Pork barrel politics is as commonly practiced and proved effective in its country of origin the United States as in other countries like the Philippines, but it may not be the case in Indonesia.

Not only will the spending proposal, called the aspiration fund, contradict the 2005 law on state finance, which requires the orderly, efficient, transparent and accountable management of state funds but, more than that, it breaches the Constitution's division of labor between the executive and the legislative branches of power.

The paradox of the reform era in the last 12 years has seen the country shift closer to the parliamentary system of government from the original presidential system of government, and now the politicians intend to erode the Constitution further by seizing the government's executive role.

Fear about the withering way of the Constitution has been rife when the ruling coalition, for the pragmatic reasons of keeping them solid following the Bank Century brouhaha, formed a joint secretariat that is allowed to exercise the President's authority to summon Cabinet ministers, although limited to those who represent members of the pro-government parties. So far, the authority has remained unexecuted, but defiance of the Constitution is there.

Regrettably, the aspiration fund was proposed through the joint secretariat mechanism, at least according to chairman of the Golkar wing at the House, Setya Novanto, who claimed the budget spending scheme had been approved by the ruling coalition.

Such a claim proves inaccurate, as other coalition partners like the Prosperous Justice Party and National Awakening Party are against the aspiration fund.

Golkar's all-out defense of the pork barrel politics has gone too far, as the party has appeared to involve political intimidation to reach its goal, by warning that the upcoming deliberation of the 2011 draft budget will deadlock if the aspiration fund issue is removed from the table.

If approved by the House, the spending proposal would let each of the 560 legislators disburse Rp 15 billion (US$1.6 million) in taxpayers' money to develop their constituencies.

Golkar insists that the proposal will promote a fair distribution of the development funds and, therefore, develop disadvantaged regions, but the facts reveal about 90 percent of the politicians represent developed regions. The pro-poor premise is a fallacy itself, as the aspiration fund will, on the contrary, widen the gap between developed and underdeveloped regions.

In terms of political implications, the aspiration fund resembles the trillions of direct cash assistance and other pro-poor schemes that helped President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono win a second mandate in 2009. However, the two are different in terms of accountability.

It is simply difficult to imagine how House lawmakers, who cannot even submit appropriate accountability reports every time they complete an overseas trip, could take account of the use of the aspiration fund. The politicians may have counted their chickens before they hatched, but overlooked the administrative responsibility for the use of the taxpayers' money.

What is more concerning are the corrupt practices that have been associated with the House ever since it gained more powers as a result of the political reform.

In the hands of the politicians, the money could be used to fund political campaigns or smooth business cronyism, according to Indonesia Corruption Watch's Ibrahim Fahmi Badoh.

Past and current hearings at the Corruption Court have discovered graft practices have taken root in the legislative body and, in some cases, involve political parties as institutions.

The House would have been better catching up with its own still-outstanding work. A backlog of bills has been left untouched, since lawmakers are focusing more on their checks and balance function instead of legislative duties. The fact has raised a question about the lawmakers' capability of making the law, while people are used to seeing them merely making noise.