BUDGET Secretary Amenah Pangandaman yesterday insisted on the constitutional validity of the additional P449 billion unprogrammed appropriations inserted by Congress in the 2024 national budget amid the continuing discussions challenging its legality.
During the Kapihan sa Manila Bay forum, Pangandaman welcomed petitions filed with the Supreme Court questioning the approval of the extra unprogrammed funds, emphasizing that such debates showcase the vitality of democracy in the country.
“We respect and acknowledge the right of any individual, and/or groups to file petitions in our courts to address the issue since it is the judiciary that has the ultimate authority to make determinations on questions of law, including the Constitution,” Pangandaman said.
Acknowledging potential gray areas in interpreting laws, Pangandaman agreed that an SC scrutiny is crucial: “At the end of the day, malalaman natin kung ano ba talaga (we will know [if the funding] is legal or not]. From our end, we think it is constitutional. It may be due to differences in opinion and interpretation.”
The DBM had previously issued a statement clarifying that unprogrammed appropriations serve as standby funds, outside the approved government fiscal program, available for unforeseen but significant expenditures.
According to Pangandaman, these funds are not included in this year’s P5.768 trillion budget which was approved and signed by the President.
She insisted that the appropriations are not automatically allocated by the government, as she underscored the conditional nature of unprogrammed funds.
She added that release of the funds is contingent upon meeting various funding conditions, such as the Bureau of the Treasury collecting excess revenue or new revenue from tax or non-tax sources.
Additionally, the realization of foreign or approved financial loans/grants proceeds could trigger the availability of unprogrammed funds.
To ensure responsible spending within allowable limits, Pangandaman said government agencies must submit necessary documentary requirements before gaining access to standby funds.
‘FORGETFUL’
Meanwhile, the chairperson of the House Committee on Appropriations yesterday questioned the motive of Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman in asking the SC to declare as unconstitutional the P449 billion additional unprogrammed funds in the 2024 General Appropriations Act, saying Lagman never did the same when he was a member of the bicameral conference committee that approved last year’s budget.
“Perhaps the gentleman from the first district of Albay is becoming more forgetful,” Rep. Zaldy Co (PL, Ako Bicol) said in a statement. “When he was a member of the bicameral conference committee in 2023, he also approved unprogrammed funds of the same amount as 2024.”
Co said Lagman should also file another case “and make himself a respondent.”
“Was it because he (Lagman) was recently excluded from the bicameral committee that he now claims unprogrammed funds are illegal? Lagman was also once chairman of the appropriations committee and a member of said panel for almost 15 years and yet not once has he ever complained about unprogrammed appropriations. Why complain now?” he said.
Lagman and Reps. Mujiv Hataman (Basilan) and Gabriel Bordado Jr. of Camarines Sur earlier asked the High Court to nullify the additional unprogrammed funds, which members of the bicameral budget committee added to the P289.1 billion originally requested by Malacañang in the proposed 2024 National Expenditure Program (NEP), a move which they said is not allowed under Article VI, Section 25 of the 1987 Constitution.
Reacting, Lagman said “Co engages in personal attacks instead of squarely confronting the constitutional issues on the questionable congressional allocation.”
In Co’s response to the petition, Lagman said: “Co miserably failed to deny that the bicameral conference committee on the 2024 General Appropriations Bill (GAB) ‘furtively inserted an excess of P449,450,510,000 in unprogrammed appropriations.’”
“(The) said exorbitant increase is prohibited by the Constitution under Sec. 25 (1) of Article VI which categorically reads: ‘The Congress may not increase the appropriations recommended by the President for the operation of the government as specified in the budget,’” said the veteran lawyer-lawmaker.
Lagman said Co also failed disprove that the prohibition covers both the programmed and unprogrammed appropriations proposed by the President in the National Expenditure Program (NEP) “as the Constitutions does not distinguish between programmed and unprogrammed appropriations.”
Co, he said, also failed to bely Lagman’s claim that the bicameral conference committee report “containing the infirm excess was ratified by the House and the Senate with alacrity without revealing or explaining the insertion” and that “the excess in the unprogrammed appropriations contains pet and partisan projects which are proposed together with substantial projects and programs.”
“Co premeditatedly wanted the excess unprogrammed appropriations to be funded, released, and implemented by sequestering the purported excess funds or income of government-owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs) as targeted in HB No. 9513, which he recommended for approval,” Lagman said.
Lagman said he has not forgotten “that the practice of increasing the unprogrammed appropriations was the then-prevailing errant interpretation and practice wherein the prohibition on increasing the President’s budget proposal was limited to the programmed appropriations.”
“I have not forgotten to categorically mention this incorrect interpretation and practice in the petition. It is well-settled that irregular acts committed in the past cannot legitimize their continuation up to the present. What is wrong must be eventually junked,” he said.
For his part, Bordado said his name was included as a petitioner in the case even if he was still in the process of reviewing it because a senior staff mistakenly submitted his e-signature to Lagman’s office without his approval.
While he agrees that there is a need to question the “constitutional soundness” of the additional unprogrammed funds and let the SC decide whether or not it is within the bounds of the Constitution, Bordado said he also believes that unprogrammed funds “might be necessary to sustain the momentum of the country’s economic activities.”
“As members of Congress, each one of us has a duty to preserve the integrity of the institution that we represent,” Bordado said. “I am definitely for upholding the Constitution, and I ask my fellow representatives to protect our Constitution at all times.” — With Wendell Vigilia
