House leader says approval of 2021 budget, suspension of session did not violate rules, Constitution

Screenshot from the House of Representatives Youtube account

MANILA, Philippines — The House of Representatives’ move to approve on second reading the proposed 2021 budget despite unfinished deliberations as well as the suspension of session until November 16 did not violate any rules and the Constitution, Deputy Speaker Neptali Gonzales II said Wednesday.

Gonzales said this after leaders of the House drew ire for their actions during Tuesday’s session when lawmakers approved on second reading House Bill No. 7727 or the 2021 General Appropriations Bill (GAB), immediately followed by the suspension of session until November.

Some lawmakers, however, claimed that the process the lower chamber implemented was in violation of House rules and the Constitution.

Motion to end period of debates valid

It was Speaker Alan Peter Cayetano who raised the motion to terminate the period of debates on the proposed 2021 budget even if funding for several government agencies’ have yet to be scrutinized.

Cayetano invoked Section 55 of the rules of the House which tackles the process of moving to close the debate on a measure.

This move, however, was questioned especially that the section stipulates that “a motion to close the debate on a measure shall be in order after three speeches in favor and two against, or after only one speech in favor and none against.”

“Provided, That within the last fifteen days before adjournment, a motion to close debate on a measure shall be in order after two speeches in favor and one against, or after only one speech in favor and none against,” the rules further states.

Some lawmakers argued that no debates on the motion took place.

But Gonzales said that while Cayetano’s move was unprecedented, it was still in accordance with the rules.

“We have been deliberating on the GAB for more than a week, and several members have spoken in favor of it and more than two members (surely) have spoken against it. Thus, procedurally Section 55 can be invoked, as in fact, it came into play,” Gonzales explained.

“I have been a majority leader for nine years and have been in the Committee on Rules for six congresses. I can say that Section 55 was a familiar remedy used in the past several congresses in several deliberations of the GAB, to terminate the period of debate and to expedite its passage,” the lawmaker added.

Suspension of session

Gonzales likewise defended the early suspension of session in the House until November 16. Under the House calendar, the lower chamber is scheduled to suspend session on October 16.

The House leader said the plenary did not violate its rules when it decided to go on break earlier than expected.

“It is the prerogative of the House. Besides, the committees will continue to function. And there are no other priority bills in the calendar of business to be taken up for next week,” Gonzales said.

“Plenary cannot be guilty of violating its own Rules. When plenary decides something , that automatically becomes the Rule. If it runs counter to an existing rule, the latter rule is deemed amended,” he added.

Gonzales also debunked claims that House violated the Constitution when it suspended a session for more than three days without the consent of the Senate.

Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman earlier said that the suspension of the sessions of the House for a period of 40 days from October 6 to November 15, without the prior consent of the Senate, violates Section 16 (5) of Article VI of the Constitution.

The said section states that: “Neither House during the sessions of the Congress shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.”

But Gonzales said these were just “directory provision” in the Constitution or “a mere instruction or direction of no obligatory force and involves no invalidating consequence for its disregard.”

“Another example of a ‘directory provision” in the Constitution is when it mandated that the Supreme Court ‘shall’ decide cases within 24 months from the time it is submitted for Decision, the Supreme Court held that the 24 months period is a mere ‘directory provision’ and therefore do not always abide by this,” Gonzales said.

Approval on second reading

The approval of the proposed 2021 budget on second reading also met the constitutional requirement for passage of any bill, said Gonzales.

“The GAB underwent first reading when it was referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]. We started to deliberate on it last week and was approved on second reading yesterday,” Gonzales said.

“We will approve it on third reading on November 16 when printed copies are distributed three days before,” he added.

A number of lawmakers have questioned the process implemented by the House leaders, with some saying that the budget was “railroaded.”

CFC