The national budget: Of errata and "midnight insertions"

And so, the House has approved Wednesday, 29 October, on third and final reading, the National Budget for 2015, by a vote of 197 ayes and 27 nays. The numbers are expected because the ruling coalition commands the overwhelming majority. The small minority could not do anything but bite their lips in dismay. That is how the cookie crumbles, so to say. That is how realpolitic works. It is a numbers game, just like an impeachment proceedings. It is not a matter of which side is right. It is a simple question of who has the numbers. The opposition can raise a howl. Whatever the majority wants, the majority gets.

However, there is a strong possibility that the opposition will raise a constitutional issue before the Supreme Court. This is going to be another collision between the judiciary and the legislature, or among the three branches: executive, legislative, and judiciary. The General Appropriations Act, or the National Budget was proposed by the president, based on the technical draft prepared by the Department of Budget and Management, headed by the Liberal Party stalwart Secretary Butch Abad. Congress passed it and the president shall approve the same.

But not too fast. The opposition led by party list Representative Neric Colmenares is poised to file a case questioning the validity of the so-called ''midnight insertions,'' supposedly made by the DBM in cooperation with the majority in the House. It is claimed that the DBM made insertions in budget after the period of amendments has expired on the second reading. The House rules prohibit any amendment after that second reading but DBM nonetheless made a 269-paged ''errata.'' The administration claims that 80 percent of the ''errata'' are typographical, thereby admitting implicitly that 20 percent are substantive changes or alteration.

To alter a budget that has already been approved on second reading is virtually negating a legislative act. It was a clear case of the executive department tampering with a legislative act. That is taboo, totally and absolutely prohibited. One illustration of a substantial alteration was the alleged increase of the DILG allocation from 104 billion to 435 billion, that includes 33 billion for the local government units and 389 billion for Internal Revenue Allocation for local governments. And there are a number of other alterations.

To our mind, however, the most vulnerable ''faux pas'' done to the budget is a new and creative definition of  '' SAVINGS.'' It authorizes the president to take away unspent money from any agency and allocate it elsewhere, thereby defeating the intent and the use of the budget itself. This, in effect, is a clear circumvention of the DAP and PDAP nullity declared by the Supreme Court, In effect, the evil sought to be avoided by the Highest Court of the land, is now being resurrected via the magic of a legislative semantics on the meaning of '' SAVINGS.'' This is the budget's Achilles' heel. And it can be Abad's Waterloo. And the president's too.  Tsk, tsk. They seem never to learn at all.