A decade after the Supreme Court declared the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) unconstitutional, a massive new system of discretionary funds for lawmakers is flourishing within the national budget, a recent investigation reveals. The focus is on Cebu, where 11 current and former district representatives were assigned a staggering P55.77 billion in discretionary public works funds from 2023 to 2025.
The P55.77 Billion Question for Cebu
Documents analyzed by the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) show that Cebu's congressional districts received the huge sum from the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) "allocable" funds pool. This pool is part of a nearly P1.2 trillion nationwide system that watchdogs label as the modern version of pork barrel.
The largest share went to 1st District Representative Rhea Mae Gullas, with over P8.33 billion. The amounts for each district are not random; they are predetermined using a controversial and opaque tool called the "BBM Parametric Formula" before the General Appropriations Act (GAA) is finalized.
Pork Barrel in a New Disguise?
The core controversy lies in how this new system differs from the old, outlawed PDAF. In 2013, the Supreme Court banned PDAF because it allowed lawmakers to intervene and allocate funds after the national budget was enacted. The new "allocable" system works differently on the surface: the total amounts are fixed by the DPWH using its secret formula and embedded in the President's proposed budget (NEP).
However, critics point to a critical loophole. While the total amount is set, legislators are reportedly allowed to choose specific projects from a departmental "menu" before the GAA is passed. This pre-enactment identification, they argue, grants lawmakers the same discretion and influence that defined the old pork barrel, merely shifting the point of intervention earlier in the process.
Defense and Impact: Local Projects vs. Systemic Risk
Defenders of the system reject the "pork barrel" label. Former Cebu 3rd District Rep. Pablo John "PJ" Garcia argued that the Supreme Court's definition specifically targeted post-appropriation intervention. He stated that for his district, the GAA amount was "exactly what the DPWH submitted" and any project changes were initiated by the agency, not lawmakers.
Current lawmakers, like Rep. Peter John Calderon of Cebu's 7th District, emphasize the local benefits. He noted these "allocable" funds pay for concreting barangay roads, building water systems, and constructing multi-purpose buildings, all implemented by the DPWH for constituents.
Despite these defenses, the system raises profound concerns. It undermines merit-based budgeting, as projects may be chosen for political rather than engineering needs. It blurs the separation of powers by letting legislators perform an executive function. Most alarmingly, PCIJ reports suggest the system has created a "free-for-all" for influence and alleged kickbacks, even for non-allocable projects.
What Comes Next for Budget Transparency?
The debate has moved from the letter of the law to its spirit. Despite the PCIJ's findings, Congress retained the core of the allocable system in the 2026 budget preparations, merely shifting funds between project types. The crucial test for transparency, as suggested by former Rep. Garcia, is a line-by-line audit comparing the NEP to the final GAA for each district.
The future of Philippine budget accountability now hinges on key questions: Will the "BBM Parametric Formula" be made public? Can a clear firewall be built to prevent elected officials from unduly influencing technical public works allocations? The answers will determine if the country has truly abolished pork barrel or simply perfected a more complex, pre-enactment disguise.
