WITH the recent increase of the budget for the Department of Public Works and Highways, or DPWH (amounting to more than a trillion pesos, according to news reports), at the cost of the budgets of some important agencies and projects like PhilHealth, DepEd and DSWD's 4Ps, talk of pork barrel has once again been heard from different sides of the political and social fence.
Not even to mention the controversial political caress called AKAP, which received a P26-billion allocation as a result of the bicameral conference for the 2025 budget, the president really has a lot on his plate as he tries to determine which line items need to be scarped for the people. Again, many critics exclaim that "pork barrel" is at the center of these budgetary circus-like developments.
However, do we really know what "pork barrel" means, and why do we use pork barrel as a term? More so, how does that term intend to describe what is happening to government projects and our government officials?
I have been contemplating these thoughts and would like to attempt to graphically show how the term is actualized in our government setting.
Origin of the term
This term started in the US in the 19th century. It was customary for pork to be preserved in large barrels of salted meat. Now, since meat, especially pork, was limited and scarce, the same was considered valuable and desirable to many struggling families. As a result, when pork was brought out inside these huge, salted barrels to be given or sold away, individuals and families would labor to dip into the barrel to take portions of pork as needed, often in a competitive or selective way, since the supply was finite and valuable. Everyone sought to get a piece of the valuable and limited meat for their fill and pleasure. Now, as people gathered around, trying to grab as much as they could, naturally, those with better positions or connections (or quicker hands) tended to get more, while others were left with little or nothing.
In the same way, as in the real-life pork barrel of the 19th century, the same thing happens with government funds when made available for distribution. All too often, those with political influence, better connections (or faster hands) get to secure the better cuts of the budget meat for bigger projects, possibly leaving others behind.
Pork barrel in politics
In this analogy, the barrel symbolizes the government budget or public funds. The budget holds the valuable commodity that everyone who has access tries to dip into to get their fill of funds and budget. On the other hand, the "pork" are the local projects or local benefits to be given to the people. Like pork in the 19th century, local projects like cash distributions, roads, bridges and community centers are very valuable today. Local officials go to legislators to help them secure these choices and limited benefits since legislators are able to influence where government should allocate locally the sought-after projects, and these project benefits go to the localities, regions or groups.
It is now up for politicians to master the art of "dipping into the barrel" in order to take portions of the budget and allocate them as projects to their favored areas or groups. In an election season, the distribution is calculated to maximize voter support or build and strengthen political machinery. Just as people would grab pork from the barrel to satisfy hunger, so do people in the localities go for the meat with much haste with thanks alluded to the politician who made it happen.
Unfortunately, it is always the case that not everyone gets pork from the barrel because not everyone has the right political skill, influence and connection. Similarly, only districts and localities whose patron has strong political clout or representation might receive government-funded projects. Thus, as individuals scramble to grab the best cuts of pork, politicians could end up competing for bigger shares of the budget for their people, machinery or districts.
An imaginary pork barrel chase
I have read or heard somewhere of an interesting (funny, but also sad) fictional story about the dealings of a politician who tried his best to get a slice of the pork in preparation for his re-election bid. This was made in conjunction with certain officials from the government department implementing the project. I think the story would better depict the subject of this article, so let me try to share this fictional tale.
"Rep. Poncio 'Porky' Salubsob clutched his briefcase of district project proposals — roads, bridges and a sports complex. He knew approval wasn't about merit but playing the game.
"At the budget hearing, the Department of Weighted Politically Hallways (DWPH) defended a massive budget increase. Porky proposed P500 million for his district's infrastructure, knowing the real deal would happen off-record.
"Over dinner, a DWPH official offered project approval in exchange for Porky's public support of their entire inflated budget.
"'Consider it done,' Porky agreed.
"Weeks later, billboards with Porky's face appeared on new construction sites. Citizens whispered about 'pork' in the DWPH budget.
"Porky's reelection slogan? 'Building Roads, Building Futures.' He knew he wasn't just paving roads —he was paving his return to power." End of story.
The story of Rep. Porky may be imaginary but the truth of the matter is the story of pork barrel in the country continues.
Lawyer Jeremiah B. Belgica, REB, EnP, was the first director general of the Anti-Red Tape Authority (ARTA). He is a founder and co-managing partner of Belgica Aranas Baldueza de la Cruz and Associates. He is also a pastor and a sought-after speaker on Christian biblical law and policy.
jbbelgica@babdlaw.com