Compromising the power of the purse
Under the Constitution, the spending power, or the power of the purse, belongs to Congress, subject only to the veto power of the President. The President may propose the budget, but still the final say on the matter of appropriations is lodged in the Congress. This is how the Supreme Court succinctly described the power of Congress in relation to the passage of the national budget.
The news about the swift approval by the House of Representatives of the budgets of the Office of the President and the Office of the Vice-President and concurrent DepEd Secretary raises the red flag that the constitutional design of checks and balances among the three (3) branches of government has gone with the wind.
What is baffling is the assertion by one panel member in the House that the termination of the budget hearing in less than 10 minutes is a “sign of respect”. The confluence of these acts points to the fact that Congress may have unduly delegated its power to the executive department whose budget proposals it is supposed to scrutinize.
Scrutinizing the proposed budget for its necessity and availability of funding is an act that cannot be dispensed with just because the House highly respects those holding the positions in the executive department.
The swift passage of the proposed budgets for the top position in the executive department can never be considered a “sign of respect” but an abdication of a constitutional duty. The absence of the institutionalized checks and balances opens the floodgates of abuse of power.