Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago warned that the “bloated” national budget of P3.002 trillion for 2016 contains several lump-sum appropriations that are prone to being unlawfully realigned for election purposes.
Santiago said that, in the proposed 2016 budget, there still remains a total of P166.3 billion in lump-sum items that are akin to the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), which was earlier declared as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court (SC).
Aside from the PDAF-like items in the proposed 2016 budget, the appropriatations bill also contains a definition of savings, which is not in accordance with the SC’s decision on how and when savings can be declared by the President to augment the budget of agencies under him.
Under the proposed 2016 budget’s special provisions, heads of agencies in the Executive branch are being authorized to modify and realign programs, activities and projects as may be authorized by Congress under the General Appropriations Act.
But Santiago said these special provisions violate the Constitution’s mandate that only specific officials can “augment any item in the budget of their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations.”
These officials are enumerated exclusively by Article 6, Section 25 (5) of the Constitution as the following: the President; the Senate President; the Speaker of the House of Representatives; the Chief Justice; and the heads of the constitutional commissions.
However, under the proposed 2016 national budget, executive officials are sought to be authorized to declare savings and realign these whenever there is a discontinuance or noncommencement of a project, or when there is a difference between the approved budget and the contract award price.
Santiago said these questionable PDAF-like items in the 2016 budget, along with the new definition of savings, can easily turn into a political war chest for administration candidates. “Decisions about fund transfers in the guise of ‘savings’ are not necessarily for public purposes but for election-related objectives,” she added.
1 comment
Madam Miriam, not only ‘can’ but already being used for campaign.
Go mar go! Away you go!