As predicted by this writer, the impasse on the budget hearing will not take long given the current political landscape. It took a mere two days from the announcement of the suspension of budget hearings for an acceptable compromise to be reached. This is a welcome development as it would be a tragedy should budget hearings were indeed cancelled, considering that government offices have been preparing their budget presentations for months already.

Two key meetings on Tuesday allowed this to happen. First, a morning meeting of Budget Secretary Benjamin Diokno with Senate Finance Committee chairman Sen. Loren Legarda and House Appropriations Committee chairman Rep. Karlo Nograles and second an evening meeting of President Rodrigo Duterte with Speaker Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and Majority Leader Rolando Andaya.

Of course, media played a part in fast tracking the compromise agreement. Press conferences of Diokno, presidential spokesman Harry Roque and the pork barrel allegations of Sen. Ping Lacson (more on this below) added pressure for the House to give in. The announcement of Senate President Tito Sotto, made after a Senate caucus on Tuesday afternoon, that all senators support the President’s cash-based system, also did not help the House’s position.

On Wednesday afternoon, Andaya called an all-member caucus where the resolution of the meeting with President Duterte was cascaded to the honorable representatives. It was made clear that budget hearings will continue based on Malacañang’s preferred cash-based system.

By way of compromise, President Duterte reportedly agreed that a supplemental budget be added, to be set for hearing on January 2019, thereby granting additional budget on priority programs, just in time for election year. It was reported that this supplemental budget will be obligations-based as preferred by the House members.

Of all the comments on this issue, what perhaps struck a chord was Lacson’s jeering of the House members, as he tweeted: “2019 National Budget standoff: Some congressmen are protesting the budget cuts for ‘their infra projects’ a.k.a. PDAF. They need massive detox and full rehab so they can lick the more dangerous addiction to money. Tokhang may be good after all.” In his interviews, Lacson made reference to the 2013 Supreme Court (SC) decision that ruled pork barrel to be controversial.

Indeed, “pork barrel” is a phrase that must not be mentioned in the august halls of Congress, akin to the name “Voldemort” in the Harry Potter saga. The SC case Lacson referred to is entitled, Belgica v. Ochoa, G.R. 208566, 19 November 2013. The Belgica case touched on several constitutional law doctrines in justifying the illegality of Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF). Here, the SC stated:

“Thus, for all the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby declares the 2013 PDAF Article as well as all other provisions of law which similarly allow legislators to wield any form of post-enactment authority in the implementation or enforcement of the budget, unrelated to congressional oversight, as violative of the separation of powers principle and thus unconstitutional. Corollary thereto, informal practices, through which legislators have effectively intruded into the proper phases of budget execution, must be deemed as acts of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and, hence, accorded the same unconstitutional treatment.

Pork barrel, thus, has no place in the Government Appropriations Act. Yet, it is something that is brought up time and time again as it may reportedly take on different names, or it may just have no name. In curbing the return of pork barrel, the best person to do so would definitely be the President.

The role of the President in the budget is indispensable and it is understandable why Congress should heed the Executive Branch. In the first place, the budget cannot be increased from that which was submitted by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM). Article VI, Section 25(1) of the 1987 Constitution reads: “The Congress may not increase the appropriations recommended by the President for the operation of the Government as specified in the budget. The form, content and manner of preparation of the budget shall be prescribed by law.”

House Bill 7302, or the Budget Reform Act, which provides for the legal basis of a cash-based system, if passed, would provide for executive impoundment. Section 40 thereof reads: “Sec. 40. Impoundment of Appropriations. – The President of the Philippines, upon recommendation of the DBM, may propose the rescission of appropriations from both Houses of Congress, under any of the following circumstances: (a) If the appropriations are no longer required to fulfill the objectives originally sought to be achieved by the programs, activities and projects covering the same; or (b) In case of an unmanageable National Government budget deficit. Xxx…Approved impounded appropriations shall not thereafter be available for expenditure except by subsequent legislative enactment.”

This brief episode on the budget hearings now leads me to ask: Who then truly holds the power of the purse? Constitutionalists would say Congress while political commentators would counter that it is the President.