Respect the budget

The difference in the current maneuver is that the insertions are done in the NEP to skirt the ‘post-enactment stages’ of the budget process as specified in the SC ruling.

A fair reminder should be issued to the caretakers of public finances and leaders in government that the Supreme Court had ruled that lump sum items such as the Priority Development Assistance Fund and the reallocation of funds in the budget such as in the Disbursement Acceleration Program scheme are unconstitutional.

A 2013 decision of the high tribunal was very specific about the pork barrel as invalid, along with similar efforts in the legislature to accumulate discretionary funds.

In 2014, the SC also thumbed down the Presidential pork barrel raised through the DAP.

In the 2024 National Expenditure Program which is the Executive’s proposed budget submitted to Congress, P215 billion worth of flood mitigation projects were found to use methods that are suspiciously similar to the outlawed PDAF scheme.

Based on SC’s landmark decision such budget items are also illegal.

The SC ruling not only struck down the PDAF but also “various Congressional insertions” and other similar practices that allow legislators to “intervene, assume or participate” in any of the various post-enactment stages of the budget execution.

The difference in the current maneuver is that the insertions are done in the NEP to skirt the “post-enactment stages” of the budget process as specified in the SC ruling.

The spirit or substance of the decision was, however, all about removing the discretionary powers of Congress over, what the SC decision stated, as a Constitutional violation: “Such as but not limited to the areas of project identification, modification and revision of project identification, fund release and/or fund realignment, unrelated to the power of Congressional oversight.”

The ruling basically disallowed the practice of insertions and realignment since it sought to re-establish check and balance between the legislature and the Palace as the pork barrel scheme is the Executive’s leverage to get members of the legislature to enact its priority laws.

After the SC ruling, efforts to create new sources of legislative pork have been a yearly ritual in Congress that even resulted in friction between House leaders and the Department of Budget and Management during the early years of President Rodrigo Duterte.

The DAP was created apparently to fill the vacuum created by the PDAF’s removal.

Under the Palace scheme under the Aquino administration, savings were centralized under the DAP which was then used as a slush fund for legislators.

DAP funds were used in the campaign to oust the late Chief Justice Renato Corona.

The SC decision disallowed the following:

* The withdrawal of unobligated allotments from the implementing agencies and the declaration of the withdrawn unobligated allotments and unreleased appropriations as savings before the end of the fiscal year and without complying with the statutory definition of savings contained in the General Appropriations Act;

* Cross-border transfers of savings of the executive department to offices outside the executive department; and

* Funding of projects, activities, and programs not covered by appropriations in the General Appropriations Act.

The court also declared void the use of unprogrammed funds despite the absence of a certification by the National Treasurer that the revenue collections exceeded the revenue targets or non-compliance with the conditions provided in the relevant General Appropriations Act.

Some P150 billion in public funds, from 2011 to 2013, were channeled to the DAP, which was done through the first two schemes that the SC declared as unconstitutional.

The SC made a statement in junking the DAP and PDAF which was to outlaw the use of discretionary or lump sum funds in the budget that usually end up in the pockets of public officials.

The P24 billion annual PDAF was a mere part of the huge Special Purpose Funds which in turn is just one of the many lump sums that make up as much as a third of the yearly budget.

The ruling was consistent with the public clamor for the removal of all types of lump-sum items in the national budget.

Undertaking budget maneuvers such as spending a ridiculous P215 billion for flood control has the obvious aim of providing legislators their pork allocation that contravenes the SC ruling on PDAF and public sentiment on the proper use of the budget.

*****
Credit belongs to: tribune.net.ph