Ang tama ay IPAGLABAN. Ang mali ay LABANAN.
In an interview on DWPM (Teleradyo Serbisyo), Ping Lacson answered questions on:
* Why AKAP is sneaky
* Practice of some legislators to distribute AKAP, TUPAD, AICS and other forms of ‘aid’
* Senate-House word war
* 2025 elections
Continue reading “Ping: AKAP, “Parang Palihim, Parang Sneaky””
If not clarified by the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Art VI, Sec 25 of the 1987 Constitution, what can prevent Congress from adding P1 trillion or even more in the next succeeding budget deliberations, so we borrow more to fund the excess in the Unprogrammed Fund under the NEP?
Needless to say, this is a very bad precedent, especially so that Congress has developed the new penchant for realigning the budget to and from the Unprogrammed Appropriations.
To illustrate my point: Under the 2022 GAA, Congress managed to realign to the Unprogrammed Appropriations under the Special Purpose Fund the amount of P100 billion; while under the 2023 GAA, they realigned a total of P219 billion to the Unprogrammed Appropriations.
Under the same scheme of realignments, mostly done in the bicameral conference committee level, they also realigned hundreds of billions of pesos from the Unprogrammed Appropriations to the regular budget to fund their so-called “pet projects.”
*****
From Inquirer.net: Former Senator Ping Lacson said the bicameral conference committee’s move to add a P450 billion increase to the unprogrammed appropriations of the 2024 budget is unconstitutional.
Continue reading “Hike in 2024 unprogrammed funds is unconstitutional — Lacson [Inquirer]”
Sobrang unprogrammed appropriations sa proposed 2024 budget, dapat i-veto ni Pangulong Marcos dahil labag sa Art. VI, Sec. 25 ng Saligang Batas, ayon kay dating Sen. Ping Lacson.
Ayon sa Saligang Batas: “The Congress may not increase the appropriations recommended by the President for the operation of the Government as specified in the budget. The form, content, and manner of preparation of the budget shall be prescribed by law.”
Related: On the Proposed 2024 Budget
There is no such thing as “Legalized Corruption” in Congress via a concurrent resolution – much less one with my involvement, as claimed by some sectors who are either misinformed or seeking to disinform – or both.
In 2013 – during my chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Accounts – we agreed to submit ourselves to the disposition of COA, following a meeting between congressional leaders and then COA chair Grace Pulido-Tan. It must be emphasized that it is the COA that has the constitutional mandate to examine and audit.
As a background, I was tasked to file the said resolution – Concurrent Resolution No. 10 – which actually sought more accountability by justifying the liquidation of funds through the submission of receipts. Before this, lawmakers had been allowed to liquidate funds merely through certification since Congress reopened in 1987.
Concurrent Resolution No. 10, adopted in 2011, takes into account members of Congress extending immediate response and assistance to constituents outside our legislative work such as medical assistance – but is not inconsistent with Article IX-D Sec 2 (1) of the 1987 Constitution, where nothing can prevent the Commission on Audit (COA) from exercising its post-audit function.
Skip to PDF contentThus, while the Concurrent Resolution allows certification by individual legislators to disburse funds allocated to their respective offices, it does not excuse ANYONE from liquidating through official receipts and other verifiable documents, much less from being audited by the Commission on Audit – as NOBODY in government is exempted from COA audit.
For the record, throughout my years in public service, I have always been consistent in complying with all the existing COA regulations, much more with the required submission of liquidation instruments when I was in the Senate. Thus, when the COA first conducted a special audit of Congress, I was the first one who submitted the receipts and related documents.
*****