ABUSE OF DISCRETION

The media debates on the propriety or impropriety of "cash gifts" given away by Sen. President Juan Ponce Enrile and House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte to the lawwmakers under their respective command will continue to brew indefinitely until after the Commision on Audit shall have complete its probe at the behest of  Sen Miriam Defensor Santiago and formally issued its independent findings.  The debates are certainly not only among media columnists and opinion makers, but also between or among lawmakers themselves.

So far, Sen. Pro Tempore Jinggoy Estrada has called upon the the four Liberal Party Senator-allies of President Aquino (Drilon, Pangilinan, Guingona and Recto) to take their position on Enrile's allegedly "unconscionable" and "unconstitutional" realignment and conversion of the Senate "savings" into MOORE (Maintenance, Operating and Other Recurring Expenses).  Meanwhile, in a recent television interview, COA Chair Maria Garcia Pullido-Tan has said that offhand what Enrile, as well as Belmonte did was well within their authority as laid down in the Constitution regarding re-alignment.

Section 25(5), Article VI, of the Constitution provides: ". . . the President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of Constitutional Commissions may, by law, be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations.  That, against Sect. 25(6), same Article, which says that: Discretionary funds appropriated for particular officials shall be disbursed only for public purposes to be supported by appropriate vouchers and subject to such guidelines as may be prescribed by law.    

As things stand, there are a number of questions that curiously ache for truthful answers in this connection:  First, were the so-called "cash gifts and bonuses" given directly in the name of the lawmakers?  If so, Second, were the appropriate withholding tax duly deducted?  Third, were the portion pertaining to MOORE also given directly to the lawmakers, for them to do whatever he wants about it? Fourth, were the lawmakers' subsequent  disbursements from the transferred or re-aligned funds strictly within the purview of  "disbursed only for public purposes?"  Fifth, were such disbursements required to be supported by appropriate vouchers?  Sixth, How did the "savings" come about?  For example, did it include the salary of former Senator and now President Benigno Aquino, from July 2011 onward, as well as the budget for other Senate expenses are known to be "not to be spent, anyway" at the start of each budgeting season.  Methinks the answer to the last question is crucial, because that will validate, or invalidate, Sen. Santiago's claim that the Senate may have been budgeting for items that it very well knows are not to be spent, and then classify it as "savings" for eventual giveaway to Senators.

My hopes run high the COA would not only zero-in on the Senate President's discretionary power for fund re-alignments under the Constitution, but must also seek honest answers to the above and, perhaps, many other equally relevant, questions.  In the ultimate reckoning,in the final interest of public good,  there is always something called "Abuse of Discretion."