Drilon, Palace: Nothing wrong with clarifying ‘savings’

Ayee Macaraig

This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.

Senate President Franklin Drilon says President Aquino's request for a joint resolution to clarify the meaning of savings is not a challenge to the Supreme Court ruling on DAP

CONGRESS' PREROGATIVE. Drilon says Congress can review the 'strict, literal' definition of savings the Supreme Court used in its ruling on DAP. Photo by Aye Macaraig/Rappler

MANILA, Philippines – “The very strict and literal interpretation of the term ‘savings,’ to me, can be reviewed.”

Senate President Franklin Drilon rejected criticism of President Benigno Aquino III’s request for Congress to clarify the definition of savings following the controversy over the administration’s spending program.

Drilon dismissed statements that the President’s request challenges the Supreme Court’s ruling striking down key acts under the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP).

A staunch Aquino ally, the Senate President was responding to the criticism that former Budget Secretary Benjamin Diokno and Kabataan Partylist Representative Terry Ridon raised.

“It is within the prerogative of Congress to review the law and [pass] amendments if it feels the policy is misunderstood or the definition is not clear,” Drilon said on Wednesday, July 30. 

In his State of the Nation Address (SONA) last Monday, Aquino asked Congress for a joint resolution to clarify the definition of terms related to DAP. While Aquino did not specify which terms he wanted clarified, one of the points of contention between the executive branch and the Supreme Court is the meaning of savings. If passed, a joint resolution has the force and effect of law. 

Diokno and Ridon said the statement was a “clear challenge” to the court decision. An economics professor, Diokno said existing budget rules and the Supreme Court ruling are enough to clarify the meaning of savings.

Ridon also said that if Congress heeds Aquino’s request, it is likely that the court will again strike down the joint resolution as unconstitutional.

Yet Drilon, a former justice secretary, argued that the joint resolution will not defy the court ruling. To illustrate his point, he compared it to Congress decriminalizing libel.

“If somebody files a libel case against a reporter and the court convicts the reporter, and after the conviction, Congress will decriminalize libel, [then] that will in effect mean that the conviction is no longer valid and proper because it is a conviction based on a provision of law,” Drilon said.

“Similarly, the court interpreted savings in the manner they understood it, which may not be consistent with how Congress intended the term ‘savings’ to be. Therefore, Congress has the prerogative to review and revise the definition of savings,” he added.

The DAP is the administration’s stimulus measure meant to address underspending and pump-prime the economy from 2011 to 2013. The court declared key acts under DAP unconstitutional, including declaring withdrawn unobligated allotments and unreleased appropriations as savings before the end of the fiscal year.

In his separate opinion, Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio said that funds for projects merely suspended by the President are not savings. “Only funds remaining after the work, activity or project has been finally discontinued or abandoned will constitute savings that can be realigned by the President to augment existing items in the appropriations for the executive branch.”

In clarifying the meaning of savings, Drilon said Congress must consider the point of Budget Secretary Florencio Abad that the executive needs to declare savings even before the end of the fiscal year to give it leeway to implement projects quickly.

“When a project is abandoned or there is a change in the priorities, and the project – say, to build a bridge is abandoned – now the appropriations there could be used to augment other items in the budget and we believe you do not have to wait for the end of the year. Because by the end of the year, the budget authority would have lapsed and you have to go through bidding,” Drilon said.

Drilon clarified though that the executive has yet to propose its own definition of savings.

Presidential Spokesperson Edwin Lacierda echoed Drilon’s defense of Aquino’s request. Lacierda said the joint resolution is another way of responding to the Court ruling, besides the administration’s motion for reconsideration. 

“We’re using both approaches which are not entirely inconsistent with each other, which is, in fact, permissible under the Constitution and under the judicial processes and legislative processes …. We’re not creating a constitutional crisis. It’s precisely the right way of doing that,” Lacierda said. 

‘No savings before year ends’

This early, there are already clashing interpretations on the meaning of savings among lawmakers. Opposition Senator Nancy Binay said she disagrees that savings can be declared before the end of the year. (READ: Nancy Binay grills Abad: DAP hijacks fiscal independence)

“It’s so hard to declare savings in June because you still have several months to pursue the project. To begin with, when the executive submits a [budget] proposal to us, they should already know if the project is doable within that year or not. If possible, when they submit the budget for this road, as early as January, they should already bid that out,” Binay said in Filipino in a separate interview.

Binay agreed that Congress can clarify the meaning of savings but stressed that whatever definition is adopted, it should comply with the Constitution. She said one example is to ensure that the executive does not transfer savings to other branches of government, one of the practices the court ruled against.  

“The executive twisted the definition of savings. Maybe we should clarify when do you declare such an item savings, then set penalties for those who do ‘forced savings.’ For example there is a project, they can delay that project and find whatever problems so that in the end they can declare savings,” she said.

For Binay, the proper process is for the executive to go back to Congress to ask permission to use savings. “It should not be the discretion of the executive when to use savings so they should ask for a supplemental budget.”

‘Avoid confusion’

Even before Aquino’s request, Senate finance committee chairman Francis Escudero already said that Congress will clarify the meaning of savings.

Senator JV Ejercito, who filed a Senate resolution to investigate DAP, said that Congress’ definition of savings should be consistent with the Court ruling.

“While defining savings would put the controversial issue on DAP to rest, the same should be done without disturbing the Supreme Court’s decision,” Ejercito said.

“In short, ‘wag na gagawan ng paraan lumusot ‘yung gusto ng Executive.” (In short, don’t make a way for the Executive’s wish to be fulfilled.) 

He said that a law that will contradict the Court’s decision will “create more confusion and might result to a constitutional crisis.” – Rappler.com  

Add a comment

Sort by

There are no comments yet. Add your comment to start the conversation.

Summarize this article with AI

How does this make you feel?

Loading
Download the Rappler App!