Santiago asks COA to rule on government savings
Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO
Apparently anticipating an adverse opinion from the Commission on Audit (COA), Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago is getting ready to ask the Supreme Court to rule whether heads of offices can use savings “at their absolute discretion.”
Santiago wrote COA Chairperson Grace Pulido-Tan last week asking the commission for a “study, report and recommendations” that would define the constitutional word “savings” and the constitutional phrase “pubic purpose.”
However, Tan came out in media supporting the position of Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile that he could realign the savings of the chamber, convert these into additional “maintenance and other operations expenditures,” (MOOE) and distribute the funds to fellow senators.
Enrile found himself in hot water after an unnamed senator deplored his move of excluding not only himself as Senate President but also Santiago and three other senators from receiving additional MOOE last Christmas.
Disappointed with COA chief
Santiago said in an e-mailed statement Wednesday that she felt “very disappointed and frustrated” at Tan’s position.
In her letter to the COA, Santiago would have wanted Tan to post on the Internet all income and perks of ranking government officials and how these have been spent after the commission defines the terms savings and public purpose.
“If (Tan) said that, then she may have overlooked the constitutional provisions on due process and equal protection. I hope she did not mean that COA rules vest unlimited discretion on every head of office. Every discretionary use of budget funds is always limited by constitutional provisions,” Santiago said.
Still, Santiago said she would still wait for Tan’s official response to her inquiry submitted on Jan. 10.
“I am required by law to observe the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies. This means that first I have to go to the COA, and request a study and report on the issue of constitutionality. If the COA opinion differs from mine, only then will I be allowed to file a court case. If not, the court will dismiss my petition,” she said.
Santiago’s letter to the COA was a reaction to an Inquirer report that said Enrile had realigned about P30 million of Senate savings and distributed these to fellow senators.
While all senators got P600,000 in additional MOOE from the savings in November, Enrile left himself out along with Santiago, Senate Minority Leader Alan Peter Cayetano, Senators Pia Cayetano and Antonio Trillanes IV from the distribution of two more tranches worth P1.3 million and P318,000 in December.
Cash gift
Enrile also distributed P250,000 in “cash gift” to all senators drawn from his office’s savings.
Santiago said she returned her cash gift because Enrile had given back the cookies she sent him last Christmas.
In an interview with television host Karen Davila on Wednesday, Santiago mentioned Article 6, Section 25, Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Constitution that pertained to public funds that would apparently serve as basis for her petition.
Santiago acknowledged that heads of the three branches of government, including the Senate President, were allowed by law to realign savings.
However, she said the “constitutional issue” was whether the head of a branch of government or constitutional commission could freely distribute savings to himself and/or subordinates by yearend.
Asked by Davila whether the idea was to save much during the entire year and splurge at yearend, Santiago responded: “That’s right! That is my point!”
Racket
“So that on Christmas you can give yourself and your colleagues the savings to keep them quiet? Is that just? That is the basic question,” she added in Filpino.
Santiago said she was aware that this “racket” being practiced in the Senate was being copied by other government agencies not necessarily allowed by law to realign savings for other purposes.
“Is that just? So answer me! That’s with respect to Paragraph 5,” the senator fumed.
Santiago added that Paragraph 6 of the same article in the Constitution provided that discretionary funds be spent for public purposes.
“What does ‘public purposes’ mean? That you give a senator a cash gift of P2 million? What kind of purpose is that? That senator will lie and produce a paper that would say that the money was for public purpose but actually pocketed it. Let’s be real. Let’s get real, guys,” she added.
Santiago’s P2-million estimate consisted of the P1.6 million in additional MOOE that she was deprived of and the P250,000 cash gift that she returned to Enrile’s office.
Equal protection clause
At one point, Santiago asked why Enrile did not include her or the three other senators from the distribution of additional MOOE.
“What is your basis, what are your legal criteria? Under the equal protection clause, (if) you people are similarly situated, you must treat them the same way. So what is the law that gives him the power to pick and choose where (he) will spend the money,” she said.
Earlier, however, Santiago surmised in an interview with Radyo Inquirer that she and the other senators were excluded from Enrile’s list because they had at one time or another stood up against the Senate President on various issues that hounded the chamber.
