Video by Noy Morcoso/INQUIRER.net
MANILA, Philippines–They want to keep their pork and more.
Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago on Monday cautioned lawmakers against trifling with the proposed 2015 national budget by keeping their “pork barrel” and agreeing to Malacañang’s declaring as savings at any time of the year at any stage any project the legislature had approved.
The retention of the pork barrel and the redefinition of savings are two “dangerous minefields” in the proposed P2.606-trillion 2015 budget, she said in a privilege speech.
“The most important reason is to save Congress’ power of the purse. Through the years, Congress’ power of the purse has been steadily eroded, diminished, and reduced—all with the consent and cooperation of Congress. Whatever is left has to be saved,” Santiago said.
“Does the 2015 budget still contain pork barrel, meaning lump-sum funds to be spent at the discretion of the legislators?” the senator asked.
“Let me raise a big question about the 2015 budget: Last summer, why were [members of the House of Representatives] asked to submit lists of projects they endorsed for their districts? I understand that the form distributed did not bear any letterhead,” she said.
Santiago said she learned this from a University of the Philippines economics professor. “She heard of this project afoot, which is very, very suspicious, except that I was not given any more details,” she later told reporters.
‘Pork barrelism’
This act of recommending projects smacked of “pork barrelism,” she said.
“Let’s just assume for the sake of argument that this is true. Why would anyone distribute slips of paper and ask representatives in the Lower House to write down what projects they desire for their districts? That’s the very essence of pork barrelism,” she said in the news briefing.
Santiago noted that some P37.3 billion was allotted for the departments of public works, health, social welfare, and labor, and the Commission on Higher Education for certain projects.
Nearly half of the amount—P18.369 billion—was allotted for the public works department’s “land infrastructure program,” she said.
The Supreme Court has declared unconstitutional lump-sum appropriations under the graft-ridden Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), or pork barrel, following widespread public outrage over the alleged diversion of P10 billion in lawmakers’ allocations to ghost projects and kickbacks over the years.
The court also declared unconstitutional Malacañang’s Disbursement Acceleration Program, or DAP, a little-known government savings impounding mechanism that came to light after Sen. Jinggoy Estrada charged that the Palace distributed additional pork as “incentive” for the conviction of Chief Justice Renato Corona in his Senate impeachment trial in 2012.
Following the court ruling, Congress scrapped the PDAF in the 2014 national budget. Malacañang, however, filed a motion for reconsideration on the Supreme Court ruling on the DAP.
New definition
In her speech, Santiago dwelt at length on the redefinition of savings in the proposed 2015 General Appropriations Act to an extent that these could be declared from any project approved by Congress any time, not at the end of the year.
Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago gestures during her privilige speech on Unconstitutional and other Aspects of 2015 Budget at the Session Hall of the Senate on Monday. INQUIRER PHOTO/NINO JESUS ORBETA
“In the form of so-called savings, can the President still transfer an appropriation from one agency to another? The answer is yes,” she said.
The 2015 budget, Santiago said, invents a new definition of savings in Section 68, which provides that savings can be declared at any time for whatever might be considered “justifiable reasons.”
Section 68 provides that savings could arise from the discontinuance or abandonment of a program, activity or project (PAP) that would make it impossible for an agency to implement any of these “at any time,” she said.
It also declares savings when any program or project isn’t started in the first semester, or first two quarters of 2015, she said. This was the definition provided by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM).
In contrast, the 2011 budget defined savings as portions that were still available after the work, activity or purpose had been canceled, finally discontinued or abandoned, she added.
Broad and vague
The use of savings under the 2015 budget was broader, and its new definition refers to discontinuance or abandonment at any time. The old definition referred to final discontinuance or abandonment, the senator observed.
“As a humble student of constitutional law, allow me to observe that the new definition is unconstitutional for being over-broad and for being vague,” she said.
“Here what we seek to protect is not freedom of expression, but the congressional power of the purse,” she said.
In voiding the DAP, the Supreme Court justices struck down the executive branch’s practices of declaring savings from unreleased appropriations, and using unprogrammed or standby appropriations.
They ruled that savings as well as standby appropriations could only be declared at the end of a fiscal year.
Santiago said a deferral of a project could be construed as discontinuance or abandonment, and this same project may be resubmitted for congressional authorization next year or in two years.
“This contravenes the constitutional mandate of Congress to authorize appropriations but may later be declared abandoned by the DBM secretary, at its whims and caprices, and then he may use the appropriations for another project that has not been previously authorized by Congress but which falls within the more general PAP,” she said.
Santiago recommended that Senate should not approve the budget unless the “offensive” redefinitions were removed, and if at all, the senators should explain their vote on the matter “so the public can be guided in 2016.”
Otherwise, the original definition of savings should be retained, she said.
Open to ‘refinements’
After her speech, Santiago said Sen. Francis Escudero, chair of the finance committee, told her that the chamber would not adopt the new definition.
Sought for comment, Escudero said: “She was referring to the NEP (National Expenditure Program) or the budget as proposed by the executive. We did not carry the definition in the NEP. We have our own which, to my mind, is compliant with the SC decision. We are of course open to further refinements from our colleagues to make it more compliant.”
Santiago also questioned the allocation of a huge sum for an irrigation system under the Department of the Interior and Local Government, when this should be under the National Irrigation Administration.
“Are these local politicians expecting some windfall during the campaign period? Is that why the budget is skewed like that?” she told reporters.
The senator also said that by submitting errata, the DBM has been “haphazard with the budget.”
The errata consisted of 269 pages and contained additions, realignments, insertions, and typographical errors amounting to P4.7 billion.
These include P3.87 billion for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit, P998.8 million for the Bureau of Customs and P296.9 million for the Department of Tourism.
RELATED STORIES
Santiago hits pork barrel, ‘savings’ definition in 2015 budget
Senators favor bill to redefine savings