Bordering on mental dishonesty
The January 12 editorial strikes the nail right on its head when it stated: “For all intents and purposes, that’s the people money”—referring, of course, to the savings which Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile had quite controversially dipped his hands into and gave to the senators.
Indeed, the Constitution allows the Senate President (as well as the President, the House Speaker, the Chief Justice and the heads of constitutional commissions) to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations. But the Charter has also been amply cautious to add that such discretionary funds shall be disbursed only for public purposes to be supported by appropriate vouchers and subject to guidelines as may be prescribed by law.
In a recent television interview, the chair of the Commission on Audit offhand posited that Enrile’s giving away of millions of his chamber’s unspent budget to the senators was within his discretionary authority. But wasn’t that discretion somehow abused? One hopes that more than simply answering this question, the COA will not lose sight of the fact that it is the sheer propriety or impropriety, the intent, purpose and manner by which such authority has been dispensed with—vis-à-vis that which is enunciated in the second half of the aforementioned constitutional provision—that should govern the essential bone of contention in this issue.
For example, how had the “savings” come about? It appears it includes, among others, the Senate budget left unspent after former Sen. Benigno Aquino III was elected president. As we do not conduct special elections to replace senators who have ceased to be so for whatever reason, basic prudence dictates that the Senate need no longer provide a budget for Aquino’s salary and other perks as a senator from July 2010 up until June 30, 2013. That it did, and perhaps still does, cannot but be reflective of gross stupidity, to say the least. For, why, for heaven’s sake, must one provide a budget for something he very well knows will not be spent?
Now, it becomes an entirely different matter when the unspent budget, instead of being reverted back to the national treasury as good budgeting practice would suggest, had found its way down to the senator’s accounts. Be it to their pockets as personal gratuity in the form of gifts or bonuses, or to officially augment the senators’ respective offices’ budgets for MOOE (maintenance, operating and other expenses) is beside the point. The point is, given the obvious intent and the result, the controversial realignment of funds already borders on mental dishonesty from beginning to end.
At any rate, the public earnestly looks forward to seeing that the COA’s final views on this issue would reflect a truly independent guardianship of the people’s money.
—RUDY L. CORONEL,
