THERE IS no guarantee that impoverished provinces will get their fair share of public funds if President-elect Joseph Estrada succeeds with his plans of abolishing pork barrel allocations. Yet if the present system is kept, it is also unlikely that all of them will get fair deals with the money put at the discretion of their representatives.

The size of the share legislators and their allies are said to receive from their pork barrels depends on the types of projects being funded and how these are to be implemented. Many suppliers, though, say the largest kickbacks can be made in the procurement of books or magazines as well as medicines.

In most instances, suppliers of these goods automatically set aside 40 to 50 percent of the total budget for the lawmaker and his or her staff. Another 10 to 12 percent is allotted for the head of the office that will implement the project. Sometimes, suppliers say, they also set aside one to two percent for some Department of Budget and Management (DBM) personnel "to expedite the release" of the necessary documents that will ensure the transfer of funds from the National Treasury to the implementing agency.

"What is left with us is only about 37 percent of the total amount allotted," says an educational materials supplier. "But we don't end up in the red because we also manage to have some 12 to 15 percent profit (from the transactions)."

The procurement of books or magazines is usually implemented by the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS, if these will be distributed to schools in the district) or by the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG, if these will be distributed to municipalities and barangays). The purchase of medicines, meanwhile, is coursed either through the Department of Health (DOH, if these will be given to government hospitals and health centers) or the DILG (if these will be distributed by local government units).

Commission on Audit (COA) record show that in 1995 alone, congressmen allotted P166.4 million of the Countrywide Development Fund (CDF) to purchase medicines and medical care equipment, or 7.1 percent of the total CDF released to the members of the House of Representatives for that year.

More than P238 million was released for various local government and community capacity building programs such as the production of training materials, supplies, and facilities. Another P12.7 million were spent to books and other instructional materials, with the money coursed through the DECS.

Assuming there are "industry rates" being followed, about P200 million of the budget for the purchase of medicines, medical equipment, books, and instructional materials in the 1995 CDF went to kickbacks. But the figures can go higher, depending on how the goods are to be delivered, say two suppliers who are frequent Congress visitors. Procurement of supplies falls into three categories: full delivery, partial delivery, and ghost delivery.

According to a medicine supplier, lawmakers get as much as 60 percent for ghost deliveries, although technically, they are "out of the picture." He explains that ghost deliveries are usually agreed upon by the head of the implementing agency and the supplier, adding, "in these cases the implementing agency receives a 25-percent cut since the paperwork for ghost deliveries is difficult to accomplish."

If the money is intended for the purchase of medicines, says the source, the lawmaker can still get a 60-percent rebate even with actual delivery if he or she agrees to receive old supplies. These medicines will usually expire in two to three months.

Kickbacks on partial delivery, though, depend on how much the undelivered supplies cost. Lawmakers usually get 60 percent of the allocated funds, while the supplier and the head of the agency evenly split the balance.

Suppliers say most of the lawmakers they deal with now require an advance of at least half of the agreed commission. The advance payment, they say, ensures the project's inclusion in the list to be submitted by the legislator to the DBM or that the funds will not be realigned by the legislator if a Special Allotment Release Order (SARO) has already been issued. (Under budget guidelines, lawmakers can change the implementing agency, project specification, location and cost within six months from the date of the issuance of the SARO upon the approval of the DBM.)

This means that even before the DBM issues the SARO, firms doing business with the legislators need to immediately produce cash to secure the contract. The initial cash outlay can be hefty. The education materials supplier, for instance, cites a 1997 deal she had closed with a Visayan congressman. The contract involved the purchase of P3- million worth of educational materials, chargeable to the legislator's CDF. The supplier says the lawmaker wanted a cut of 50 percent, half of which was to be paid in advance.

The supplier was given only three days to produce the P750,000 "down payment." She managed to give only P250,000. When the SARO came out, the supplier found out that her contract had been reduced to P1 million -- proportionate to her advance payment.

A Congress old-timer says the practice of requiring suppliers to make a "down payment" began only in 1992, during the Ninth Congress. He says it was prompted by a growing number of suppliers who reneged on their commitment to give the legislators their commissions. "Maraming nabukulan noong mga 1990-91 (Many legislators got tricked in 1990-1991)," he explains. "Maraming mga suppliers na gusto lang mag-one-shot kaya hindi na bumalik para ibigay ang pangako nila (There were a lot of suppliers who only wanted one-shot deals and never came back to give the promised cuts)."

Contractors for infrastructure projects do not have to make advance payments, although legislators get cuts of anywhere from 12 to 15 percent of the total project cost in the construction of roads, school buildings, barangay halls and artesian wells, says a contractor who services some Visayan legislators. But, he says, there are a few who demand as much as 20 or even 25 percent. "Fifteen (percent) for the congressman is okay," says the Samar island-based contractor. "Twenty is manageable. But 25 is tight for us."

He says his company can still manage on 65 percent of the budget. "We can scrimp on some materials, reduce our labor cost, and improve our control system so we can have a profit margin of 20 to 25 percent," the contractor says. "But if the congressman demands 25 percent, then forget it. In this business, it doesn't pay to have a profit of just 10 percent. Construction is a much more difficult job than delivering supplies."

Legislators, however, are only the first in the long list of people suppliers and contractors say they have to deal with if they are interested in snagging pork barrel projects. As one medical supplier put it, "Never forget that closing a sale with the congressman does not mean that you have the deal firmly in the bag. There are a lot of people involved in the release of the funds, and you will have to strike deals with them, too."

Indeed, after the lawmakers come members of the congressional staff who prepare the list of projects to be submitted to the DBM. Suppliers and contractors say the people in charge of pork barrel projects are usually relatives or close confidantes of the legislators. They wield considerable influence over the lawmakers, and this seems to embolden them to ask for their own cut. Suppliers and contractors who fail to come across for the staff do so at their own peril; almost overnight, their contracts become non-existent as budgets for their projects are realigned to other activities.

Suppliers say they usually give the staff 10 percent of the contract price if the boss got only 40 percent of the total project cost. But if the legislator got 50 percent, the aide making a separate demand is given only three to five percent.

Contractors in comparison seem to be set with five percent for the congressional aide. That may seem small, but with the large amounts involved in infrastructure projects, the staffmember who gets a cut does not come away a beggar. The aide of one Visayan congressman, for example, is described by a contractor as a casual employee at the local DPWH office. But just after a few years of working for the legislator, the aide is now the proud owner of a house and lot.

The money trail, however, reaches well past the confines of the lawmakers' offices. Apparently, suppliers and contractors have to take care of local government bosses as well, particularly with regard to public works projects. Some contractors admit paying mayors of the towns where they have projects because, they say, the officials can delay the work by withholding permits or harassing the workers. Municipal mayors get seven percent while the barangay captain is given three percent. The heads of implementing agencies -- usually the district, municipal or city engineer -- get about 10 percent

Suppliers are also expected to provide "comfort" to the chiefs of agencies implementing their projects. These officials have the power to release the cash allotments issued directly to their offices by the DBM. Much like the town or city mayors, agency chiefs can delay the implementation of the project by making the suppliers or contractors go through a gamut of "requirements."

The education materials supplier says that when she landed her first contract, she had assumed the check would be forthcoming once the contract was signed. It was only after two months of following up the release of the budget that the supplier realized how wrong she was. "It was even the chief of office who told me, 'Hija, there are SOPs (standard operating procedures) here'," she recounts. "If you want to get your money, you have to follow the SOPs."

It turned out that one SOP was 10 percent of the budget for the chief, says the supplier. She complied, and that was the start of what she now calls "a fruitful economic relationship." She says the agency head taught her "the art of negotiating SOPs" not just in his office but in other offices as well.

Today, the supplier's company has contacts in government offices vital to its operation, such as the DOH, DECS, DILG and DBM. The contacts call when the Notices of Cash Allocation are issued by the DBM. "In fact," she says, "today, we offer congressmen an added service of ensuring the speedy release of the funds if they buy our products."

The dismal results of this layer upon layer of commissions, cuts, and pay-offs are endured by the very people the legislators say they are trying to help. Contractors say, for instance, that one of the major factors for delay in construction work is the lack of funds. Some also admit that their means of keeping within a shrunken budget while trying to earn a respectable profit often guarantee that the projects will not last very long .

As a result, public cynicism toward infrastructure projects -- even those that the local people want and need -- has been growing. It hasn't helped that legislators are said to maintain a stable of favored contractors to whom public works contracts in their districts are awarded regularly. Congress insiders say projects are already divided among the contractors even before the SAROs are released. They go through the motions of public bidding, say the insiders, but everyone knows this is just for show.

In oneVisayan province, for example, contractors who are out of the congressman's good graces cannot even witness the opening of bids, says one well-connected contractor there. "We postpone the bidding if someone not in our group is in the room during the opening of the bids," says the contractor who is obviously among the favored few. "We only proceed kung kami-kami lang (if it's only us)."

With each congressman assured of P30 million from the PWF alone, contractors say it makes sense to maintain ties with legislators. With little exception, lawmakers make it a point to use up all their PWF allocations for projects that they invariably say are much needed by their districts. Unfortunately, there is not much monitoring done by government agencies -- or anyone else, for that matter -- to verify such claims.

Many constituents of the legislators, though, console themselves with the temporary job opportunities offered by infrastructure projects. In many towns, local folk seeking employment go to their legislator or his aide to ask for a note that will be presented to the contractor or whoever is in charge of the project. The practice has become so popular that the lawmakers' offices are now associated more with employment than legislation.

Yet even if this did not reek of patronage politics, it would still not be enough to outweigh the gross misuse of pork barrel funds. A 1996 special audit report on selected CDFs by the COA says that, among other pork barrel sins, there have been cases of the funds being used for purposes other than those for which they were meant.

"CDF intended for livestock production and road repair," it says, "were used to purchase cellular phones and motor vehicles for the personal use of the legislator." In another example cited by the COA report, "the CDF was used as payment for personal services," contrary to the provisions of the general appropriations act. There were also cases in which equipment and vehicles purchased for the use of certain government offices were used by proponent legislators as their own.

Some projects have also been overpriced, according to COA. In some cases, the extent of overpricing reached more than 200 percent of the market prices and the government-set costs. There were medicines purchased at 269 percent more than the price set by the DOH. Says the report: "It is alleged that the proponent legislator connived with the government officials concerned, and the supplier and contractor to obtain the commissions, 'standard operating procedure', or kickbacks from the transaction."

Critics of pork barrel have been incessant in their warnings against the lax rules governing the use of the people's money. Unlike foreign-assisted projects, they observed, those funded by CDFs and insertions, which are mostly locally funded, do not undergo the usual process of evaluation to determine their feasibility.

But few heeded the warnings, least of all the legislators, who even succeeded in expanding their role on the disbursement and use of funds. Last year, congressmen inserted this in the general provisions of the budget law: "Release of funds for construction, repair and maintenance, rehabilitation, replacement, completion, betterment or improvement of roads and bridges, port works, flood control, waterworks/supply and government buildings and structures as well as for Internal Revenue Allotment and other financial support to local government units shall be made with at least 10 days prior notice to the Representative of the district concerned. Failure to comply with this section shall be considered negligence in the performance of duty subject to appropriate administrative sanction."

Read another way, lawmakers are now in a better position to misuse the budget for pursuing purely political and personal ends.