I am intrigued by the news item titled “House moves to assert fiscal autonomy” (News, 3/13/15). According to the report, Speaker Feliciano Belmonte and other leaders of the House of Representatives have filed House Concurrent Resolution No. 10, whereby the House leadership invokes fiscal autonomy “to be at par with other constitutional bodies exercising full fiscal autonomy.” I have serious misgivings about the constitutionality of this resolution.
Under our constitutional regime, the 1987 Constitution is the sole and exclusive source of the grant of fiscal autonomy. The “other constitutional bodies” alluded to in the resolution are able to “exercise full fiscal autonomy” precisely by virtue of the 1987 Constitution. Evidently, the enjoyment of such privilege is not a matter of mere legislation, resolution or administrative issuance.
Thus, in identical language, the plain and explicit mandate of the Constitution provides that the judiciary, the three independent constitutional commissions (Commission on Audit, Commission on Elections, and Civil Service Commission), and the Office of the Ombudsman “shall enjoy fiscal autonomy” (Sec. 3, Art. VIII, Sec. 5, Art. IX-A, and Sec. 14, Art. XI, respectively, 1987 Constitution) to the exclusion of Congress and any other office or agency of the government.
Expresio unius est exclusio alterius (The express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another thing).
It is thus an egregious error for Congress to invoke fiscal autonomy at this point, absent any constitutional underpinning. A constitutional amendment is necessary toward that end.
I submit that HCR 10 is constitutionally flawed.
—BARTOLOME C. FERNANDEZ JR., retired senior commissioner, Commission on Audit