THE
BUSINESS OF GOVERNANCE
When
I was a 13-year-old college freshman, the first thing I learned
in Accounting 11
was the “double-entry system of accounting.” I was
taught that this is an improvement
over the “single-entry system” which is no more than
a mere listing of income,
expenditures, and other accounts.
The basic principle which was drummed into
our heads was that in all transactions, “for every debit,
there is a corresponding credit.” The system ensures that
all accounts will be balanced and total debits have to equal total
credits. If the accounts do not balance, it can only mean that
there is an error somewhere. Thus, an accounting system based
on the double entry method is considered a good thing.
The “double entry” debate in the Senate
Lest
the informed reader be misled, the current debate over the “double
entry” controversy on a project for the extension of the
C-5 road appears to be a different kettle of fish altogether.
Sen. Panfilo Lacson has stated that this extension project is
entered twice in the 2008 Appropriations Act, resulting in a
doubling of the original, estimated cost of P200 million. It
appears to be a case of double counting.
I
was away in Europe for a week and missed the fireworks as well
as the details of the transaction(s). As expected, media accounts
could not immediately uncover the minutiae of an issue which
might be complex and many-sided. Pending the generation of more
data, the following questions might help in shedding light on
issues of public interest.
1.
Is the C-5 extension project an original project of DPWH? If
this is so, it is likely to be in the proposed National Expenditure
Program (NEP) for 2008. This is very easy for media and the
Senate to trace because the NEP is a public document. If it
is in the 2008 NEP, is it only for P200 million or is there
another “part” as claimed, in the same amount?
2.
If it is not in the 2008 NEP was the project added by the House
of Representatives or the Senate? During the appropriations
phase of the budget, both houses of Congress can propose additional
allocations. However, they should also identify the sources
of funding since the total amount of the budget set by the Executive
cannot be changed. If it was introduced by either house, then
the project will appear in the House version or the Senate version
of the national budget.
3.
If the project is either in the House or Senate version, is
it for “one part” or” two parts?”
4.
If the project is not in the three sets of documents ,whether
in whole or in part,
the possibility is it could have been inserted during the Bicameral
Committee negotiations.
Enter
the Third House, e.g. the Bicameral Committee
The
public knows that the debates on the national budget are conducted
in the House of Representatives under the relentless glare of
television cameras, the whirr of tape recorders and the scratching
pencils of reporters. Interested parties and individual citizens
can watch public hearings unless the Chairman of a Committee
decides to call for an executive session.
The
public can also watch debates on the final deliberations in
both the House and the Senate. However, when the two versions
of the national budget are reconciled through the Bicameral
Committee, the public is shut out.
The
power of the Bicameral Committee cannot be underestimated. It
determines the final form and content of the national budget.
This is why it is traditionally called The Third House. Yet,
its deliberations are not public. There are no records of the
deliberations either.
The
Executive cannot say with a straight face that it does not know
anything about the insertions. The administration members of
the Bicameral Committee are in constant touch with the Executive
during deliberations of the committee.
Inspite
of all the claims of transparency and openness to the public,
the last and most important phase of the budget process before
submission to the executive is finalized behind closed doors,
outside the realm of public scrutiny.
Some niggling questions
1.
The DPWH through Undersecretary Bonoan claims that the project
has two “parts “ at P200 million each. The DBM has
“confessed” that there is only one project .. No
harm has been done because the money for the second part will
not be released. Will it not just go to the “overall savings”
of DBM and be spent for other projects?
2.
What happens when a P200 million “honest” mistake
is made? I thought it is said
ignorance of the (budget) law excuses no one.
3.
Who is benefiting from all these squabbling? Obviously the Executive.
Who
overlooked the double counting? The Executive.
4.
The DBM says the P200 million has already been released. Who
were the recipients? How much was the cost of the land for the
right of way?
When
“double entry” means double whammy
Experts
say that it will not be too difficult to pinpoint responsibility
for this mess. What is needed is political will. The documents
can easily be traced.
This
unpleasant episode brings to light a major part of the budget
process which remains dark and murky. The negotiations and compromises
among the three institutions (Executive, House and the Senate)
must be brought out into the harsh glare of truth.
