THE Office of the Ombudsman will create a panel to study the Supreme Court’s (SC) ruling, declaring parts of the 2024-2026 budgets as unconstitutional, and determine whether government officials could be held accountable, Ombudsman Jesus Crispin C. Remulla said on Monday.
“We’re starting the budget watch. We’re now watching that, which didn’t happen before,” he told reporters in mixed English and Filipino on the sidelines of the signing of the anti-graft body’s memorandum of understanding with the Justice Sector Coordinating Council to improve accountability.
“I will compose a group that will study the Supreme Court decision and the budget that came with the decision so that we can study it thoroughly in detail,” he added.
Mr. Remulla said his office would examine where responsibility lies and determine how those involved could be held accountable.
“We always evaluate decisions of the Supreme Court when it comes to when they pinpoint culpability. We have to act. So, we will study all of that and look at where the fault was and how to make people explain their side or at least be made responsible for what they did,” he said.
He said the group would also examine questionable budget allocations, including projects placed under unprogrammed appropriations, which he said could have been used to manipulate the budget process.
Asked whether the ruling could expose President Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr. to liability, Mr. Remulla said the President submits the proposed budget to Congress, where lawmakers make amendments.
“The President just submits the bill, the proposed bill to Congress. The action goes on inside Congress,” he said, adding that the process could be difficult to track, particularly when allocations are added or removed.
Following budget deliberations, the enrolled bill, reconciled and ratified by both the Senate and House of Representatives, will be sent back to the Palace for the President’s signature.
AWAITING CLARITY
Meanwhile, Bataan Rep. and House Appropriations Committee Vice-Chair Albert S. Garcia said the House could correct the proposed 2027 national budget through the bicameral conference committee, depending on clarification sought by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) on the Supreme Court ruling.
“The OSG… is seeking more clarity on the Supreme Court decision regarding the national budget. So that, even the House can act accordingly when the clarity is given,” Mr. Garcia told reporters during a separate media briefing.
He said minor adjustments could be made through the bicameral conference committee, although the decision would ultimately depend on House leadership.
“If only a minor adjustment is needed, in my personal opinion, I hope we can just rectify it right there,” he said.
Mr. Garcia also said the Senate could return the budget bill, citing previous instances in which the chamber returned to other legislation.
“If you will treat this budget as a regular bill, there are already precedents where a bill in the Senate was sent back. So that is a possibility,” he said.
He added that the Supreme Court ruling primarily concerned unprogrammed appropriations, while amendments to the proposed 2027 budget remained within the jurisdiction of Congress.
Mr. Garcia defended lawmakers’ authority to amend appropriations, saying representatives were mandated to push for projects that address the needs of their respective districts.
He said lawmakers participated in bottom-up budgeting by consulting local officials, government agencies and the private sector, but some priorities did not make it into the National Expenditure Program submitted to Congress.
He also warned that delaying the budget’s passage could weigh on economic growth and employment.
“Delay in the passage of the budget might result in lowering our GDP (gross domestic product) which will of course not produce much needed jobs for our people,” he said.
The Ombudsman’s budget monitoring initiative comes as the agency strengthens coordination with other justice sector institutions. – Pexcel John Bacon