But the Administration still needs a fig leaf to cover whatever naked intent it may have. It must present to the public a plausible excuse for a presidential veto on the budget, or it would risk the resentment of the sectors anticipating the benefits that the 2007 budget would bring. The Senate rejection of a P4.5-billion "School Feeding Program" is not a reasonable basis for giving up the R687-billion increase it would get with the 2007 budget.

In addition to the arithmetic, the Senate objection to the School Feeding Program has logic and experience behind it. The item passed by the congressmen is not really a School Feeding Program, as originally conceived by DepEd; it is a Rice Distribution Program, patterned after an earlier program tested late in 2004.

The model for the Rice Distribution Program was the Food for School Program (FSP), which was prompted by the SWS survey in August/September 2004 on the incidence of hunger in the country. Ironically, the FSP idea came from the Senate. It was Sen. Ralph Recto who proposed using the schools as centers for rice distribution.

DepEd, from the outset, expressed grave reservations about the project. But DSWD received instructions from President Arroyo to implement a pilot on the Recto proposal. Since FSP was a school-based project, DepEd had to be involved in the project. DepEd helped select 108 schools in the National Capital Region (Manila, Quezon City, Caloocan), in Bulacan (Region III), and in Rizal and Cavite (Region IV) for the test run.

The plan called for identifying 50000 pupils in Grade 1 and Grade II. In the project area who would receive 1 kilo of rice at the end of each school day. The actual number of beneficiaries numbered some 480,000. The project planned for the distribution of rice to the chosen children over a total of 95 days from November 2004 to March 2005.

The summary evaluation report, meant for a power point presentation, did not include enough information to permit an assessment of the impact on malnutrition and absenteeism. It did surface a number of "problems and issues."

One cluster of observations evaluated the FSP concept and approach. FSP, the report noted, served as food assistance, but was not a feeding program. The report indicated that "rice addressed only energy deficiency of the clientele, but not other food groups needed by the body." Hence, the extent to which it addressed the problem of malnutrition was somewhat unclear.

Other items focused on the administrative requirements of the program. The NFA deposited the rice at the school gates. Teachers and pupils then had to carry the rice to the storage room. Even during the period when NFA delivered rice in one-kilo bags, some repacking had to be done because of the sub-standard quality of plastic bags used, poor sealing and improper handling. The repacking task became more burdensome when NFA started delivering sacks of rice, instead of pre-packed, one-kilo bags.

Apart from the manual tasks imposed on the teachers and pupils, the program also required the completion of "numerous forms/reports." Teachers had to accomplish the documentation as an assignment on top of their regular teaching loads. In schools with big Grade I and Grade II enrollment, the time allotted for the rice distribution process proved inadequate, further cutting into the school time of the teachers.

As in many government projects, there were complaints about delayed releases of funds. Hence, the first recommendation was that "program funds should be released before the start of implementation." NFA apparently claimed that it had not been paid R98 million for rice it had delivered.

The joint DepEd/DSWD recommendation, following the experience with the FSP test-run, was a return to the original school-feeding program concept: "schools should be provided with rice just enough for feeding purposes. Family rations should be distributed by NFA or DSWD." But, looking at FSP from a larger perspective, the report suggested that "rice subsidy is likely to develop dole-out mentality among target families."

Neither DepEd nor DSWD implemented FSP during the 2005-2006 schoolyear. The problem of malnourished children in schools persisted, and DepEd did ask for funds for its traditional school-feeding program. But FSP, like Dracula, has now returned in the budget passed by the Lower House.

If the 2007 budget is not passed, the blame should not fall on the Senate, which was willing to approve the amount for other projects of DepEd. But the congressmen and the President would owe the public an explanation.

The congressmen must explain why they chose to revive, with increased funding, a program that both DepEd and DSWD, the agencies which would bear the responsibility for the implementation, had tested, found deficient, and discontinued.

The Arroyo Administration must explain why it chose to defend to the bitter end a minuscule part of the total budget that supported a conceptually flawed rice distribution scheme — at the cost of forfeiting a budgetary increase of over P680 billion for national development programs.