House to return control of P2B to Supreme Court
Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. Inquirer file photo
Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. is confident that the Senate will back the House decision to return to the Supreme Court control of the P2-billion employment fund in the proposed 2012 budget.
Belmonte said Budget Secretary Florencio Abad would have to abide by the decision to prevent a potentially divisive confrontation between Congress and the Supreme Court, which under the Constitution is guaranteed fiscal autonomy.
“I think the Senate is quite sympathetic to what we are saying, including Abad, and he might be sympathetic now on this. We are just discussing the fine print,” Belmonte said at the weekly Ugnayan sa Batasan forum.
The House of Representatives earlier approved in plenary voting the P1.8-trillion budget for 2012, including the pooling of all funds meant to fill up vacant positions in the judiciary, Congress and other independent agencies under the P101-billion Miscellaneous Personnel Benefits Fund (MPBF) to be controlled by President Benigno Aquino III.
Ilocos Norte Representative Rodolfo Fariñas and Majority Leader Neptali Gonzales II earlier said the MPBF would be erased from the 2012 budget during the on-going period of amendments before submitting it to the Senate.
Senate displeased
The majority of the senators have voiced their displeasure over the loss of fiscal autonomy of the Supreme Court under the MPBF.
Fariñas and Gonzales said the P2 billion fund would be returned to the high tribunal on condition that this would be used solely for its intended purpose: to fill up vacancies.
Abad has vigorously lobbied for the MPBF to end what he felt was an unacceptable practice of using the funds meant for hiring people for other purposes.
In a text message to the Philippine Daily Inquirer, Abad said he would meet with Senator Franklin Drilon, Senate finance committee chairman, and Representative Joseph Emilio Abaya, House appropriations committee chairman, “to hammer out a formulation that does not violate fiscal autonomy—nondiminution and regular and automatic release—while still complying with the requirements of transparency and accountability.”
“Senator Drilon has a formula and that’s what we will be meeting on. If that is possible, we are open to a reformulation,” Abad said.
“We do not aim to confront anybody; we just seek to ensure that our people are aware of how public funds are being spent,” he added.
‘Cop out’
Belmonte said that the idea behind MPBF was fine but it was taken to the extreme that it went against the Constitution.
“It’s a very good management strategy, except there are laws we have to follow. That is the reason why there is a problem. The money would be given to them but with strings attached. At least the money is in their hands,” Belmonte said.
“It’s better that these things are ironed out while the budget is still in the period of adjustment,” he added.
Isabela Representative Georgidi Aggabao reckoned that the move of the House leaders to drop the MPBF like a hot potato was a “cop out.”
“I don’t see how strengthening the procedure for fund disbursement could lead to impairment of fiscal autonomy. The fund allotted for unfilled positions simply put in an account which was, callable at notice,” Aggabao said in a text message.
“There is no diminution in the budget. I think the misunderstanding has more to do with accounting and budgeting procedures than substantive. As constitutional guardian of the purse, there is wide latitude for Congress to devise creative budget and accounting procedures designed to stymie juggling of funds,” he said.
