MIRIAM: BUDGET INSERTS VIOLATE CHARTER

Santiago, a constitutional law expert and former UP constitutional law professor, cited the 1994 case of Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, where the Supreme Court was badly divided on the issue of budgetary insertions.

However, she said that the majority vote does not constitute binding precedent, because the ratio decidendi (or reason for deciding the case) was not about congressional insertions, but about the VAT.

“Chief Justice Reynato Puno, who was then an associate justice, said in his dissent that the bicameral conference committee does not have the power to add or delete provisions in a budget already approved on third reading by both Houses. He said that the bicam does not have an ex post veto power,” Santiago said.

If a case to question the constitutionality of secret budget insertions would be brought today, Santiago predicted that Chief Justice Puno would rule that such secret inserts are unconstitutional.

“In his dissent, the Chief Justice said that there is no constitutional provision, law, rule, or regulation that allows congressional insertions. I respectfully concur with this statement,” she said.

Santiago said that Puno also observed that the secret additions and deletions are not submitted separately for approval in the plenary session. Instead, they are “hidden” in the entire budget.

“Many of my colleagues in Congress claim that congressional insertions constitute a legislative custom. Granting for the sake of argument that it is a legislative custom, still it must follow the hierarchy of sources of legislative rules of procedure,” she said.

Santiago said the principal sources of procedural rules are followed in the following order: Constitution, law, rules, judicial decisions, parliamentary authority, parliamentary law, customs and usages.

Santiago said the best authority on the unconstitutionality of congressional insertions is the dissent by then Justice Hilario Davide, who ruled that the duty of the bicam is limited to the reconciliation of disagreeing provisions.

Santiago also cited the dissent of her former UP law professor, retired Justice Flerida Ruth Romero, who cited the parliamentary authority Jefferson’s Manual, stating that the bicam must confine themselves to the differences in the House and Senate versions.

“The conference committee is transformed into an all-powerful Frankenstein that brooks no challenge to its authority, even from its own members. Their power lies chiefly in the fact that reports of conference committees must be accepted with the amendments or else rejected in toto,” Santiago quoted from the Romero dissent.

Santiago said Romero ruled that congressional insertions transfer the lawmaking power to a small group of members who work out in private a decision that usually prevails.

“Insertion of new matter on the part of the bicam is, therefore, an ultra vires act which makes the same void,” Santiago quoted the Romero decision.