In interviews on NET25 and DZRH, former Sen. Ping Lacson answers questions on the ‘blanks’ in the 2025 budget, and their implications on Filipinos.
Related: On the Reported ‘Blank’ Appropriations in the 2025 Budget
Continue reading “EXPLAINER: Implications of the ‘Blanks’ in the 2025 Budget”
     |    |   |
The bicam report on the 2025 budget that reportedly contained blank appropriations and was signed by the bicameral conference committee members looks like a repeat of the 2019 General Appropriations Act, when former President Rodrigo Duterte vetoed P95.3 billion upon the then Sotto-led Senate’s strong representation after we discovered anomalous entries in the printed Enrolled Bill that were not reflected in our ratified bicam report.
But the big difference now is, it seems nobody among the present senators dared – or cared – to scrutinize the budget documents. Hence, this controversy now brewing.
The Filipino taxpayers deserve an explanation. An examination of the Enrolled Bill printed by the House of Representatives and comparing it with the Ratified Bicam report will expose those responsible.
Unless we examine the Enrolled Bill that Congress transmitted to Malacañang, we can’t determine yet who filled in those blanks – House of Representatives, or Malacañang. A bicam report cannot be amended; it is only subject to being ratified or rejected by either or both houses.
If the Enrolled Bill is different from the ratified bicam report, the HoR being in charge of the printing should explain, as in the case of the heavily vetoed 2019 GAA. If the Enrolled Bill still contained the blank spaces, the burden shifts to the executive branch, particularly the Department of Budget and Management.
*****
| | | |
If there is one amendment in the 2025 GAA that is worth mentioning, Congress has rectified a legally flawed provision under the 2024 GAA by deleting Special Provision (d) under the Unprogrammed Appropriations which allowed the executive branch to realign “excess PhilHealth funds” to the National Treasury.
This bars the Department of Finance from gobbling up PhilHealth funds in 2025. This may have also rendered the pending SC petitions on this particular issue moot and academic.
Making noise makes sense after all.
| | | |
Your Honor, with all due respect, the PMA and PNPA budgets are not under the CHED, but included in the appropriations of the AFP/DND and PNP/DILG. I used to sponsor the AFP/DND budget in the Senate.
| | | |
Having vetoed only P26.065 billion from the P288-billion “congressional insertions”, mostly in the bicameral conference, the budget for education is still not “assigned the highest budgetary priority” contrary to Article XIV Sec 5(5) of the 1987 Constitution.
That being said, Malacañang may already be preparing for any constitutional challenge that may arise from this – both before the Supreme Court and the court of public opinion.
Related: On the Slash in the DepEd’s Budget
Continue reading “On the Signing of the 2025 Budget”
| | | |
