By What Right?

This is what I like about congressional oversight: it reveals and it inevitably criticize with the purpose of legislatively correcting the error or shortcoming of any government agency.

Although such fact-finding committees do admittedly make mistakes, the benefit of empowering such legislative institutions with investigative powers outweighs the cost of not having them.

Here we are again, discussing a crucial legislation that ought to have received its alloted funding but did not do so, for no apparent reason. Those who were supposed to appropriate the necessary funding as provided by law did not seem to comply with the most important factor which surely decides the effectiveness of an enacted legislation - the frickin appropriation of money!

I am quite puzzled, utterly clueless, and laughing myself to the point of skipping a heartbeat when it comes to the mysterious and unfathomable way of releasing public funding in our country, which ought to be in the hands of the national legislature. But is it? Renowned political theorists of the past, such as Montesquieu, certainly recognized the foolishness of leaving appropriation powers in the hands of the one who hold executive power unless the executive only has the right to give "consent" to its release. By the term consent, I find the constitutional veto over proposed legislations, which include appropriation bills, sufficient to satisfy the essence of such "consent."

In short, the holder of executive power ought not to have primary control over the time and manner of disposing public money. As a mere assent only withhold in times of congressional abuse of power or misappropriation harmful to national interest, this executive consent to public appropriation is a power used sparingly; that is, if our solons desire to enrich themselves, for their own selfish ends. Above all, the power of appropriation is not a power the executive branch should get used to exercising and flaunting. Perhaps we ought to be reminded that de facto executive appropriation only exist during periods of imbalance in the system of checks and balances within the three branches of government i.e., when the executive branch becomes tyrannical or in the aftermath of an undemocratic rule.

But what are political scientists in our country saying about this? Have they lost their power of speech and freedom of action to allow such perversion to prosper? What happened to the "gadfly" in ourselves? Have we sold this precious but crucial part of us to a master with the highest bid? Shame on those who do not raise the cause of legitimate and constitutionally approved opposition - the simple act of disagreeing when it is dictated by reason.

When it comes to appropriation, it seems that the Philippine government is leaning towards a strong presidency. And it is we, those who are capable but do not act, that deserve to don the livery of jesters for it is in our power to do what is right but do nothing about it.

Also, to the national executive establishment, by what right do you demand the enforcement of laws or environmental laws, to be specific, on local government units if the executive department does not appropriate funds in the manner consistent with the will of the representative of the Filipino people i.e., the Philippine Congress? Amend Martial Law era appropriation legislations that empower the executive branch to appropriate a significant amount of public money, if you do not wish to be so criticized.

For power comes with great responsibility and those who hold it is accountable for the consequences of its use. If the national executive establishment wishes not to be criticized for handling the people's money poorly, then it must devolve power back or better said, return what is not an executive prerogative in the first place, back to the representatives of the people.

Surely, a good POL SCI freshman classmate can quote Montesquieu as to why appropriation is inherently a legislative prerogative, not an executive concern.

Hint: it has something to do with liberty and democracy.