The September 27, 2008 editorial of the Philippine Daily Inquirer entitled “Plugging the Leak” gave us an insight on some of the realities surrounding the budget process of the country. It implied that while the “power of the purse” remains with the Congress, the “power over the contents of the purse”, the way and how much should be spent where, still remains with the President.

As the editorial notes: There is no disputing the President’s complete control of the current budget process. It is one main source of her continuing hold on Malacañang; it explains in large measure her continuing political relevance despite a three-year-long crisis of legitimacy. She has learned to keep most of her political allies happy, through a judicious mix of open budgets (open to congressional insertions, that is) and tight control of fund releases.

The editorial also surmises that “[i]f the proposed 2009 budget is any indication, she has even learned to provide for her political future by padding the proposal with billions of pesos in potential election-spending funds.” This is because “the political class (not just President [Gloria] Arroyo alone) found loopholes in the law, and widened them.” An example is the provision on savings found in Article VI, Section 25 (5) of the Constitution which is being used by the President thus “[leading] us down the road, ultimately, to the wonderland of rolled-over budgets”.

In relation with this, there are those who think that the P200-million being alleged by Sen. Panfilo Lacson as a double insertion can soon “be classified as savings and then used for whatever purpose the President deemed necessary. Here, in other words, is an example of how the budget process leaks; political objectives have been rammed through the loopholes.”

The editorial postulates that the problems affecting the budget process can be minimized or even eradicated if the Congress will provide conditions for budget spending such as 'disallowing the use of “savings” for rankly political purposes'. But while this idea is legally feasible, the innovations made by the present administration in controlling the whole budget process from planning to execution has made the existing laws obsolete and even inutile particularly on the aspect of checks and balances.

For instance, while the Congress has the power to appropriate the resources of the government, it is still the President who has the first say on where and how much money should be spent. This is through the executive branch's budget proposals which signals the start of the budget hearings in the Lower House. Though the Congress is allowed by the Constitution to decrease the proposed budget, it never possessed the corollary right to increase the same despite the fact that the legislative branch is not lacking in power to conduct inquiries (including budget inquiries) in aid of legislation. Worse, in case of disagreements between the two branches, the President can always propose item vetoes which can even lead to the restoration of the original budget items especially if the legislative chamber failed to acquire the numbers to override the veto.

Second, while the Congress has the power over the purse, releasing the contents of the purse is still within the ambit of the powers of the President. This is specifically provided by Section 34, Book V of the Administrative Code (E.O. 292) which states that the President can determine the policies, rules and regulations for the release of funds of the different agencies of the government. In simple terms, the President can either be lax or rigid in releasing the funds appropriated by the Congress – a power which the Chief Executive can dangle to control the members of the legislative branch. For this reason, opposition Congressmen find it hard to get their share of pork as the barrel is being held by the Chief Executive.


Given these, it is therefore appropriate to say that the problem does not only revolve around the issue of the Presidential power over the savings but also around a system involving the budget process. In a sense, we should not just “plug the leak”, to borrow the term, but to “re-pipe” the whole system and remove those “illegal pipe connections”. This can be done by amending the Administrative Code, redefine the budget-related powers of the President, and ensure that the power of the purse should carry with it the authority over the contents of the purse.

Second, a law penalizing the automatic use of savings must be enacted. If the the President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of Constitutional Commissions wishes to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations, this should be authorized by the Congress. In the very first place, Article VI, Section 25 (5) of the Constitution is clear: No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations; however, the President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of Constitutional Commissions may, by law, be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations. (Emphasis supplied.)

The Constitutional mandate of having a law first before savings can be used is just consistent with the policy that “public office is a public trust”. Public officials are in their offices because of the assumption that they are qualified. If in the course of their work they failed to propose a sufficient budget for their office, they should bear the consequences as such lapse is part of their negligence to assess the real situation and make a proper budget forecast. In the very first place, the taxpayers are not paying these officials to commit lapses in judgments or mistakes.

Lastly, the idea of amending the Constitution should not also be set aside. This may not be done today or while Ms. Arroyo is still in office but the idea should always be at the back of our minds ready for implementation when the proper time comes. The Constitution is the fundamental law. It lays out the foundation for all the systems that the government is using and it provides the basis of the legitimacy for all actions of the people running the government. To modify and sharpen the systems that we have as well as make every officials accountable, it is therefore necessary to go back to the Constitution and amend the provisions that will give the public the best of everything.

See related article.