House appropriations committee forms budget amendments subpanel
The House Committee on Appropriations on Monday said it has established a subcommittee to review budget amendments, with the stated aim of ensuring transparency and that amendments will be appropriately addressed.
In a press conference, House appropriations panel chairperson and Nueva Ecija Rep. Mikaela Suansing said that the House subcommittee on Budget Amendments Review will replace the small committee—the tight-knit unit that used to collate proposed amendments of lawmakers after the House approved the proposed national budget on third and final reading.
In contrast with the small committee, the budget amendments review subcommittee will be run in parallel with the Appropriations committee's discussions on the proposed national budget.
"The first reform is that we will abolish the practice of forming a small committee to deliberate on institutional amendments. There are many departments, many agencies who advocate for changes to the budget. But at the same time, we have to navigate through 317 congressmen, each representing their particular districts. How do we address that?" Suansing said.
The budget amendments review subcommittee "will be tasked with facilitating and deliberating on proposed amendments submitted by agencies and our colleagues in the House,' she added.
'Ngayon po, iba na. Sa simula pa ng po ng budget process, pagkatanggap namin ng NEP [National Expenditure Program] o di kaya pag nagsimula tayo sa mother committee [Appropriations] hearings, tumatakbo po 'yung subcommittee on budget amendments review. Tuloy-tuloy 'yung mga deliberasyon, at yung mga deliberasyon po, bukas sa publiko... nakikita ng ating mga kababayan ano 'yung mga pinapanukala na mga amendments, ano 'yung deliberasyon at higit sa lahat ano 'yung mga aaprobahan at ipapasok sa ating panukalang budget,' Suansing added.
(It is different now. Right at the start of the budget process, upon receiving the proposed budget, the subcommittee will also start its deliberations and these deliberations will be publicly accessible. The public will be aware of the proposed amendments, what happened during deliberations, and most importantly, what are the approved amendments in the budget.)
Suansing said that the budget amendments review subcommittee will vote on which amendments to accept, subject to the approval of its mother committee, Appropriations.
'Wala na pong tagong komite. Lahat ng deliberasyon ay isasapubliko na po natin. Tatanggalin na natin lahat ng kurtina para maalis na ang mga pangamba ng ating mga kababayan. From now on, the people will witness the process in real time because this is their budget,' she said.
(There is no more secret committee. All deliberations will be publicly available. We will open all curtains so the public can be assured that public funds are well spent.)
In addition, Suansing said that the creation of the House subcommittee on Budget Amendments Review which proceedings will be publicly accessible is in accordance with Speaker Martin Romualdez's call for opening the proposed budget deliberations to the public.
'This isn't about optics, it's about outcomes. These changes aren't just procedural. They are political, moral, and constitutional commitments to restore the Filipino people's faith in how public funds are handled,' she said. — BM, GMA Integrated News
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
GMA Network
a day ago
- GMA Network
Monsod: Archiving means dismissal based on SC ruling
If the Supreme Court's (SC) decision were to be the basis, then the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte was effectively dismissed when the Senate archived it, according to one of the framers of the 1987 Constitution. 'Ang sabi sa SC decision kapag inarchive (the SC said once you archive,) it amounts to a dismissal. Well, I don't know. But if you follow the SC decision, if you archive, it amounts to dismissal of the charges," lawyer Christian Monsod said in a report by Mark Salazar on "24 Oras." However, retired associate justice Adolf Azcuna said the Senate can always retrieve the impeachment complaint from the archives 'without prejudice' if 'necessary.' Meanwhile, UP College of Law assistant professor Paolo Tamase described the complaint as, 'Natutulog siya ngayon, in deep sleep siya sa Senado hanggang buhayin siya ng tamang mosyon (the impeachment complaint is currently in deep sleep in the Senate until the right motion revives it.) Azcuna added that, 'Whatever is the decision of the court, let's just accept it because that becomes part of the law of the land, and that is our system." Regardless of the Supreme Court's decision, among the issues in the ruling is the one-year ban rule, another law expert said. 'Malinaw kasing inunang desisyunan ng House [of Representatives] 'yung 4th complaint bago pa nila dinesisyunan naman 'yung tatlo pang complaint... Paano yan maging bar doon sa pang-apat na complaint e nauna ngang inaksyunan ng House to a plenary vote 'yung pang-apat na complaint... So ang logic ay kwestyunable na,' said Atty. Domingo Cayosa, constitutional law expert. (It's clear that the House first decided on the fourth complaint even before acting on the other three, so how can that bar the fourth complaint when it was the one the House acted on first and even brought to a plenary vote? So the logic is questionable.) Azcuna also questioned whether the first three impeachment complaints could be considered 'initiated' despite not being referred to the House committee. 'The interpretation we gave in Francisco vs. House of Representatives is the one being modified in the present case because in the present case the SC said the 3 complaints were initiated even if they were not referred to the committee because they were archived, and later on with the lapse of the 19th Congress, they were terminated and dismissed,' Azcuna said. A part of the Supreme Court decision also questioned the House for a lack of due process, as Duterte was not given a chance to respond before the complaint was brought to the Senate. 'When the SC decision came in with these new conditions, ngayon sasabihin ng Senate hindi nagcomply ang House. Of course, they did not comply because they did not exist at the time. Walang shortcomings ang House,' Monsod said. (The Supreme Court decision came with these new conditions. The Senate is now saying that the House did not comply. But of course, they didn't comply, because those conditions didn't exist at the time. The House had no shortcomings.) No matter what the SC decides, it should be discussed comprehensively and explained thoroughly to the public, Azcuna said. 'Sana may oral argument sa MR (motion for reconsideration) para maipaliwanag sa taumbayan kung anong dahilan kung bakit hindi talaga pwede itong kasalukuyang articles at ito ay pumasok sa one-year ban [at] bakit na ban yan hindi naman narefer sa committee. Bigyan ng pagkakataon ang House in an oral argument kung bakit hindi pa initiated itong tatlo,' Azcuna said. (There should be an oral argument for the MR for the public to understand the reasons why the current articles aren't valid, why they fall under the one-year ban, and why it was not referred to the committee. The House should be given the opportunity in an oral argument to explain why these three complaints haven't been initiated yet.) —Mariel Celine Serquiña/LDF, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
a day ago
- GMA Network
Romualdez matapos ilagay sa ‘baul' ng Senado ang impeachment complaint vs VP Sara: ‘Tuloy ang laban'
Iginiit ni Speaker at Leyte Rep. Martin Romualdez na hindi 'power play' ang dahilan sa likod ng pagsasampa ng impeachment complaint ng Kamara de Representantes laban kay Vice President Sara Duterte, na inilagay na ng Senado sa 'archive' o isinangtabi. Pero deklara ng lider ng mga kongresista, hindi pa tapos ang laban. Nitong Huwebes, sinabi ni Romualdez na ginawa lang ng mga kongresista ang kanilang tungkulin na papanagutin ang mga opisyal na nang-aabuso umano sa kapangyarihan. Kabilang sa inaakusa laban kay Duterte ay ang mali umano nitong paggamit ng pondo, partikular sa usapin ng confidential funds, na itinatanggi ng pangalawang pangulo. Hindi rin umano minadali ng mga kongresista ang paghahanda sa kaso. Sa halip, ang Senado umano ang nagmadali na ilibing ito. 'Let's be clear: The filing of the complaint was not rushed. What was rushed—remarkably—was its burial,' ani Romualdez. Nitong Miyerkules, nagbotohan ang mga senador at mayorya ang sumang-ayon na i-archive ito. Kasunod ito ng pagdeklara ng Korte Suprema na labag sa Konstitusyon ang articles of impeachment. Gayunman, tumutol ang apat na senador na mistulang ilagay sa baul ang reklamo laban sa pangalawang pangulo dahil mayroon pang mosyon ang Kamara na didinggin ng SC. 'Why the rush? [to archive]? The Constitution is clear: only the House has the exclusive power to initiate impeachment. That power is final within its sphere. We exercised that power lawfully, transparently, and in good faith—not out of spite but out of duty. Not to attack but to ask for answers—answers the Vice President never gave,' tanong ni Romualdez. 'To archive is, in effect, to bury the Articles of Impeachment. Yet, the ruling of the Supreme Court is not final. On August 5, the House filed a Motion for Reconsideration. The Court found our arguments serious enough to require the respondents, including the Vice President, to submit their comment. The case is active,' dagdag ng Speaker. Ayon pa kay Romualdez, isang abogado, sinunod nila ang isinasaad sa Konstitusyon sa paghahanda ng articles of impeachment laban kay Duterte para panagutin ang opisyal. Giit niya, hindi ito dahil sa 'power play.' 'More than one-third of House Members signed the verified complaint. Under the Constitution, that triggered the automatic transmittal of the Articles of Impeachment. No referral to the committee was needed. No further plenary action was required. The process was complete,' pahayag ni Romualdez. Nitong Miyerkules, sinabi ni Senate President Francis 'Chiz' Escudero na hindi dapat gamitin ng Kamara ang Senado bilang 'playground to run after your political enemies.' 'To the House of Representatives I say, do not allow yourselves to be used for the blind hatred and ambition of a few who did things haphazardly, gravely abused their discretion, and violated due process, rights under the Constitution as found by the High Court itself,' ani Escudero. "To these people, I say this: the Senate is not your playground to run after your political enemies. We are not an accomplice in any grand scheme,' dagdag niya. Pero ayon kay Romualdez, hindi 'political maneuvering" ang dahilan ng pagsasampa nila ng reklamo laban kay Duterte. "It was about accountability anchored on verified facts and sworn documents. Yet we have been met with personal attacks, sweeping accusations, and a narrative that seeks to reduce a solemn constitutional duty into mere power play. That's not just unfair—it is dangerous. It undermines public trust in the very tools of democratic checks and balances,' pahayag niya. Sa kabila ng nangyari sa Senado, sabi ni Romualdez, 'Tuloy ang laban: For the Constitution, for the rule of law, and for the enduring truth that no public office is ever beyond the reach of accountability.' — mula sa ulat ni Llanesca T. Panti/FRJ GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
a day ago
- GMA Network
Romualdez: VP Sara impeach raps filed 'out of duty, not out of spite'
The House of Representatives' decision to file an impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte is a matter of duty and not about a supposed power play, Speaker and Leyte Rep. Martin Romualdez said Thursday. Romualdez issued the statement a day after the Senate decided to archive the impeachment case against the Vice President even if the House currently has a pending appeal on the Supreme Court decision declaring the impeachment case unconstitutional. 'Why the rush? [to archive]? The Constitution is clear: only the House has the exclusive power to initiate impeachment. That power is final within its sphere. We exercised that power lawfully, transparently, and in good faith—not out of spite, but out of duty. Not to attack, but to ask for answers—answers the Vice President never gave,' Romualdez said. The speaker also questioned the Senate's move as he maintained that the case "remains active." 'To archive is, in effect, to bury the Articles of Impeachment. Yet, the ruling of the Supreme Court is not final. On August 5, the House filed a Motion for Reconsideration. The Court found our arguments serious enough to require the respondents, including the Vice President, to submit their comment. The case is active,' Romualdez added. Romualdez, a lawyer, then argued that the Articles of Impeachment against the Vice President followed the Constitution's mechanism in exacting accountability on public officials, not a mere power play. 'More than one-third of House Members signed the verified complaint. Under the Constitution, that triggered the automatic transmittal of the Articles of Impeachment. No referral to the committee was needed. No further plenary action was required. The process was complete,' Romualdez said. 'Playground' Senate President Francis 'Chiz' Escudero on Wednesday asked members of the House of Representatives to refrain from trying to use the Senate as a tool to go after political adversaries. 'To the House of Representatives I say, do not allow yourselves to be used for the blind hatred and ambition of a few who did things haphazardly, gravely abused their discretion, and violated due process, rights under the Constitution as found by the High Court itself,' the Senate president said. Escudero made the remark as he explained his vote for archiving the articles of impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte. "To these people, I say this: the Senate is not your playground to run after your political enemies. We are not an accomplice in any grand scheme,' Escudero said. Romualdez, however, said that the impeachment raps was "never about political maneuvering." "It was about accountability anchored on verified facts and sworn documents. Yet we have been met with personal attacks, sweeping accusations, and a narrative that seeks to reduce a solemn constitutional duty into mere power play. That's not just unfair—it is dangerous. It undermines public trust in the very tools of democratic checks and balances,' said Romualdez. Romualdez also insisted that the impeachment case was not "haphazardly" done. 'Let's be clear: The filing of the complaint was not rushed. What was rushed—remarkably—was its burial,' Romualdez said. 'Tuloy ang laban: For the Constitution, for the rule of law, and for the enduring truth that no public office is ever beyond the reach of accountability,' Romualdez added. —VAL, GMA Integrated News
