‘Worse than pork barrel:’ Senator Lacson renews call to abolish ‘Leadership Fund’

Senator Panfilo “Ping” Lacson has renewed his crusade to abolish the controversial “Leadership Fund”—or legislative allocables—from the national budget, condemning the mechanism as a far more problematic evolution of the outlawed pork barrel system.

Lacson’s call follows recent revelations over questionable flood control projects and testimony from former Public Works and Highways Secretary Manuel Bonoan, which exposed how lawmakers can influence budget allocations well before formal congressional deliberations even begin.

“The Leadership Fund, a.k.a. 'allocables,' is a worse version of the outlawed pork barrel system,” Lacson said, noting his long-standing opposition to all forms of discretionary funds. “It added another layer that provided legislators the opportunity to make budget insertions even during the Preparation Phase of the national budget—before the National Expenditure Program (NEP) is transmitted to Congress—where further insertions could still be introduced.”

“With all that said, I maintain that such an anomaly in the passage of the national budget must stop,” he added.

Taking to X (formerly Twitter), the senator questioned why members of Congress are meddling in early budget preparation outside of their designated roles in local development councils.

“Why would members of Congress dip their hands in the budget preparation phase outside of the local development councils... where they are allowed to represent their districts?” he asked.

How the Mechanism Works

The spotlight hit the “Leadership Fund” in September after Secretary Bonoan detailed its mechanics during a Senate Blue Ribbon Committee hearing on flood control controversies, chaired by Lacson.

Under questioning regarding pre-legislative budget insertions, Bonoan admitted that the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) consolidates project proposals requested by lawmakers directly into the executive’s proposed NEP—including allocations channeled through the Senate’s “leadership fund.”

Bonoan defended the practice, stating that the DPWH planning service reviews these requests for alignment with government development goals and arguing that early inclusion avoids friction during the bicameral conference committee.

However, Lacson pushed back, emphasizing that under the Constitution, Congress's role is strictly confined to the budget's authorization phase—after the proposed budget is officially submitted to lawmakers.

Billions in Allocations and Alleged Misuse

Lacson suggested the mechanism explains how individual lawmakers managed to secure astronomical allocations. He pointed to Taguig City’s share in the 2025 General Appropriations Act, which included ₱6.79 billion linked to former Senate President Alan Peter Cayetano and ₱4.7 billion to Senator Pia Cayetano.

He connected these massive funds for Taguig—a city with just two congressional districts—to dubious reclamation projects disguised as slope protection and flood mitigation works. These projects are currently under investigation by the Office of the Ombudsman and face forfeiture proceedings before the Philippine Reclamation Authority.

The controversy deepened following Bonoan’s testimony before the Sandiganbayan last Wednesday, where the former DPWH chief revealed that every senator in 2024 received at least ₱500 million in project allocations through the “Leadership Funds.”

Lacson acknowledged that his crusade against the fund came with high political stakes, noting that his initial exposure and call for its abolition nearly jeopardized then-Senate President Vicente Sotto III’s leadership position.

While clarifying that budget insertions do not automatically equate to corruption, Lacson warned of the dangerous precedent the practice sets.

“While insertions per se do not automatically translate to misuse of public funds,” Lacson warned, “it could open the floodgates of abuse and misuse of public funds for some corrupt politicians.”

-Paraluman News