The budget and the nature of legislative work

BY ANTONIO CONTRERAS      DECEMBER 13, 2018

AN early morning radio program asked its listeners which would they prefer: a reenacted budget as a consequence of the failure to pass the General Appropriations Act (GAA) for 2019, or the proposed budget lambasted by Senator Lacson for allegedly being loaded with pork.

And the response was expectedly not surprising. The listeners overwhelmingly preferred a reenacted budget, even if it means jeopardizing funding for new programs planned by government agencies, including the salary increases of government personnel and the much-touted infrastructure projects under the Build! Build! Build! initiative of the President.

The preference for a reenacted budget was influenced by the allegations that the 2019 budget is filled with insertions made by members of the House of Representatives, which many readily associated with the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), or the pork barrel, which was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. What heightened the suspicion of malicious intent was the revelation by Senator Lacson that a substantial portion of the insertions were made to allegedly benefit the congressional districts of Speaker Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and Majority Leader Nonoy Andaya and their allies. Arroyo and Andaya have both denied the allegations. They pointed to the leadership of former Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez as the one that prepared the 2019 budget, even as the House minority is putting the blame on Budget Secretary Ben Diokno.

It is important to clarify the legality of any budget insertion. It must be emphasized that what the Supreme Court ruled as unconstitutional was the practice of lump-sum appropriations allotted to each member of Congress, without identifying the projects that would be funded by these monies. This was because this practice led to a situation where projects were identified by members during the post-enactment period after a budget had already been approved into law and was already being implemented by the Executive Department. The Constitution has bestowed the power of the purse to the entire Congress, and while each member can during the crafting of the law identify specific projects which would benefit their constituents, they cannot practice such outside the plenary powers of Congress and after the budget becomes a law. PDAF was ruled as unconstitutional because individual senators and representatives were not only usurping the powers of the entire Congress when they decided on which projects were to be funded from their lump-sum appropriations; they were also intruding into the powers of the executive departments to implement the GAA.

Thus, it should be clarified that the Supreme Court did not rule as unconstitutional the practice where members of Congress insert into the budget projects that would benefit their constituents, as long as these are not lumpsum appropriations, are reflected as items in the GAA and are not made during the post-enactment phase.

In fact, while it may sound unpalatable to people like Senator Lacson, and to those who readily condemn the principle behind budget insertions, this is precisely the essence of representation by elected legislators of their constituency interests. It must be emphasized that the budget is a law, and it is Congress that makes laws. It is also stipulated in the Constitution that the budget should emanate from the House of Representatives, pursuant to the principle that its members are precisely elected to represent their constituencies.

Infrastructure projects and development programs that require government funding need a legal budget cover in the GAA. Thus, while the budget is prepared by the Executive Department, it is the House that initiates its conversion into a law. And there is no constitutional fetter that prohibits any member of the House, and later of the Senate, to move for the addition, removal or realignment of items in the budget. Under the principle of representative government, it is the sworn duty of the district and party-list representatives to represent the interests of their constituents. After all, it is not only in the renaming of towns and their conversion into cities that the legislative performance of House members is weighed and judged, but also in the development projects for which they have actually secured funding for their constituents. This is part of their lawmaking duties.

Part of legislation, which includes the preparation and approval of the GAA, is the process where members of Congress, while pushing for their own constituency interests, also keep watch over the fairness and equitable distribution of benefits that may accrue to the different legislative districts.

The House is necessarily more parochial than the Senate, as its focus is on the narrow concerns of their districts and sectors. The Senate is expected to have a broader view, and it is expected that senators would look at the budget using a more national-level lens, and ensure that the allocation of funds to the various districts is a function of need, and not of political expediency, or a reflection of patronage politics where the budget is used as a leverage to secure alliances and punish the political opposition. Thus, we cannot fault Senator Lacson for scrutinizing the budget to ensure that a fair distribution is made.

However, as Senator Lacson wages war over what he calls pork, he should realize that budget insertions are not necessarily bad, considering that budget preparation is a legitimate exercise of the power given to Congress by the Constitution. As a senator, he must understand that district and party-list representatives are elected by their specific constituencies to represent their interests in the crafting of the budget.

In fact, while it is perfectly logical for the district and party-list representatives to identify projects to meet the needs of their constituents, what should be ended is the granting of the same privilege to senators, considering that they do not have specific constituents. The senators, therefore, and under the principle of constituency representation, are not entitled to be given an allotment of P200 million each for their pet projects.

However, it is also not correct to treat legislative districts and sectors as equal, which is essentially what is implied when every member of the House of Representatives is allotted the equal amount of P60 million each as a quota against which they will account for projects in their respective districts and sectors which would be inserted in the budgets of government agencies, and it is expected that no district will get more than the others. This is an impractical standard. At the very least, the Executive Department must ensure that the budget it prepares must already reflect a fair and equitable distribution of projects, considering both those that are prioritized by the national government, as well as those that are considered priorities by the local government units

What the House and the Senate should focus on when they review the budget prepared by the Executive Department is to ensure equity in the distribution of projects in the various districts and sectors, regardless of political party affiliation and position in Congress. The duty of every member of the House is to scrutinize the budget to ensure that his or her constituency’s interests are addressed, regardless of the amount. The duty of senators, considering that their constituency is the entire citizenry, is to ensure that the budget prepared by the House correctly promotes the larger national interest, and not that of any specific constituency.

https://www.manilatimes.net/the-budget-and-the-nature-of-legislative-work/481953/