Budget rules for all (II): big spender

Core
Business World, 30 January 2013

In a regime of fiscal austerity, it is extremely difficult to justify the creation of new departments or agencies. The name of the game is consolidation, rationalization, and retrenchment. But apparently the Senate operates under a different set of rules. Within three years, the number of “duplicative” oversight committees have doubled — from 18 in 2011 to 35 in 2013. The “authorizer” of the use of public funds has become a big and wasteful spender.

In 2011, there were 18 congressional commissions funded in the Senate budget. The most well-funded Senate oversight committees were: Agricultural Modernization (32.9 million), Preparatory Activities/Study for Building Construction (30.0 million), Oversight Committee on Labor and Employment (27.5 million), Joint Congressional Power Commission (21.1 million), Oversight Committee on the Comprehensive Tax Reform (14.5 million), Oversight Committee on Affordable Medicines (12 million), Oversight Committee on the Dangerous Drug Act (10.0 million), and the Congressional Oversight Committee on Civil Aviation (10 million). The total appropriation for the 18 congressional commissions was 251.7 million.

With 24 senators, the creation of oversight committees provide each senator an opportunity to increase the budget resources under his control. This is on top of what he receives as a senator, as chairman, vice-chairman, and member of standing committees, and as member of the Commission on Appointments and the Senate Electoral Tribunal.

Not surprisingly, the number of oversight committees has ballooned to 35. And the corresponding appropriations for these oversight committees have skyrocketed to 545.8 million, up from 251.7 million in 2011. In three years, the budget for oversight committees rose by 294.1 million or by 116.8%.

Think about it. Legislators are not even supposed to be involved in implementing laws. Their role is to pass, not implement, laws. Most oversight committees even duplicate what standing committees do. For example, what can the Joint Committee on Public Expenditures do that the Senate Finance Committee or the House Appropriations Committee can’t do? And what can the Senate Oversight Committee on Economic Affairs do that the Senate Committee on Economic Affairs can’t do?

Over three years, the following oversight committees were born: Cooperatives, Automated Election System, Climate Change, Human Security Act, Economic Affairs, Agrarian Reform, Public Expenditures, Overseas Workers Act, Intelligence Fund, Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act, Special Purpose Vehicle Act, Government Procurement, Local Government Code of 1991 [for God’s sake, this law has been enacted more than two decades ago], Suffrage, and Bases Conversion.

The locally funded project “Preparatory Activities/Study for Building Construction” has been funded as early as in fiscal year 2010 (maybe earlier). 30 million has been authorized annually for the last four fiscal years, including 2013. What has been accomplished out of the first 90 million? And what is the expected output of the 30 million appropriations in 2013? Or, is the 30 million used as a buffer, later converted to ‘savings’ which in turn is used to augment the MOOE of senators.

For a resource-scarce government, I find it hard to justify the creation of these duplicative, oversight committees. The proliferation of oversight committees is designed more to increase the power to spend by the Senate President and some favored senators than to address a critical legislative concern.

Here’s the harsh budget reality: the bigger the Senate budget for MOOE, the higher the discretionary fund that does not require serious COA scrutiny, and the larger the amount individual senators can keep for their own personal needs.

The present and future crops of senators should seriously think about this. Filipinos expect senators and congressmen who authorize government spending to be the first to show fiscal discipline, responsibility and accountability. But they don’t. Instead of being the paragon of fiscal prudence, they have become the symbol of fiscal profligacy.

For too long, legislators have become complacent, unmindful of their responsibility and accountability to the Filipino people. Many have chosen to surrender their “power of the purse” to the President of the Philippines. What Malacañang wants, Malacañang gets.

An overwhelming number of senators and congressmen have shown less interest in exercising their responsibility to review, scrutinize, and cut leaner the President’s budget for the purpose of removing unnecessary and wasteful projects. Instead, they have helped themselves to the budget pie by enlarging their own budget. Not surprisingly, the quality of budget review in recent years has deteriorated.

In this coming midterm elections, the voters should choose candidates for Congress who are likely to be serious in legislating laws rather than identifying and implementing projects. They should vote for those who would be willing to exercise their “power of the purse” rather than be content with how much resources they could extract from the budget.