Somethin’s cookin’
Recto was a member of the Bicameral Conference Committee during the drafting and reconciliation of the 2024 national budget.
Text size
Recto was a member of the Bicameral Conference Committee during the drafting and reconciliation of the 2024 national budget.
With the recent appointment of former Albay representative Joey Salceda, the cast that carried out the manipulation of the 2024 national budget is complete, considering that long before him, Executive Secretary Ralph Recto was pulled from the Department of Finance (DoF). It is tempting to relate the assembled budget force to the crucial presidential elections two years from now.
Retired Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio pointed to Salceda as the architect of a provision in the 2024 national budget that allowed the Department of Finance to transfer excess funds from government-owned and -controlled corporations (GOCC), such as the Philippine Health Insurance Corp. (PhilHealth), to the National Treasury, which Carpio argued was unconstitutional.
Recto was a member of the Bicameral Conference Committee (Bicam) during the drafting and reconciliation of the 2024 national budget.
At the time of the budget deliberations in late 2023, Recto was the representative of the 6th District of Batangas and served as the House Deputy Speaker. He was selected to be part of the 12-member House contingent to the bicameral panel for the P5.768-trillion national budget.
Salceda has just been named Marcos’ new Presidential Legislative Liaison Office chief, a Cabinet-rank appointment that places him at the center of Malacañang’s legislative machinery.
In the same manner, Recto was pulled from Congress to take over as Department of Finance secretary.
Carpio said in an interview that while some initially suspected that Recto had inserted the budget provision that the Supreme Court later struck down as unconstitutional, he traced it instead to Salceda, who “made the insertion as he introduced a bill to insert the provision in the House.”
The maneuver originated with Salceda and was submitted to the House Appropriations Committee then chaired by Zaldy Co.
That specific budget provision authorized the Department of Finance to sweep excess funds from GOCCs into the National Treasury, which triggered the release of Unprogrammed Appropriations (UA) funds.
That provision was Section 1(D) of the UA in the 2024 budget, which was unique since it was not found in any other annual budget law.
Recto, who was then Finance Secretary, could argue that he merely implemented the law. He issued a directive for GOCCs, including PhilHealth, to surrender their excess funds to the Bureau of Treasury to comply with the special 2024 General Appropriations (GAA) stipulation.
The Salceda provision was necessarily embedded in the budget, as the Constitution does not authorize any official aside from the President to transfer savings or excess funds.
The proviso also skirted the constitutional requirement that only savings, not appropriations, can be transferred.
The Supreme Court’s ruling striking down the transfer of the PhilHealth funds was narrow in scope. It invalidated the budget provision and the Department of Finance circular implementing it, finding both tainted by a grave abuse of discretion. The Court also held that the transfer violated Section 11 of the Universal Health Care Act, which prohibits the use of PhilHealth’s reserve funds for purposes outside the law.
What the ruling dismantled was that specific mechanism for sweeping up GOCC funds through PhilHealth. It did not strike down the broader architecture of Unprogrammed Appropriations, leaving room for those who design the GAA to devise new ways to channel discretionary funds.
If the brains of these schemes have moved from the Legislature to the Executive branch, public vigilance can no longer begin in the Bicameral Conference Committee.
It must start with the National Expenditure Program, the President’s proposed budget, where the first signs of questionable allocations are most likely to appear.
