BEYOND THE BEND: More lessons about the budget process

First, the Bicameral Conference Committee or BiCam is not a third chamber of Congress. The BiCam is a joint panel composed of members of the House of Representatives and the Senate who are appointed by their respective chambers to address conflicting provisions in a specific bill. It is technically not even a fixed feature in the lawmaking process. Or at least, it should not be.

The BiCam’s existence is merely temporary because it is just a practical mechanism intended to help both chambers of Congress resolve differences when crafting laws. It is important to note that the BiCam report still needs to be ratified by each chamber. The BiCam only produces an internal document and not an enrolled bill. Ironically, the constant use of this tool is evidence of the inability of Congress to function efficiently.

Pertinently, as per the rules of each chamber, the authority of the BiCam is limited to resolving differences and conflicting provisions. Their rules do not authorize the BiCam to make changes to the bill already approved by both the House and the Senate. Simply put, the BiCam cannot add new provisions or remove items in the bill. Its only job is to reconcile differences and conflicts between the two chamber versions.

Hence, both the Senate President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives are directly responsible for the alleged “blanks” in the BiCam report as alleged by former President Rodrigo Duterte. Why were there blanks in the report? Who filled them up? Nonetheless, the said defects in the BiCam report technically have no bearing on the constitutionality of the General Appropriations Act of 2025.  

But the real problem with the BiCam mechanism is that past congresses have allowed the BiCam to institute changes to bills that have nothing to do with differences or conflicts. And worse, doing it surreptitiously. Thus, giving the impression that it is a third chamber of Congress. It is not. Correspondingly, congressional leaders must account for the excesses and blunders of the BiCam.

Second, the budget is a law. Note that its formal name is the General Appropriations Act. This cannot be changed by mere executive action. It can only be changed by presidential veto, amendment by Congress, or if challenged in the Supreme Court. As for the current budget law, the only available option left is the third one. But it is still worth keeping in mind that whatever defects it may have, lawmakers are the ones to be blamed for it.

It must be emphasized that the President does not have blanket authority to shift allocations in the budget law. According to Article VI, Section 25 (5) of the 1987 Constitution:

“No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations; however, the President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of Constitutional Commissions may, by law, be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations.”

The constitution is very explicit as to the limited authority of the President in adjusting the implementation of the budget law. So, the public must denounce department heads who claim that they can “reprogram” the budget according to the President’s instructions. This is simply not true and must be vociferously called out by civil society. Allowing this is tantamount to supporting dictatorship.

In this regard, the public must also be cautioned in appealing to President Marcos to “control” the budget. Neither is the President to be commended in manipulating allocations to meet certain societal demands. The disbursement of public funds must always be sanctioned by law and not by whim. Allowing President Marcos to unilaterally alter the budget law brings back bad memories of his father’s autocratic regime.

Finally, the participation of civil society in the budget process needs to be strengthened. Executive agencies are currently crafting their respective budgets for next year. They should already be engaging with stakeholders at this stage of the budget process. For this ensures robust public participation when the national budget proposal is deliberated in Congress.

Obviously, the responsibility of civil society does not end with the enactment of the budget law. Public officials, especially ones that belong to political dynasties, cannot be relied upon to uphold the public interest. And history has proven that dynastic politicians just cannot be trusted with the public coffers. Ironically, this is probably the lesson voters find hardest to learn.

(MindaViews is the opinion section of MindaNews. Michael Henry Yusingco, LL.M is a law lecturer, policy analyst and constitutionalist.)