From BusinessMirror: “The general rule we follow is that the disagreeing provisions are the only ones we will reconcile. But it has become a tradition that even provisions that are found neither in the HOR or Senate version can still be inserted,” Lacson said in the recent interview, speaking partly in Filipino.
Ping Lacson traces lawmakers’ word war on funds to ‘bad practice’ in budget lawmaking
Butch Fernandez / February 22, 2024
CONTROVERSIES over certain budget “insertions” that have stoked the word war between two chambers of Congress could have been avoided if the rules governing the conduct of bicameral conference committees (BCCs) had been followed, the former chair of the Senate Accounts committee said.
In a freewheeling TV interview, former senator Panfilo Lacson said the word war between several senators led by Sen. Imee Marcos and some members of the House of Representatives stems from ignoring the time-tested rules governing the conduct of BCCs, which are primarily convened to reconcile disagreeing provisions of two versions of a bill from the House and Senate.
“The general rule we follow is that the disagreeing provisions are the only ones we will reconcile. But it has become a tradition that even provisions that are found neither in the HOR or Senate version can still be inserted,” Lacson said in the recent interview, speaking partly in Filipino.
“In the course of time,” he added, “insertion of versions found in neither of the versions of two chambers has become accepted.” What prevails, he added, is the “sense of mutual trust” between two houses that they will only discuss portions where they disagree.”
But, he said, the practice of inserting even other provisions has become the norm. “It’s been going on a long time.”
If such practice is questioned in court “and the SC issues a ruling saying that cannot be done, that becomes illegal.” But, he said, since there is no controversy that has been formal lodged before the SC, then we cannot say it is illegal because there is no interpretation.”
“Maling mali talaga [It’s really very wrong].” First of all, he noted, the BCC for the budget bill is the only instance where the BCC is not open to the public.
“It’s too exclusive, they close the doors, and ‘unauthorized’ persons are not allowed. That’s the bad thing.”
In time, he added, this wrong practice has “evolved” and gotten worse. “Where will we be at the end of the day?”
This lack of transparency in the deliberations of the BCC for the budget bill accounts for the verbal tussle between two chambers over the P26.7 billion allotted for the AKAP program of the Department of Social Welfare and Development, according to Lacson. The revelation about the AKAP fund being “sneaked in” into the 2024 General Appropriations Act arose from reports that people who signed a supposed signature sheet for a “people’s initiative” to amend the Charter – which senators opposed – had been told they were signing forms for government “ayuda” or assistance, including access to AKAP.
“When they resume the suspended BCC [sessions], halos pirmahan na lang [they just sign the document. The agreements have been laid down by the two representatives in the BCC and it becomes virtually just a signing session. You have no time to scrutinize, and if you go through it slowly, it’s like you’re delaying the whole process.
The BCC members can read the draft of the final version only in a conference room where someone brings the document over, for signing. “If you read that thoroughly, you become the villain.”
So, he continued, everyone just signs on the basis of trust. This accounts, he said for the shock of Imee Marcos when they said they realized they had signed [the AKAP]. “That’s what the HOR imposed on them: they’re told, ‘you said you don’t know it, but you signed this item with AKAP.’”
It’s vital, said Lacson, for lawmakers to operate in “good faith.”
Senators were aghast at knowing about the P26.7-Billion for AKAP. “The question is: do we need that when we already have the AICS, the Tupad, and the new Medical Assistance or MAIP, and then we have 4Ps.”
It’s always good to allot funds for social services, he said, but deplored the “sneaky” manner in which these controversial budgetary items were inserted. He received information that this was inserted so it will not draw too much attention. And, he added, the agency itself (DSWD) neither knew about or requested the AKAP.
He recalled a similar thing happened to the DILG in the case of P75 Billion in ALGU, or assistance to LGUs. “We asked Secretary Eduardo Ano, who said they were not consultant, and had no idea. So, only a few members of HOR knew about the insertion.”