SC urged to junk 2015 budget’s P700-B ‘pork’

By Riza Lozada 

Budget watchdogs and anti-pork advocates have banded together and asked the Supreme Court (SC) to remove parts of the 2015 budget law that allowed President Aquino to have almost unlimited discretionary funds through the juggling of budgetary items. 

In a petition, the group—led by former National Treasurer Leonor Briones, convenor of Social Watch Philippines, and human-rights lawyer Harry Roque—asked the High Court to declare as unconstitutional Sections 70 and 73 of the 2015 General Appropriations Act (GAA), National Budget Circular 559, and the special provision on Mr. Aquino’s special purpose funds (SPF).

The provision, which states that “the amounts appropriated herein shall be administered by the Executive Branch; Savings from the said fund may be used to augment deficiency in the budget of the Judicial Branch, the Legislative Branch…” covers the E-Government Fund, the International Commitments Fund, the Miscellaneous Personnel Benefits Fund, the National Disaster Risk Reduction Management Fund, pension and gratuity fund, and the funds for the rehabilitation and reconstruction program of areas affected by Supertyphoon Yolanda.

Prior to the filing of the anti-pork petition, it was learned that the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) was preparing to release to local government units (LGUs) some P28 billion in lump sums in the 2015 budget.

The DBM issued the guidelines for the release of the “special allotments” to the LGUs only in June, although the amount was earmarked in the last 2015 budget.

The budget department attributed the deferment of the release to some delays in the formulation of the implementing rules. But observers noted the proximity of the release date to the start of the campaign period for next year’s polls.

Named respondents to the anti-pork suit were Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa Jr., Budget Secretary Florencio Abad, Senate President Franklin Drilon and Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr.

The petition seeks the imposition of a temporary restraining order (TRO) on the parts of the budget cited in the complaint.

If granted, the TRO would freeze up to P700 billion, or nearly a third of the P2.6-trillion 2015 budget that Lacson and Briones earlier said constituted lump sums or the so-called presidential pork.

“While Section 73 of the 2015 GAA provides the rules on realignment and reprioritization, it does not clearly set out the terms when such realignment and reprioritization may be made. It does not provide sufficient standards as to what factual circumstances are necessary before realignment or reprioritization may be made,” the petition noted.

The particular clause, it added, does not outline the circumstances that are necessary to trigger the authority to realign and reprioritize (the funds in the budget).

“Thus, Section 73 of the 2015 GAA gives heads of agencies the unbridled discretion to realign and reprioritize anytime, and as they wish. The exception clause of Section 25(5), Article VI of the Constitution, as a limitation on the power of the Legislative, should be construed strictly against the latter. Otherwise, an exception would become the general rule by Legislative fiat, in glaring violation of the Constitution,” the petition said.

It also noted that the “Special Purpose Funds under the administration of the Executive Branch violated the prohibition against cross-border transfers and the fiscal autonomy of the judiciary, constitutional commissions and the Ombudsman.”

“Section 25(5), Article VI of the Constitution only allows the President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice, and the heads of constitutional commissions ‘to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices.’ Cross-border transfer is prohibited,” the petition said.

The petitioners noted that the High Court already said in a previous case that the Constitution “has delineated borders between their offices, such that funds appropriated for one office are prohibited from crossing over to another office even in the guise of augmentation of a deficient item or items. Thus, we call such transfers of funds cross-border transfers or cross-border augmentations.”

“This situation is prohibited by the Constitution as it violates the principle of separation of powers,” they added.

“The Special Purpose Funds, which serve as common pools of funds under the administration of the Executive branch from where augmentation may be drawn, also violate the fiscal autonomy of the judiciary, constitutional commissions and the Ombudsman,” the petition said.