HISTORY OF WORLD TEACHERS DAY

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) believes that education, culture and communication are the means to building peace. UNESCO inaugurated World Teachers Day in 1994 to focus attention on the contributions and achievements of teachers, and to highlight teachers concerns and priorities regarding education. October 5 was selected as the date to internationally celebrate teachers because on that date in 1966 a special intergovernmental conference adopted the UNESCO recommendation concerning the Status of Teachers. For the first time, this recommendation gave teachers throughout the world an instrument that defines their responsibilities and asserts their rights. In adopting this recommendation, governments unanimously recognized the importance for society to have competent, qualified and motivated teachers. Positive response to World Teachers Day over the past 11 years shows a significant awareness, understanding and appreciation for the vital contribution that teachers make to education. On October 5, 1966, the Special Intergovernmental Conference on the Status of Teachers in Paris, France, was closed and the "Recommendation concerning the Status of Teachers" was signed by representatives of UNESCO and International Labour Organization. On October 12, 1997, the 29th session of UNESCO's General Conference was opened. During this conference, on November 11, 1997, the "Recommendation concerning the Status of Higher Education Teaching Personnel" was adopted. On October 5, 1994, the first World Teachers' Day was held. This event has been organized on the same date each year since then. However, local events may be on some other date close to October 5, so that they do not fall during fall (northern hemisphere) or spring (southern hemisphere) school vacations. In 2002, Canada Post issued a postage stamp to commemorate World Teachers' Day.

Priority Development Assistance Fund

The Priority Development Assistance Fund scam, also called the PDAF scam or the pork barrel scam, is a political scandal involving the alleged misuse by several members of theCongress of the Philippines of their Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF, popularly called "pork barrel"), a lump-sum discretionary fund granted to each member of Congress for spending on priority development projects of the Philippine government, mostly on the local level. The scam was first exposed in the Philippine Daily Inquirer on July 12, 2013, with the six-part expos of the Inquirer on the scam pointing to businesswoman Janet Lim-Napoles as the scam's mastermind after Benhur K. Luy, her second cousin and former personal assistant, was rescued by agents of the National Bureau of Investigation on March 22, 2013, four months after he was detained by Napoles at her unit at the Pacific Plaza Towers in Fort Bonifacio. Initially centering on Napoles' involvement in the 2004 Fertilizer Fund scam, the government investigation on Luy's testimony has since expanded to cover Napoles' involvement in a wider scam involving the misuse of PDAF funds from 2003 to 2013. It is estimated that the Philippine government was defrauded of some 10 billion in the course of the scam, having been diverted to Napoles, participating members of Congress and other government officials. Aside from the PDAF and the fertilizer fund maintained by the Department of Agriculture, around 900 million in royalties earned from the Malampaya gas field were also lost to the scam. The scam has provoked public outrage, with calls being made on the Internet for popular protests to demand the abolition of the PDAF, and the order for Napoles' arrest sparking serious discussion online. Although the history of pork barrel-like discretionary funds in the Philippines dates back to 1922, during theAmerican colonial period, the PDAF in its current form was only established during the administration of Corazon Aquino with the creation of the Countryside Development Fund (CDF) in 1990. With 2.3 billion in initial funding, the CDF was designed to allow legislators to fund small-scale infrastructure or community projects which fell outside the scope of the national infrastructure program, which was often restricted to large infrastructure items. The CDF was later renamed the PDAF in 2000, during the administration of Joseph Estrada. Since 2008, every member of the House of Representatives usually receives an annual PDAF allocation of 70 million, while every senator receives an annual allocation of 200 million. The President also benefits from a PDAF-like allocation, the President's

Social Fund (PSF), worth around 1 billion.Contrary to public belief, however, PDAF allocations are not actually released to members of Congress. Rather, disbursements under the PDAF are coursed via implementing agencies of the Philippine government, and are limited to "soft" and "hard" projects: the former largely referring to noninfrastructure projects (such as scholarships and financial assistance programs, although small infrastructure projects are also considered "soft" projects), and the latter referring to infrastructure projects which would be coursed via the Department of Public Works and Highways. Because presidential systems are often prone to political gridlock, the PDAF is often used as a means to generate majority legislative support for the programs of the executive. Furthermore, because PDAF allocations are released by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), PDAF allocations are often dependent on the relationship a legislator has with the sitting President. For example, during the latter years of the Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo administration, she was more generous in allocating PDAF funds in the annual national budget in order to win the favor of legislators. PDAF allocation has gradually increased over the years. For example, before Arroyo stepped down, the last PDAF allocated was for the year 2010 at 1 0.86 billion, but when the Benigno Aquino III administration passed its first budget for 2011, the allocation more than doubled to 24.62 billion. The PDAF has proven to be very unpopular, with numerous calls for its abolition. In 1996, the Philippine Daily Inquirer published an expos on systematic corruption in the CDF, with an anonymous congressman elaborating how legislators and other government officials earned from overpricing projects in order to receive large commissions. Public outrage over the misuse of the CDF was instrumental in the enactment of reforms which led to the formation of the PDAF. The constitutionality of the PDAF has also been challenged in the Supreme Court. In 1994, the constitutionality of the CDF was challenged by the Philippine Constitution Association, arguing that the CDF's mechanisms encroach on the executive's power of implementing the budget passed by the legislature, but the Court ruled the CDF constitutional under the legislative's "power of the purse". This ruling was reaffirmed in 2001, when the PDAF was challenged again in the Supreme Court. Legislators themselves are torn on the abolition of the PDAF, with some supporting total abolition, others supporting increased regulation to minimize abuse of PDAF disbursements, and others opposed to it.

JOURNAL 2.3 JOURNAL 2.4

Reaksyon: Pagpapahalaga: Kaugnayan: Reaksyon: Kaugnayan: Pagpapahalaga: Interpretasyon: Pagpapahalaga: Kaugnayan sa Ekonomiks: