IF YOU haven’t heard of BUB, you will be seeing a lot of its effects in the next several months leading up to the 2016 elections — P20.1 billion worth of effects.
BUB is supposed to stand for Bottom Up Budgeting, which, in turn, is supposed to mean allocating funds according to the needs of the neediest in the country, specifically at the local government level.
This is reportedly another creative concoction of Budget Secretary Butch Abad — who is of the infamous Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) — and is said to be designed to boost the presidential ambitions of Department of Interior & Local Government (DILG) Secretary Mar Roxas. According to a story filed by Chito Lozada of Philippine Daily Tribune, Roxas is the man principally and personally doling out the millions and billions.
Allocating the government’s resources starting from the bottom and going upwards, instead of the usual top-to-bottom process (AKA trickle-down effect) has its merits. As the much-heralded growth of the Philippine economy has shown, there is very little trickling down to the masses. Thus, creating a budget that gives priority to their needs makes sense.
But the best laid plans of mice and men can often go the way of the rats. First of all, the obvious motive behind BUB is plain self-serving, manipulative, transactional politics. It is based on the “Golden Rule,” namely, “He who has the gold makes the rules.”
One pundit has defined BUB as “Buying Up Ballots.”
Yen Makabenta, in a recent column in Manila Times, pointed out that DILG is working closely with the Department of Social Welfare, with the Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT) also being openly used for partisan purposes:
“Recipients of CCT largesse will be given seats at the table, preparatory to being turned into a voting bloc in the 2016 elections. They’re being told to become active politically to ensure the continuity of the 4Ps assistance to them.”
Expectedly, Roxas mouths the most noble rationale for BUB, citing such awesome-sounding programs, such as Grassroots Participatory Budgeting Process, Oplan Hilamos (Oplan Dignity), Performance Challenge Fund (PCF), PAMANA funds and Yolanda assistance.
In one news story, Roxas explained that “the funds are meant to finance various poverty-alleviation projects identified and recommended by the local poverty reduction council composed of people’s organizations (POs) and nongovernment organizations (NGOs).”
Yet, in a subsequent paragraph of the same story, Roxas “reminded the local officials that the rehabilitation fund should be used only for the repair and construction of public markets, city or town halls and civic centers such as gymnasiums.”
Civic centers and gymnasiums are supposed to alleviate poverty?
Roxas and Abad have also been obviously selective in allocating funds. In the Tribune story, Lozada reported that 13 participating agencies are benefited by the BUB. But inexplicably excluded is the Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council (HUDCC) which happens to be headed by Roxas’ potential rival for the presidency, Vice-President Jejomar Binay.
Isn’t housing part of poverty alleviation? Maybe Roxas should consult Tony Meloto of Gawad Kalinga. He can learn a few lessons about genuine, non-political, non-transactional poverty alleviation that starts with decent housing.
The dole-outs aren’t just patently partisan and self-serving, they also do not meet urgent needs for which Roxas, as DILG chief, is directly accountable.
From April to June, Mar Roxas doled out P6.634 billion to over 300 local government units in Northern Mindanao, Nueva Ecija, Bicol and Eastern Visayas, with Bohol receiving an estimated P3.3 billion. The dole-outs included funds ostensibly for the repair of some 54 police stations.
And yet, a couple of weeks ago, in a story by ABS-CBN’s TV Patrol, which has Roxas’ wife, Korina Sanchez, as one of the anchors, it was reported that prisoners in the Visayas – Samar was specifically mentioned – were being ferried to court and to other penal facilities in public transportation. Yes, in buses and jeepneys, along with very vulnerable civilians.
In that same report, one batch of prisoners was transferred from a jail in Samar to the national penitentiary in Manila, a trip of several hours, while terrified passengers prayed that they would reach their destination unharmed.
The director of the Samar prison, when asked why he allowed the risky trip to happen, reasoned that they had no choice. They had no vehicles. Can you believe that? A prison without vehicles in which to ferry convicts?
The BUB’s partisan intent is so obvious, badly hit cities like my hometown of Tacloban, dominated by the Romualdezes, will probably get crumbs, even if was the most severely devastated by Yolanda.
In fact, in a story filed by Rappler some months ago, headlined, “Abad: No extra money for Tacloban,” Abad stated, “Now if [Romualdez] is expecting national government funding, well, I’m not aware of any funds because the responsibility of implementing national government programs rests with national government agencies.”
Fortunately for Tacloban, the province of Leyte is dominated by the Petillas, allies of Roxas and of the Liberal Party. I should be happy for my hometown because anything that benefits Leyte should logically benefit it, but that won’t necessarily be the case.
Transactional politics is based on the principle of quid pro quo. Roxas is apparently counting on the desperation of the masses for money with which to survive. They will even sell their souls. The problem of Roxas is that the masses may have had enough of the exploitation they have suffered under successive administrations. They just might take Roxas’ money but vote for someone else.
Well, if that happens, it will show in subsequent SWS or Pulse Asia public opinion polls. If Roxas’ miserable ratings continue to be in the single digits in spite of all the money he distributes, will he pour more money in a second and third round of dole-outs or will it be a Plan B?
The opposition recently warned against “Hi-tech poll fraud in 2016.” The credibility of the Comelec has not been good of late. Our country suffered from a Garci. Are we in for a Garci II? Or a Marci?
* * *
