Duterte may use veto power vs ‘pork barrel’

MANILA, Philippines — President Duterte will work for the people’s interest on the issue of the national budget, presidential spokesman Salvador Panelo said yesterday.

Panelo said the President can use his veto power to correct some perceived “wrong” provisions in the P3.757-trillion national budget for 2019. ?“What we recognize is the power of Congress to amend – to review and to amend to do whatever it feels is correct, necessary and right. We’ll leave it to them. Now, if the President feels that it’s wrong, then he can use his veto power to correct it,” he said.

Panelo made the statement amid calls for the President to use his veto power to remove the alleged pork barrel inserted by some lawmakers in the national outlay to accommodate their pet projects.

Panelo echoed the statement of Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea, who asked the media not to preempt the President.

Sen. Panfilo Lacson earlier urged Duterte to veto the controversial “pork” insertions in the national budget.

“Then, let’s see. The basis for any action of the President is people’s interest,” Panelo said.

“He has no comment. But as we said earlier, let us not argue with Secretary Medialdea’s comment that we should not preempt the President. The President knows what he is going to do,” he said.

Panelo tried to downplay the controversy generated by the tug-of-war between senators and congressmen over the 2019 budget, which has yet to be passed more than a month since the administration started working on a reenacted budget.

Congress will go on recess this week to give way to the campaign for the May 13 elections.

“I cannot even understand why the fuss over all this. It’s because when you allocate for a particular district, that means that district – the reasonable assumptions is they need it,” he said.

Panelo gave lawmakers the benefit of good faith when they supposedly worked for inclusion of budgets for their respective districts.

Panelo also took cognizance of a Supreme Court (SC) ruling that found the realignment of fund allocations unconstitutional if they are done after the budget is passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Panelo said the allegations hurled by Lacson on alleged pork barrel ran counter to the SC ruling. 

Panelo pointed out the SC ruled that “pork would refer to allocations which do not yet form part of allocation in the budget.”

“But in this particular case, Lacson was saying it was already there, ready for distribution. So, how would it work?” he said.

Lacson maintained there were several insertions made in the national outlay, including P160 million for each member of the House and P23 billion for the Department of Public Works and Highways, which have been retained.

Lacson said he has only one vote and could not impose on his colleagues.

“Sadly, no matter how hard I argued (Thursday night), I only have one vote, although I have good reason to believe that some like-minded colleagues are supportive of deleting all pork insertions, particularly the excessive and unconscionable realignments made not only by our House counterpart, but by a number of our colleagues as well,” Lacson added.

Lacson, however, expressed belief that all his efforts were not wasted.

“On a positive note, all appropriations for flood control, particularly dredging, desilting and the like, have been deleted to be realigned to capital outlay for purchase of dredging machines,” he said.

Through his exposé, Lacson said he was able to enlighten the public because of the ensuing discourse for or against the outlawed pork barrel.

“I would say, we have gained some headway in this regard. Hopefully, the President and his economic managers will further scrutinize the final version of the budget bill as passed by Congress and exercise his veto power to excise the line items that clearly look and smell like pork,” Lacson said. – With Cecille Suerte Felipe