The Supreme Court has set clearer limits on changes made by the bicameral conference committee to the national budget, requiring transparency and proper documentation while prohibiting the insertion of unspecified lump-sum appropriations.
According to former Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) president Domingo Cayosa, the ruling addresses alleged abuses in the bicameral conference committee, which reconciles conflicting provisions in the versions of the General Appropriations Act passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Cayosa said the committee's role is to settle differences between the two chambers, but it had allegedly gone beyond that mandate by revisiting provisions on which the House and Senate had already agreed and introducing additional changes.
He also cited the lack of transparency and records of the committee's proceedings, which made it difficult to establish who was responsible for questionable amendments.
The controversy included questions involving former bicameral conference committee leaders, including Sen. Francis Escudero, and the need to account for changes made during budget deliberations.
According to Cayosa, the Supreme Court stressed that bicameral conference committee proceedings must be transparent and properly documented. The committee cannot use its authority to override the constitutional roles of the two chambers.
On unprogrammed appropriations, Cayosa said the court did not declare the funding mechanism inherently unconstitutional but clarified the conditions governing its use.
Unprogrammed appropriations are intended to fund specified activities when additional revenue or other qualifying funding sources become available beyond the government's regular revenue projections.
Cayosa said the government must prioritize funding its regular programmed activities before using unexpected additional revenues for unprogrammed projects.
He also said the criteria for selecting projects under unprogrammed appropriations must be clear, particularly when numerous projects are included.
The ruling likewise prohibits lump-sum appropriations that identify only a general amount, such as P500 million or P1 billion, without specifying the projects to be funded and leaving the selection entirely to the President, he said.
Cayosa said the requirements could help curb abuses in the preparation and implementation of the General Appropriations Act, including questionable allocations for flood control projects.
Asked whether officials could still face charges following the ruling and the application of the doctrine of operative fact, Cayosa said liability would depend on the circumstances of each case.
He said the doctrine did not automatically shield officials from prosecution, particularly if evidence showed that they acted maliciously or deliberately violated the court's ruling.
Those responsible could still face criminal or administrative cases, he said.
Stay informed
Get Daily Tribune in your inbox
Breaking news, opinion, and business coverage for readers in the Philippines and abroad.
Or open the newsletter page. Prefer chat? Join the Viber community.