Palace questions PDAF in budget bill Written by Tribune Thursday, 16 January 2014 00:00 font size decrease font size increase font size Print Be the first to comment! While denying that President Aquino and Malacañang are targeting Sen. Jinggoy Estrada’s P200 million congressional amendment in the national budget of which P100 million was allocated to the City of Manila, and P50 million to Caloocan City, with the other P50 million allocated to Cagayan, it appears that Aquino, through his spokesman, Edwin Lacierda, intends to deny the three local government units (LGUs) from obtaining that fund from Estrada. Other senators also had their congressional insertions and allocated their P200 million each to different government agencies while others chose to allocate theirs to the calamity fund, but these have not been questioned by the Palace and have not been given a “conditional implementation” which passes for a presidential veto. However, it was only Estrada’s congressional amendment that was singled out by Aquino, through its conditional implementation veto. Malacañang chose to claim that Congress has already lost its power to allocate the pork barrel funds or realign them as the Supreme Court (SC), Lacierda said, has already declared the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) or pork barrel as unconstitutional. However, the allocation is a congressional amendment, which is deemed legal and constitutional—until the SC rules against this—as long as the amendments are made before the signing of the budget law, since it is Congress that has the power of the purse. But Aquino has been arguing that the PDAF has already been outlawed by the the high court and the issue now is whether it is legal and constitutional for legislators to come up with congressional amendments prior to the signing into law by the President, since what the SC ruled is that it is the executive who has to implement the budget and that the legislators cannot intervene after the law is passed. Each senator has an allotment of P200 million per year while congressmen have each an allotment of P70 to P90 million annually. The pork barrel system started during the term of former, the late President Corazon Aquino, the president’s mother. Presidential spokesman Lacierda said Thursday that based on the SC order, the members of Congress already have lost their authority over the pork barrel. “So, in terms of implementation post-budget execution, definitely the legislature has no more role because that was precisely the decision of the Supreme Court where it says that the legislature has no participation after the budget has been approved by and made into law,” Lacierda said. But Lacierda also said that Budget Secretary Florencio Abad needs to study the situation on the realignment of the budget of the lawmakers, even when clearly, it was no realignment but a congressional amendment, which critics and Palace aides say is an insertion and the pork barrel. “We had a talk with Secretary Abad regarding that aspect when it first came out. The answer of Secretary Butch Abad was that, first of all, we need to study this,” Lacierda said. Lacierda said that “this was an amendment introduced by the senators, so we need to get the intention of the senators, insofar as this is concerned, since it is not specified”. Senators have already made public their justification of the congressional amendments done before the General Allocation Bill was passed and signed into law by Aquino, which has not been outlawed by the high court in its ruling. They insist that these are not insertions, and that these have been approved in the plenary. Moreover, they said that as Congress has the power of the purse, it can amend the budget any way they please. Thus, they can cut the budget of any agency and allocate the funds instead to another agency, which has been done before. Lacierda argued saying that “First, what is very, very clear under the law is that there is no more PDAF because the the Supreme Court had already mentioned no more PDAF.” Lacierda emphasized that based on that decision of the Supreme Court, legislators from both the House and Senate should have complied with the SC decision. “As to the special request, that was part of the veto message that was put in by the President in his veto message,” Lacierda said. But the SC decision on PDAF, Lacierda said had not mentioned anything about the lump sum funds. “I think, if I remember the Supreme Court decision, there was no mention of an all out wrong in the lump sum. So that’s why you have lump sum appropriations,” Lacierda said. The congressional insertions made by the lawmakers, however, were not lump sums, as the allocations were itemized, besides which, it is not the PDAF that is at issue, but the congressional amendments. However, Lacierda insists on saying it is still PDAF in his argument over the senators’ congressional amendments. Lacierda reiterated that Aquino had specified in his veto message about the conditions which have to be implemented by the DBM on the releases of funds. “But there is a requirement which is called conditional implementation included in the veto message of the President,” Lacierda said. Abad made mention that there would be conditions necessary to be followed by the senators before the appropriated funds would be released to the intended beneficiaries of the pork barrel. Lacierda said the reforms on pork barrel disbursements would be introduced in the 2015 national budget. “This coming budget for 2015, the legislators would have more opportunity and more time to prepare the budget, the items, for instance, where to allocate the budget, because that is part of their role as legislators,” Lacierda said. Lacierda said the legislators would have to adjust to the new set up of budget system under the 2014 budgetary releases. “They will adjust to what we call the new way of budget discussions with the executive branch. Taking into consideration the Supreme Court decision,” Lacierda said. Lacierda said the alleged “insertions” which were approved in the bicameral conference of both Houses, often called the third chamber, where both houses agree on a unified bill. “This does not only apply to the budget. It applies also to any legislative action where both Houses have two different versions, and they reconcile the issues in the bicameral committee,” Lacierda said, adding that this was a part of the legislative process. “As to the propriety of the insertion, I think we will leave it to the legislators to explain that because, primarily, that was their amendment,” Lacierda said. The Supreme Court decision came toward the end of 2013 when Aquino and his aides were preparing for the 2014 budget, Lacierda said. “If you’re looking forward now, you have enough time, knowing already the mandate of the Supreme Court decision,” Lacierda said. “The legislators would find enough time for them to be able to provide a better preference for what they think the budget should be. I think in this coming 2015 budget, the legislators would have much time to prepare for the budget. Remember 2013, we had issues because of PDAF whether it was constitutional,” Lacierda said. Lacierda said the decision of Senator Estrada to give a portion of his PDAF to the city of Manila this year is something that could be explained by Abad. “You know, that’s something that we’ll defer to Secretary Butch Abad. But all I am saying is that there is a preparation now, a lengthier preparation for the legislators to deal with to prepare for the 2015 budget,” Lacierda said. Lacierda said the SC decision has been clear that the legislators cannot participate in post-budget execution. Paul Aquino Published in Headlines
Posted on: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 06:44:38 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015