fiscal years. It is a community-based safety net initiative that provides temporary employment to workers in the informal sector. It specifically targets the underemployed or workers who do not receive sufficient wages in their current jobs, the self-employed, and the displaced, marginalized workers or those who have lost their jobs or experienced reduced income due to the pandemic.
Another program is the Assistance to Individuals in Crisis Situations (AICS), one of the government’s social welfare services that provides medical assistance, burial, transportation, education, food, and financial assistance for other support services or needs of a person or family.
The Ayuda para sa Kapos ang Kita (AKap) program was introduced recently. It intends to provide cash assistance to minimum wage earners and near-poor Filipinos to help them cope with the impact of inflation.
These kinds of programs are not only implemented in our country but in other ASEAN countries. Thailand has implemented various subsidy programs for its citizens and businesses of several billions of dollars. In July 2020 they implemented the “We Travel Together” stimulus package. The government offered domestic tourists 40 percent off for hotel rooms, food, and facilities with a cap per night for up to five nights. In 2023, the Thai government launched a stimulus package that included a 50 percent co-payment subsidy on salaries for qualified small and medium enterprises and in co-payments for consumer purchases. Another program is the “Thai Rice NAMA” financial package to support farmers’ access to sustainable rice production offering subsidies of up to 50 precent on each set price. In 2023, Thailand issued its latest stimulus package, which assists businesses and people, with subsidies. In 2024, they introduced a subsidy program for battery electric vehicles.
Malaysia has “Pemulih Stimulus Package” valued at more than $36 billion which covers for wage subsidies, unemployment assistance, and cash aid. Another package is the “PERMAI Stimulus” worth billions aimed at enhancing incentives issued in 2020 such as the wage subsidy program.
Singapore implemented the Jobs Support Scheme and Indonesia has the Pre-Employment Card.
These programs can fall under the wealth or economic redistribution and deficit spending policies of the government. These are two major governmental actions that are used to perk up economic activities and consequently stimulate socio-economic growth and development.
A “wealth/economic redistribution policy” refers to government strategies aimed at transferring wealth from individuals with higher incomes or assets to those with lower incomes to reduce economic inequality within a society, usually achieved through taxation systems that impose higher rates on the wealthy and utilize the revenue to fund social welfare programs like unemployment benefits or food assistance, and policies promoting access to education and healthcare to enhance upward mobility. In our country, it includes the Universal Health Care Program.
By addressing extreme poverty, redistribution policies can potentially stimulate economic growth by increasing consumer spending among lower-income groups and rejuvenate an economy.
The government puts money into the pockets of the poor in order to create demands for goods and services. The Prime Minister of Thailand said, “giving money to people will create a tornado of spending.” In this process, small and medium entrepreneurs will survive, employment is sustained and termination will be prevented. Potential drawbacks, however, include a disincentive to work, high tax rates on high earners may discourage entrepreneurship and hard work. Redistribution policies can be politically contentious, with debates about the appropriate level of redistribution and who should benefit.
“Deficit spending” implies an approach to economic stimulus, in which the government takes on debt while using its spending power to create demand and stimulate the economy. This is also called compensatory spending or pump priming. Some economists argue that government spending revives and drives economic activity and growth. Others disagree and believe deficits created by excess spending impede private borrowing, spur inflation, and lead to higher taxes needed to pay off the debt that results from that spending.
Some critics of the scheme have voiced concerns that it is fiscally irresponsible and shortsighted and that there is no quick solution to the structural issues, arguing that the billions spent on the handout will only exacerbate the country’s troubling national debt issue.
It was reported that in 2024 we borrowed more than P2 trillion to cover the budget deficit. It is estimated that this year we also have to borrow more than that of 2024.
By year end, the total public debt, including past administrations, will be P17.353 trillion. It is estimated to overshoot P20 trillion by the time BBM steps down in 2028.
4Ps, TUPAD, AICS, AKAP and the like are good programs for developing countries like the Philippines. But many corrupt transactions are allegedly committed and it seems the climate of greed and impunity continue to permeate the bureaucracy and make a mockery of our laws.
These set a bad example for the people, especially the youth and the impressionable minds. The stories of misuse and mismanagement of government funds are happening at the time that hunger and poverty in the country are rated high.
The Social Weather Stations survey in December 2024 to measure self-rated poverty in the Philippines found that 63 percent of families considered themselves poor. Politicos and bureaucrats allegedly steal at least 20 percent of yearly budgets, according to the IMF and World Bank.
One major alleged complaint in the implementation of these programs is that the identification of beneficiaries is controlled by politicians. Politicians are treating the program funds as pork barrel.
While government agencies assigned to manage the programs justified that they have guidelines to ascertain the qualifications of beneficiaries, they are allegedly limited to the list provided by the former and their allies at the local levels.
Two of the eight aspects of good governance are inclusivity and following the rule of law. Excluding some qualified constituents because of political affiliation is discriminatory and against human rights. It is unjust and unfair. It is an injustice committed by the very leaders and civil servants that we have elected, employed and given the responsibility to serve the public.
Applying the reason used by the Supreme Court to declare PDAF unconstitutional, can it also be applied to the four programs?
_______________________________
Author’s email: [email protected]
