Congress has no bicam records sought by SC — OSG

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) said Tuesday that Congress does not have the documents sought by the Supreme Court (SC) regarding the changes made by the bicameral conference committee (bicam) on the 2024 national budget.

During the resumption of the oral arguments on the 2024 budget, Solicitor General Darlene Berberabe said the OSG only submitted the bicam report and a joint explanation on the differences that were affected during a bicam meeting.

“When we asked the House and the Senate, there are no records that are available that can be certified, your honor, because again and they referred us to what is required under their rules and they are required to come up with a bicam report and that is what we submitted,” she said.

SC Associate Justice Benjamin Caguioa previously sought the submission of documents, specifically Programs, Activities, and Projects (PAP) that were inserted by the bicam, the respective amounts for each PAP, the supporting documents for the specific PAP, and whether they were implementation ready, among others.

Due to this, Caguioa asked representatives from the Senate and House of Representatives to submit a compliance under oath that they do not have the supporting documents.

“Whatever explanations they have for not supplying it or whether or not in fact they don’t have copies, all of that can be contained in a manifestation sworn to by them,” Caguioa said during the resumption of the oral arguments on the budget.

“We want to know whether or not these documents exist or do not exist or whether these documents do exist but they don’t want to give it to us because of their institutional concerns,” he added.

Following this, Berberabe there are no such documents based on her discussions with Congress.

Caguioa, however, said he “wanted to hear it from the horse’s mouth under oath.”

According to the Solicitor General, her team coordinated with their counterparts in Congress. She said she also had a meeting with the House Speaker and the chairperson of the Appropriations Committee.

“Is it possible that the court asks the representatives of congress, both the House and Senate, to file a compliance with the court under oath, attesting to what you are now telling us, that in fact, they do not have the records,” he said.

Caguioa also asked the Department of Budget and Management to answer the questions he posed the OSG.

Plenary powers

Meanwhile, former Senate President Franklin Drilon, an amicus curiae or friend of the court, said that unprogrammed appropriations is a plenary power of Congress and cannot be restricted.

“Now, the Constitution does not provide for unprogrammed appropriation, and therefore, this is part of the power of the State to appropriate,” Drilon said.

“It is our respectful submission your honor, that this is a plenary power of Congress and that cannot be restricted, but it does not mean that the use of such power cannot be corrected,” he added.

Drilon also said that there is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the creation of the bicam by Congress or the Legislative Department.

However, he said this was “borne out of necessity.”

“We need to reconcile the respective proposals of the two chambers and therefore the need for a bicameral conference committee to iron out these difference,” he said.

UAHI

Meanwhile, Associate Justice Raul Villanueva presented the acronym “UAHI,” which stood for Unprogrammed Appropriations Huwag Ibulsa.

Villanueva asked Berberabe whether unprogrammed appropriations that are stolen gives them a bad name.

Berberabe responded, “a very bad name.”

She also said that the OSG believes that it is not within the power of the judiciary to interfere in the power of the purse, with the exception of its power to review.

This was after Villanueva asked whether the judicial department will encroach on the constitutional prerogatives of the executive department if the SC declares unprogrammed appropriations as unconstitutional. — RSJ, GMA News