Budget insertions lack transparency
By Gemma Bagayaua, Newsbreak, abs-cbnNEWS.com | 09/15/2008 3:43 PM
Printer-friendly version | 
Send to friend | 
Share your views
The brouhaha over the P200 million extra funding for the CP Garcia Avenue (a.k.a. C-5) highlights one of the key mysteries in our budget process: the so-called “congressional insertions.”
“Congressional insertions,” are actually amendments lawmakers make to the budget as they exercise the “power of the purse.”
Under the Constitution, Congress cannot increase the budget ceiling as proposed by the president. But it can redefine the priorities of the executive by cutting funding for certain items of the budget and channeling the funds to other purposes.
Anybody who is familiar with the budget process will tell you that there is nothing inherently wrong about this. In fact, one can say a Congress that passes the executive’s budget as is, with not a single amendment, is probably not doing its job.
What makes the process controversial is the fact that it lacks transparency.
Old boys’ club
In ordinary legislation, amendments proposed by particular lawmakers are often either taken up in the committee meetings or at the plenary level. If done at the committee level, these are duly noted in the minutes of the hearings by the committee secretariat. If done at the plenary level, these are likewise noted in the records of either the House of Representatives or the Senate.
Moreover, at the time a bill is passed, its provisions are entered into the plenary records of either House of Congress. The public has access to all these records. Therefore, one can actually trace who authored particular amendments to a proposed law, and at what stage the amendment was made.
Due to its sheer volume (the proposed budget is at least two inches thick), however, this process is not done in the case of the general appropriations bill.
Individual amendments are rarely discussed at the committee hearings or on the floor. While caucuses are sometimes held to discuss contentious issues, what often happens is that proponents of individual amendments submit their desired amendments to the chairperson of the finance committee, in the case of the Senate, or the appropriations committee in the case of the House of Representatives.
It is up to the two chairpersons to determine whether to accommodate the insertions or not. “Old boys club” is how Sen. Panfilo Lacson describes it. “There is an assumption of goodwill.”
The final version of the budget is done at the bicameral conference committee level. These are closed-door meetings where the two budget committee heads consult with each other and the budget department (to ensure that these will be funded).
It is only the heads of these committees, the budget secretary, and key staff who would know the proponents of each amendment.
In the deliberations on the public works budget, Senate Finance Committee chair Juan Ponce merely stated that the new appropriation proposed by the Senate for the DPWH is “P86,766,346,000, which is higher than the original P86,754,923,000 under the National Expenditure Program (NEP) but lower than the P90,977,591,000 recommended by the House of Representatives.” On the floor, Enrile did not mention details of the amendments. (See: Senate Journal Session No. 39).
Committee Report No. 22, which was filed and sponsored by the finance committee on November 26, 2007 is likewise bereft of details. However, it does refer to Annexes A, B, and C as the ones listing detailed amendments. (See: Committee Report No. 22)
C5 road
The subject of the current controversy is the fact that there are two provisions in the NEP which provide for similar amounts of funding for the same project.
The first provision allocates P200 million for the “construction of Pres. Garcia Avenue Ext. from SLEX to Sucat Road including ROW (right of way).”
The second allocates the same amount (P200 million) for the “construction of C5 Road Extension from SLEX to Sucat Road including ROW.” The C5 Road happens to be just another name for Pres. Garcia Avenue.
Neither item is visible in the NEP (the budget as proposed by the President) for 2008. (See: NEP version of 2008 DPWH budget)
But there is basis for the first provision in the 2008 NEP—a lump sum provision of P5.113 billion in the public works budget for “Roads to decongest traffic.”
In the General Appropriations Bill (HB2454), this item was broken down by the House of Representatives into specific projects. Here the provision of P200 million for the "Construction of C5 road Ext. from SLEX to Sucat Road including ROW" first appears as I.a.1.a.1.g. These details were taken from the ("See: Details of Selected Programs / Projects,") one of the accompanying documents to the National Expenditure Program.
(There are two versions of the HB2454. In the first reading version (red font) “roads to decongest traffic” was only given P5.113 billion. In the second reading version (black font), this was increased to P5.263 billion.)
Confusing entries
In the final version of the 2008 budget law, funding for this item was increased to P5.763 billion. The item was also broken down according to specific projects. The P200 million allocated for the project under item I.a.1.a.1.g remained. But this particular item was renamed “construction of Pres. Garcia Avenue Ext. from SLEX to Sucat Road including ROW.” (See: final GAA version of the 2008 DPWH budget)
The final approved 2008 budget also included another P200 million for the "construction of C5 road Ext. from SLEX to Sucat Road including ROW." This second allotment is part of an entirely new provision in the budget (under Locally Funded Projects) labeled as “Urgent Infrastructure Including Local Projects.” The GAA allocates a total of P4.126 billion for 10 items under this list.
Lacson said this entire provision was inserted by the Senate. He said, however, that the original amount discussed was only P3.95 billion. “It was increased to P4.1 billion in the final Senate version.”
Had the proponent increased the allocation for the project by another P200 million, it would have been easy to justify. After all, even Lacson admits that the C5 road project actually needs more.
What raises speculation is the fact that the item, though clearly meant for the same section of the road (from SLEX to Sucat), was introduced as a separate provision.
A Senate insider who is familiar with the budgeting process, however, suggests a possible reason. It was probably added as a separate item, the Senate source said, “for tagging purposes.”
If you simply increase the funds for a particular project, the source explained, the funds will co-mingle with the original funds for the project. If it is a new activity that is not part of originally programmed projects, however, the agency concerned will be compelled to go back to the lawmaker who authored the insertion for guidance on what the funds are intended for.
Double entry intentional?
The whole fiasco might have also been nothing more than an innocent typographical error. When item I.a.1.a.1.g was renamed, the proponent might have thought the item was deleted altogether and had it reinstated.
Certain curious details about the whole imbroglio tend to fuel speculation, however.
To begin with, this might be more acceptable if it the amendments introduced were made by different parties. For instance, if it was the House of Representatives that renamed the item, then understandably, the proponent in the Senate might have thought that the item was deleted and had it reinstated.
But all these happened at the level of the Senate. It was the Senate that changed the name of the road being funded from “C5 road Ext” as it was referred to in HB 2454 to “Pres. Garcia Avenue Ext.”
It was also the Senate that introduced the new provisions where the extra P200 million was included.
Introducing additional sums in the budget is not that easy, a Senate insider familiar with the process points out. Even if it was inserted in error, there would have been a way to counter-check this error. After all, the budget has to balance. “You have to get the additional amount from somewhere,” he points out.
This supports the speculation that the double entry was intentionally included in the budget. -with reports from Leilani Chavez
