Why do people whose primary job description is law making have to be involved with building basketball courts and waiting sheds? Everybody but the primary beneficiaries of the pork barrel, which are unfortunately not the constituents, can see the numerous advantages of not having a pork barrel.

Every year, some politician will try to score brownie points with the public by suggesting that the pork barrel be abolished, waived, or eliminated, shrewdly issuing the challenge with the full knowledge that it will never be taken seriously because at least one of their colleagues will show their true colors by defending the pork barrel to the death, singing it praises and citing all kinds of reasons why that controversial fund should be retained.

This year the rabid defender of the pork barrel produced a litany of benefits that could only be attributed to this country's legislators yearly share of millions of pesos that they can spend at their own discretion. One congressman said that without the pork barrel, nobody would build bridges in far-flung barangays so school children can make their way to school. Furthermore, he insisted that without the pork barrel, indigent patients would not get medical assistance, that students would be deprived of scholarships, that rural folk will be denied livelihood programs, that the poorest of our poor would have to live without potable water and electricity, that unemployment would rise. He basically implied that the country would fall to ruin if congressmen do not get their P60 million worth of “projects” and their corresponding kickbacks.

Have these legislators not heard of the DPWH, DepED, DOH, governors, mayors, and barangay captains? Is lobby money from giant corporations with vested interests not enough for self-enrichment that they have to partake of the people's money? Why do people whose primary job description is law making have to be involved with building basketball courts and waiting sheds?

Everybody but the primary beneficiaries of the pork barrel, which are unfortunately not the constituents, can see the numerous advantages of not having a pork barrel. Allow me to go through a few…

The first would be decreased corruption. Aside from having the reputation as one of the biggest sources of corruption in this country due to its discretionary nature of awarding contracts, taking congressmen out of the equation would make the job of corruption watchdogs easier since they can focus their efforts solely on the national and local government agencies involved in the projects.

The second would be the fight against corruption suddenly gaining allies. If congressmen were to let go of their kitty, their previous experience in dealing with shady projects and contractors will allow them to craft relevant and effective laws against corruption. Being thrown out of the kickback loop should give our lawmakers sufficient motivation to make sure that nobody else can enrich them selves the way they were able to during the days of the pork barrel by formulating bullet proof laws and making sure that those laws are enforced.

The third would be better delivery of services. In fairness, not all congressmen use the pork barrel purely for self-enrichment. Some enrich themselves only partially while implementing quality and relevant projects and infrastructure. Their experience in the proper use of the pork barrel will allow them to craft better laws that will actually benefit their constituents instead of the yearly dole-out. Properly used pork barrels should result projects that are not repeated year after year because genuinely concerned congressmen would try to make his district less dependent on him and the pork barrel by formulating laws that would empower the local government officials to do their jobs properly.

Without a pork barrel, our representatives will have to prove their mettle to their constituents by crafting relevant laws that actually benefit their constituents. This is infinitely more difficult than buying their votes with “projects”, and doesn't even have a self-enrichment feature to boot, but it will have an infinitely better long term effect on their district and the people populating it.

The fourth would be a better image for congressmen and the House of Representatives. They may end up finishing their terms poorer than when they started, but that's what service to the people is all about. Anyway, they can still profit from lobby money and illegal campaign contributions.

Maybe one day before I die, the billions of pesos being given to our legislators every year will finally be but to good use by the proper government agencies and our legislators will finally concentrate on legislation instead of reelection. Maybe one day my child will tell me he wants to be a congressman and I will actually be proud of him instead of wondering where I could have gone wrong in raising him.