Tension erupted among minority lawmakers at the House Committee on Appropriations on Wednesday over whether the Office of the Vice President (OVP) should be extended parliamentary courtesy during deliberations on its proposed P785.2-million budget for 2027.

Bagong Henerasyon Party-list Rep. Roberto Nazal argued that the OVP should receive the same courtesy extended to the Office of the President (OP), whose proposed P10.15-billion budget was approved at the committee level Tuesday without further questioning.

Nazal said Vice President Sara Duterte and her office were already facing questions on transparency and accountability through the impeachment proceedings, arguing that extending parliamentary courtesy could ease the burden on the institution.

“Her budget, moreover, has not grown. It remains modest and unremarkable. In fact, the budget proposal is even lower than the NEP, presenting nothing that would warrant a departure from the courtesy this committee was willing to extend just yesterday,” Nazal said.

“This is not a request for special treatment. It is simply a request for consistency,” he added.

Nazal maintained that the House had an obligation to treat “every co-equal branch of government with the same measures of respect and fairness, regardless of the circumstances surrounding it.”

On Tuesday, the appropriations panel voted 37-5 to extend parliamentary courtesy to the OP and terminate deliberations on its proposed P10.15-billion budget for 2027.

‘End parliamentary courtesy’

ACT Teachers Party-list Rep. Antonio Tinio, who voted against the move Tuesday, opposed Nazal’s position and argued that parliamentary courtesy should instead be abolished during budget deliberations.

Tinio questioned why Congress should subject the OVP to stringent transparency requirements while waiving scrutiny of the President’s budget.

“It seems that our representative here, representative Nazal, was misled by what happened yesterday. We made it clear yesterday in our explanation that this inter-parliamentary courtesy should be erased, especially when it comes to the budget,” Tinio said.

“Our duty as all members of the government is to be transparent in how the public funds are used…we need to stop this practice,” he added.

Tinio warned that continuing the practice could set a precedent in which other institutions, including the judiciary, could also be spared scrutiny of their proposed budgets.

OVP ‘ready to answer’

To settle the dispute, House Committee on Appropriations vice chairperson Rep. Jose Alvarez asked OVP Chief of Staff Atty. Zuleika Lopez whether the office was willing to answer questions from lawmakers.

“Yes, your honor. We are ready to answer the questions,” Lopez replied.

Nazal and Quezon City Rep. Jesus “Bong” Suntay, however, raised concerns that Tinio and other members of the Makabayan bloc could raise matters beyond the proposed budget.

Caloocan Rep. Edgar Erice said OVP officials could simply decline to answer questions unrelated to the budget.

“We just ask the questions, if they do not want to answer, they may not answer just to show the difference between the Office of the President who does not want to answer and the Office of the Vice President who wants to answer,” Erice said.

Erice was among the lawmakers who voted Tuesday in favor of extending parliamentary courtesy to the OP.

Asked by DAILY TRIBUNE about his differing position on the OVP, Erice said answering lawmakers’ questions could benefit Duterte’s office amid criticism over its handling of public funds.

“When it comes to the Office of the Vice President, I think it favors them that is always questioned for its transparency. They should answer since there is nothing controversial about their budget, it is easy to answer,” he said.