Francis Escudero

"As the lists multiply in number and the lists themselves grow longer, we should ask ourselves who the real victims are in the confusion sowed by Ms. Napoles and those who supposedly want to shed light on the Pork Barrel Scam. Those who have been unfairly dragged into this mess are not the real victims; these lists and affidavits are baseless and lack the kind of evidentiary support that can establish cases against many of those who have been named, myself included. The real victims here are our citizens. After learning the scale at which funds allocated to help them have been efficiently and systematically plundered, our people now seek redress. As it stands, there is an opportunity for our people to obtain justice as the Ombudsman already found probable cause which concluded to filing of the cases. Again, I assure the public that I have never allocated public money using the PDAF or budgetary incentives to any fictitious NGOs set up by Ms. (Janet) Napoles nor have I dealt with her to supposedly solicit or receive campaign funds. Such claim is a total falsity and runs counter to common sense because as early as October of 2009, I already withdrew any intention to run for the presidency and in 2010, I was not even a candidate for any elective position. And by Ms. Napoles’ own list, I am the only one who did not allocate any funds to her foundations from my PDAF releases. Let's keep our eye on the ball and remain vigilant to ensure the conviction of those who truly deserve to be punished for the misuse of public funds. Let us persuade our authorities to focus on evidence, testimonial or otherwise, that has probative value to avoid distractions."

"The ownership of MRT 3 must be settled immediately as the contract, I think, has been ANOMALOUS and GROSSLY DISADVANTAGEOUS to the government from the beginning. The government must already now have the rightful control of the MRT 3 operations. Unless we resolve this issue, we prolong the agony of the public waiting for an EFFECTIVE and EFFICIENT mass transport system. The Department of Transportation and Communication, by any possible means, should immediately act on this if it is really sincere in easing the daily plight of the riding public."

"Last year, I filed Senate Bill Number 123 which penalizes bus drivers who commit criminal negligence in road mishaps with 20 years of imprisonment. The existing preventive policies require more teeth to achieve safety benefits. There is no guarantee to prevent all road accidents because of many factors including human, mechanical and environmental. But regulators like the LTO and the LTFRB carry the weight of preventing fatal accidents before these happen by strictly implementing the road safety fundamentals of all public utility vehicles. They have the responsibility to make all public transportation reasonably safe to drive and to travel on. These regulators must do their jobs. Stern measures need to be strictly implemented to ensure road safety. Conscious efforts from all sectors of government and the society should be at high level to avoid further loss of lives and damage to person and property. ‪"

"As the year draws to a close, the Congress of the Philippines is once more mandated by the Constitution to enact a national budget for the ensuing year. Section 29(1), Article VI of the Constitution provides that “No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation by law.” And so today, Mr. President, I rise to sponsor, as Chairman of your Committee on Finance, the General Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2015."

"And why the need for a tightrope balancing act in the execution of the FY 2015 national budget, particularly with respect to the Supreme Court decision on the controversial Disbursement Acceleration Program?"

"First, Mr. President, distinguished colleagues, the facts. About a year ago, the legislative mill nearly came to a halt when the Supreme Court decision on the unconstitutionality of the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) or the pork barrel system radically altered the budget landscape. Declared as unconstitutional by the High Court were the following, and I quote:"

"a) the entire 2013 PDAF Article;"

"b) all legal provisions of past and present Congressional Pork Barrel Laws, such as the previous PDAF and CDF Articles and the various Congressional Insertions which authorize/d legislators – whether individually or collectively organized into committees – to intervene, assume or participate in any of the various post-enactment stages of the budget execution, such as but not limited to the areas of project identification, modification and revision of project identification, fund release and/or fund realignment, unrelated to the power of congressional oversight;"

"c) all legal provisions of past and present Congressional Pork Barrel Laws, such as the previous PDAF and CDF Articles and the various Congressional Insertions which confer or conferred personal, lump-sum allocations to legislators from which they are able to fund specific projects which they themselves determine;"

"d) all informal practices of similar import and effect, which the Court similarly deems to be acts of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and"

"e) the phrase, if I may quote, (1) “and for such other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the President” under Section 8 of Presidential Decree No. 910 and (2) “to finance the priority infrastructures development projects” under Section 12 of Presidential Decree No. 1869, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1993, for both failing the sufficiency of standard test in violation of the principle of non-delegability of legislative power."

"Mr. President, barely half a year after the controversial Supreme Court decision scrapping the pork barrel system in the national budget, the equally contentious jurisprudence on the Disbursement Acceleration Program, a.k.a. the infamous DAP, emerged out of the hallowed chambers of the highest court in the land."

"The 92-page court en banc decision penned by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin ruled that there are three (3) acts and practices under the DAP which are deemed “UNCONSTITUTIONAL for being in violation of Section 25(5), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and the doctrine of separation of powers.”"

"First. According to the court, the withdrawal of unobligated allotments from the implementing agencies, including the declaration of the withdrawn unobligated allotments and unreleased appropriations as savings prior to the end of the fiscal year, without complying with the statutory definition of savings contained in the General Appropriations Acts (GAA)."

"Second. The cross-border transfer of the savings of the Executive to augment the appropriations of other offices outside the Executive."

"Third. The funding of projects, activities, and programs that were not covered by any appropriation in the GAA. The law prohibits, according to the court, the augmentation of a non-existent program, activity, or project with an appropriation in terms of specific allotment classes, either Personal Services, Maintenance and other Operating Expenses, and/or Capital Outlays within the subject GAA."

"Apart from these three acts, Mr. President, the Court further declared VOID “the use of unprogrammed funds despite the absence of a certification by the National Treasurer that the revenue collections exceeded the revenue targets for non-compliance with the conditions provided in the relevant GAA.”"

"To be sure Mr. President, distinguished colleagues, this landmark decision will significantly alter the budget landscape if Congress is to make the 2015 GAA compliant with the Supreme Court decision. After all, this controversial ruling upheld the legislative power of the purse by clipping the powers of the President to unilaterally realign savings in the national budget to any item, whether in the executive, legislative, or judiciary, sans any legislative imprimatur."

"Adjustments, Mr. President, will have to be made by Congress to correct and rectify things, and certain processes will have to be implemented to hasten and facilitate the implementation of projects without violating the Supreme Court decision, and yet without impairing the Executive branch’s need for flexibility in the budget execution phase --- just like, Mr. President, treading a veritable tightrope, if I may say so. If and when these adjustments are effected, Mr. President, only then can we perhaps say that truly, the legislative power of the purse is a myth no more. Now Mr. President, what is the President’s proposed budget under the N.E.P. which they aptly titled toward inclusive and sustained development."

"The President’s Budget: Towards Inclusive and Sustained Development"

"The President’s proposed budget for FY 2015 under the N.E.P. or the National Expenditure Program amounts to P2.606 trillion, reflecting an increase of P341.372 billion or 15.07% higher than the Fiscal Year 2014 budget. It is anchored on a real GDP projection of 7-8%, an inflation rate of 2-4%, 364-day T-Bill rate of 2-4%, and a foreign exchange rate of P42-45 to the dollar."

"Total Revenues amounting to P2.337 trillion will finance the proposed 2015 national budget, representing a Revenue Effort of 16.5% and a growth rate of 15.8%. Tax Revenues, Mr. President, in particular, is targeted at P2.194 trillion, representing a Tax Effort of 15.5%."

"The Revenue Program for 2015 includes incremental revenues of P50.63 billion from R.A. No. 10351 or the Sin Tax Reform Law of 2012."

"In terms of the distribution by sector, the biggest share of 37.1% is allotted for Social Services, which has registered the highest increase among the sectors for the past four consecutive years due to the substantial increases for the Conditional Cash Transfer Program and the increased allocation for education. Economic Services, with a share of 26.9%, constitutes the 2nd highest portion, 48% of which will be allotted for the sub-sector of communications, roads and other transport."

"General Public Services will acquire the next highest share at 16.2%, followed by Debt Burden which will obtain 15.3% of the total budget. Although the Defense Sector will get the lowest share at 4.4%, it will reflect the highest percentage increase at 29% inclusive of an additional P25.988 billion for the General Headquarters, AFP, AFW-Wide Service Support units for its modernization program and an additional P9.497 billion to be sourced from the Miscellaneous Personnel Benefits Fund (MPBF). Let me now proceed Mr. President to the House-approved Budget or the General Appropriations Bill."

"The House-approved Budget"

"A comparative analysis of the General Appropriations Bill (GAB) will similarly show that a total of P19,827,233,000 was realigned within and among the agencies. Total New Appropriations still stands at P1.862 trillion, at exactly the same level as the FY 2015 NEP."

"A major contention in the Supreme Court decision on the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) is the definition of Savings. Taking off from the definition in the FY 2015 NEP, the House of Representatives defined Savings as portions or balances of any programmed appropriations in the GAA which have not been released or obligated due to four instances, as follows:"

"a) Discontinuance or abandonment of the program, activity, or project (P/A/P) as a result of natural or man-made calamities that hindered the agency from implementing the said P/A/P at any time during the validity of the appropriations;"

"b) Non-commencement of the P/A/P or the inability of the agency to obligate a released appropriation within the first semester of the year;"

"c) Decreased cost due to improved efficiency during the implementation or after the completion of the P/A/P; and"

"d) Difference between the approved budget for the contract and the contract bid price. Savings may also result from unused compensation and related costs arising from unfilled, vacant or abolished position, non-entitlement to allowance and benefits, and leaves of absences without pay."

"Augmentation, on the other hand, Mr. President, is defined in the GAB as the act of filling up a deficiency in any existing P/A/P of an agency or office from savings in other items of the said agency’s appropriations, and therefore, a non-existent P/A/P cannot be funded by augmentation from savings."

"The other significant special and/or general provisions amended or created by the House include the following. If I may mention a few:"

"• Special provisions on lump sum funds which states that savings from the said funds are deemed savings of the Executive Branch were amended to make it available to all three branches of the government including Constitutional Offices;"

"• Special Provisions on unfilled positions, which provide that the unexpended amount for unfilled positions will revert to the unappropriated surplus for those agencies with fiscal autonomy, were deleted."

"• The Validity of the MOOE and Capital Outlays were extended for another year."

"• Special Provision on the Provision and Maintenance of Basic Educational Facilities was amended to reflect changes in the distribution of the appropriations and the inclusion of an amount for the annual payment of school buildings constructed by the NHA. Likewise, the said provision also allows the DepEd to deduct a 0.5% engineering and administrative overhead (EAO) on the project cost."

"Senate Amendments"

"The major budgetary increases and changes consist of the following:"

"• Increase of P19 billion for the Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Program to cover past disasters including Yolanda, Glenda and Mario;"

"• Increase of P3.636 billion for the Department of Education, particularly for a Feeding Program, the Quick Response Fund, and Chalk Allowance for teachers;"

"• Restoration of the House cut on DPWH amounting to P242.6 million under MFO 3 or “Maintenance and Construction Services of Infrastructures” and the restoration of P1.318 billion under MFO 1 or “National Road Network Services.” In addition, an increase of P1.130 billion will be provided for the Quick Response Fund of the DPWH to bring it to P2 billion;"

"• Additional P816.229 million for the Philippine Crop Insurance Service which will now total P2 billion;"

"An accompanying Special Provision in the Supreme Court budget provides that … “all non-recurring appropriations herein such as, but not limited to, foreign-assisted projects and locally-funded projects, shall not form part of the Judiciary’s appropriation that may not be reduced by Congress, in order to clarify matters Mr. President."

"• Increase of P500 million for the Quick Response Fund of the Department of Health;"

"• Increase of P421.5 million for the Bureau of Customs for Workplace Modernization and various equipment to counter the perennial problem of smuggling;"

"• Increase of P300 million for the Modernization Program and Faculty Development of the Philippine Normal University;"

"• Increase of P108.907 million for Jail Facilities under the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology to be sourced from the cut in Monitoring and Evaluation Cost of PAMANA and the Grassroots Participatory Program of the DILG-OSEC;"

"Fascinated in the sense that it’s advanced human rights; it’s advanced in the sense that everything in your license, everything in your birth certificate can now be determined by the person himself. Nothing to be determined by the accident of birth. That is advanced citizenship, and I am all for it."