Congress set to come out with new definition of ‘savings’

MANILA, Philippines - Congress will come out with a joint resolution to define savings in the context of the national budget, Senate President Franklin Drilon said yesterday.

Drilon said this is in response to the call of the President for assistance from Congress following the Supreme Court’s ruling against the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP).

Aquino, in his State of the Nation Address on Monday, asked Congress to pass a supplemental budget to cover the projects whose implementation was jeopardized following the SC ruling on DAP.

The President also called on Congress to pass a joint resolution that would “bring clarity to the definitions and ideas still being debated upon.”

Drilon said the Supreme Court’s definition of savings was based on its own interpretation of the General Appropriations Act and the Administrative Code.

“It is a law, it is a policy enunciated by a law, and it is the prerogative of Congress to review the law and make amendments to the law if policies are being misunderstood, or if the definition is unclear,” Drilon said.

Drilon said Congress, as the crafter of laws, would be in the best position to come out with a clear definition of provisions of laws, such as savings in the national budget.

He clarified this move, as proposed by the President, should not be considered as a challenge to the ruling of the high court on the DAP.

By analogy, Drilon said the court could convict a person charged with libel but if Congress passes a law decriminalizing libel, “then that will mean the conviction will no longer be valid, because that conviction is a provision of the law.”

“Similarly, the Court interpreted savings in the manner that they understood it, which may not be consistent with how Congress intended the term savings to be and therefore, Congress has the prerogative to review and revise the definition of savings,” he said.

Drilon said he agreed with the argument made by Malacañang that funds left idle for some other reason, such as the abandonment of projects, could be used to augment other items in the national budget as soon as these become available.

The Supreme Court, in its ruling, stuck to the traditional definition of savings, which meant the amounts involved would only be realized at the end of the year.

“We believe we do not have to wait for the end of the year, because by the end of the year, the budget authority would have lapsed and you have to go through bidding and all that. The very strict and literal interpretation of term savings, to me, can be reviewed,” Drilon said.

As far as the supplemental budget is concerned, Drilon said he sees no problem with this move by the President because it would finance projects that were left hanging because of the Supreme Court’s ruling on the DAP.

“What’s wrong anyway with having a supplemental budget? It’s the same, it’s a law. We have passed a number of supplemental budgets including the supplemental budget to address the need for funds of typhoon victims. Remember that was passed in November last year and the General Appropriations Act in December,” he said.