pdaf

Good day, I’m Gaspar P. Asco Jr., defending the affirmative side on whether the priority development assistance fund or also known as the pork barrel funds should be abolish. To begin with let me discuss a brief backgrounder of the PDAF or the so called “pork barrel”. What really is PDAF or pork barrel? The term "pork barrel" is used to mean funds allocated to the members of the Philippine House of Representatives and the Philippine Senate to spend as they see fit without going through the normal budgetary process or through the Executive Branch. It can be used for both "hard" projects, such as buildings and roads, and "soft" projects, such as scholarships and medical expenses. Well there are purposes why it was made and I am sure it was made for the right reasons. The priority development assistance fund was designed to allow legislators to fund small-scale infrastructure or community projects which fell outside the scope of the national infrastructure program. PDAF as everybody knows it wasn’t called PDAF till former President Joseph Estrada named it PDAF. It actually went through 2 name changes. First was CDF or Countryside Development Fund and then it was changed to CIF Congressional Initiative Fund and later changed to PDAF. We the affirmative bench believe that it should seriously be abolished. You might ask why? It sounds like its right? But I’m sure you guys listen to the news and know or have an idea about the controversy behind these funds. How this all works and how do the legislators get their hands on this fund and why it is called the virus that keeping corruption alive. Public spending for development is necessary. It has to be made clear that the PDAF as a development fund allocation is not the problem. It is the pork barrel system or the institutional arrangement of having legislators administer the PDAF that is the problem. But what is the point of improving an inherently anomalous and corrupting practice? Why rationalize bad practice? Under