Daily Archives: February 12, 2017

Although the question of bringing about financial reforms has been hanging fire in previous regimes also yet no reforms worth the name were brought in so far. When we get used to a system, we are loath to change it even if the change is positive and more beneficial at the end of the day. Financial system in our State administration is essentially based on the system that prevailed even before freedom dawned in our country. A few reforms have been brought in no doubt, but the fast changing times in which we live, and the obvious constraints imposed by democratic form of Government, call for radical change in the financial system if the State has to keep pace with other States in the country in march towards all round development.The administration has to move fast to keep pace with the rising aspirations of the people and requirements of a democratic governance. The Government has taken a bold step and announced a slew of reforms to strengthen and streamline fiscal discipline. The conventional practice of dragging the budget to the last quarter and then to the last month of the financial year has been a source of big corruption and delay in delivery. According to new policy of the Government, not more than 30 per cent of the total budget has to be spent during the last quarter of the financial year. So far the practice has been of dragging procurement and tendering process to the last month meaning March of the financial year and then hurrying up and rushing through the tenders, allocations, payments and clearance of balances. The net result was that there used to be great rush and mismanagement all giving rise to corruption. This practice has been discarded now. Fiscal discipline will be prioritized with the announcement of release of 50 per cent revenue and capital expenditure budget provision for upcoming financial year of 2017-18, at least four to five months ahead of schedule and May 15 is fixed as deadline for procurement and tendering process for all kinds of work to give ample time to their execution in view of limited working season in some of the areas. Actually, most of the inhabited areas of the State being winter zone, normal life is disrupted by the harsh elements imposing serious restrictions on work culture. This imposes so many restrictions on administrative and financial aspects of the State. There are clear cut instructions from the Finance Department to the Heads of Departments and other executing agencies to immediately set in motion the procurement and tendering process for the works to complete them latest by May 15, 2017, which means that all budgeted works must be allotted and supply orders issued or procurements made by the specified timeline. The fixing of time line under new directions to the Departmental Heads is a significant change in the stereotype practices observed so far. This is naturally bound to bring fiscal discipline on a new pattern. Essentially, this drastic measure has been taken by the Government keeping a number of situations in mind. Firstly, now a new dimension is given to Center-State relations in which the Centre categorically asserts that in case of non completion of schemes in time and non submission of utilization certificate the Centre will stop further installments on the project. This condition is not only on paper but has been taken recourse to. Secondly, the routine excuse for non completion of projects is that funds are not released in time. According to new pattern this issue remains tackled and there will be no more complaint because funds will be released much ahead of time and in advance in certain cases. Fiscal discipline will put an end to malpractices which afflicted the Finance and other departments invariably.

Share With

Excerpt from:

Promoting fiscal discipline - Daily Excelsior

Theresa May, the next UK prime minister following the resignation of David Cameron. (REUTERS/Peter Nicholls)

When I debate one of my leftist friends about deficits, its often a strange experience because none of us actually care that much about red ink. Im motivated instead by a desire to shrink the burden of government spending, so I argue for spending restraint rather than tax hikes that would feed the beast.

And folks on the left want bigger government, so they argue for tax hikes to enable more spending and redistribution.

I feel that I have an advantage in these debates, though, because I share my table of nations that have achieved great results when nominal spending grows by less than 2 percent per year.

The table shows that nations practicing spending restraint for multi-year periods reduce the problem of excessive government and also address the symptom of red ink.

I then ask my leftist buddies to please share their table showing nations that got good results from tax increases. And the response isawkward silence, followed by attempts to change the subject. I often think you can even hear crickets chirping in the background.

I point this out because I now have another nation to add to my collection.

From the start of last decade up through the 2009-2010 fiscal year, government spending in the United Kingdom grew by 7.1 percent annually, far faster than the growth of the economys productive sector. As a result, an ever-greater share of the private economy was being diverted to politicians and bureaucrats.

Beginning with the 2010-2011 fiscal year, however, officials started complying with my Golden Rule and outlays since then have grown by an average of 1.6 percent per year.

And as you can see from this chart prepared by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, this modest level of fiscal restraint has paid big dividends. The burden of government spending has significantly declined, falling from 45 percent of national income to 40 percent of national income.

This means more resources in private hands, which means better economic performance.

Though allow me to now share some caveats. Fiscal policy is only a small piece of what determines good policy, just 20 percent of a nations grade according to Economic Freedom of the World.

So spending restraint should be accompanied by free trade, sound money, a sensible regulatory structure, and good governance. Moreover, as we see from the tragedy of Greece, spending restraint doesnt even lead to good fiscal policy if its accompanied by huge tax increases.

Fortunately, the United Kingdom is reasonably sensible, which explains why the country is ranked #10 by EFW. Though its worth noting that it gets its lowest score for size of government, so the recent bit of good news about spending restraint needs to be the start of a long journey.

Original post:

The United Kingdom and the Benefits of Spending Restraint - People's Pundit Daily

InterAksyon.com The online news portal of TV5

Atty. Mel Sta. Maria is the Dean of the Far Eastern University Institute of Law and Professor at the Ateneo de Manila School of Law.

On February 2, 1987, the Filipino people ratified the 1987 Freedom Constitution. Its significance can be appreciated by studying the Constitution which preceded it the 1973 Martial law Constitution of former dictator Ferdinand E. Marcos.

Ferdinand E. Marcos, a cum laude law graduate from the University of the Philippines and number one topnotcher of the bar examinations, was brilliant and ruthless as a dictator. When his official term as President was ending, he declared martial law, unceremoniously closed Congress, jailed many of its prominent members especially those in the opposition, locked up journalists and media-people critical to him, suppressed the freedom of the press, speech and association, and arrogated all powers of government unto himself.

To further perpetuate his power, Marcos knew where to start the Constitution. And so, to replace the 1935 Constitution and using his martial law might and influence, the dictator had a new Constitution spuriously ratified by the raising of hands of the so-called "citizens' assemblies". That Martial Law 1973 Constitution had all the hallmarks of despotism.

It contained "Amendment Numbers 5 and 6" which made the Batasang Pambansa a rubber stamp a useless legislative branch of government ignored and/or disregarded at a whim by President Marcos. Amendment No. 5 authorized the President to "continue to exercise legislative powers until Martial Law shall have been lifted." And had Martial Law been truly lifted, the President still would have had legislative powers via Amendment Number 6 which provided that "whenever in the judgment of the President, there exists a grave emergency or a threat or imminence thereof, or whenever the interim Batasang Pambansa or the regular National Assembly fails or is unable to act adequately on any matter for any reason that in his judgment requires immediate action, he may, in order to meet the exigency, issue the necessary decrees, orders, or letters of instructions, which shall form part of the law of the land."

If the dictator Marcos did not like a law or a bill being discussed at the Batasang Pambansa, he simply issued a Presidential Decree on the same subject using his own judgment and even relying merely on his gut-feel. There were no standards for the President's exercise of legislative power except his own self-serving determination of what they were. So, if in his personal judgment "for any reason" the legislature was "unable to act adequately" in one, two, three or more months or even in just one, two or three days, he can just legislate on his own and by-pass the legislature. This also rendered nugatory the legislative oversight and fiscal powers.

During his dictatorship, President Marcos literally issued more Presidential decrees, Executive Orders and Letters of Instructions than laws passed by the Batasang Pambansa. The President churned up laws and repealed them as frequent as he desired. And many of them were made without publication and proper dissemination of information. People were incarcerated via Presidential Decrees that would suddenly exist depending on the Presidents caprice.

To firm up his hold over the impotent Batasang Pambansa, the Presidential veto of any legislation was absolute and final under the Marcos Constitution. This is unlike the 1987 Freedom Constitution where a presidential-veto can be overridden by Congress as a check on possible abuses of such presidential prerogative.

Also, unlike the 1987 Freedom Constitution where judges and justices are appointed only after determination and written recommendation to the President by an independent body, the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), the 1973 Marcos Constitution gave the President the sole and exclusive prerogative to select, determine and finally appoint judges and justices. Consequently, many of those who aspired to be appointed to or promoted in the judiciary kowtowed to the dictator. Judges and Justices were beholden to the President who did not hesitate to wield his undue influence over them. Judicial independence was an illusion.

All these went against the grain of democracy. The reason behind the effectivity of three separate great branches of government (namely: the executive, the legislative and the judiciary) is precisely to disperse governmental powers. The configuration is designed so that each branch can check any abuse committed, being committed or may potentially be committed by the other branches. Concentrating power or almost all the powers of government only in one branch (directly or vicariously) leads to a monarchial kind of authority that is absolute and unconditional.

And to further assure President Marcos' "fear factor" over the citizenry, the 1973 Marcos Constitution did not limit the power to issue a warrant of arrest to the courts unlike in the 1987 Freedom Constitution. The power was also granted to any "responsible officer authorized by law." The President, exercising his legislative powers, can authorize the Secretary of Defense or even a mere bureau chief to issue a warrant. In fact, this power was much abused such that the proliferation of Arrest Search and Seizure Orders (ASSO) happened. People were just arrested even without probable cause determined by the courts.

Also, the 1973 Constitution allowed the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus where people can be detained without charge or trial and the imposition of Martial Law for a limitless period as determined by the President without any check from the legislature. Worse, the basis of the imposition can be highly subjective as when the President believed that invasion or rebellion was "imminent". How imminent was imminent? The 1973 Constitution did not define it. It all depended on the President.

Under the 1987 Freedom Constitution, suspension of the writ of habeas corpus and declaration of Martial Law can only be made when there is actual invasion or rebellion when public safety requires an objective basis. The President's belief of the imminence of such situations happening which is very subjective and prone to abuse is not a ground. And even in case Martial Law is imposed, Congress can rescind it. Should Congress and the President agree to its imposition, the Supreme Court can void their decisions upon a meritorious petition from a taxpayer. And under the 1987 Constitution, the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus can be questioned in court which can grant bail for the provisional release of the detained.

Then, under Section 17 Article 15 of the 1973 Marcos Constitution, the dictator Marcos made himself immune from suit for all acts he did for as long as they were "official". And Marcos cannot be sued even after his term. Considering that he can enact laws by himself, Marcos can make a crime "official". For example, any technical malversation of government funds can be legitimized as "official" by a Presidential Decree which "forms part of the law of the land" issued by no other than the person guilty of malversation, the President himself. Also, billions of money diverted from the national treasury to private foundations can be validated as "official" and therefore cannot be subject of a suit, whether administrative, civil or criminal. This gave the dictator Marcos the power to make himself legally God-like incapable of doing anything wrong, much more criminal a clear badge of despotism. Simply put, there was total impunity.

For the dictator, there was only rule of law for the citizens but not for him, He was above the law as he was the law who can make, change and repeal the law anytime he wished. The consequence was the unprecedented grave and horrible abuse of power and authority, resulting to accumulation of ill-gotten wealth amounting to billions of dollars and "summary execution, torture, enforced or involuntary disappearance and other gross human rights violations committed during the regime of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos covering the period from September 21, 1972 to February 25, 1986" as recognized by Republic Act Number 10368, otherwise known as the "Human Rights Victims Reparation and Recognition Act of 2013".

According to Fr. Joaquin Bernas S.J., President Corazon Aquino, after the February 1986 revolution, could have decided just to use the 1973 Marcos Constitution during her term as President. But she did not. She knew its autocratic nature. So she decided that a new constitution should be presented to the people and ratified.

President Cory Aquino selected brilliant minds such as, among others, constitutionalist Fr. Joaquin Bernas SJ, former Supreme Court Justices Roberto Concepcion and Hilarion Davide, former Justices Cecilia Munoz Palma and Florenz Regalado, former Senator Ambrosio Padilla, former Secretary of Labor Blas Ople, and labor leader Jaime Tadeo, to draft a new constitution . The outcome was the 1987 Freedom Constitution a legal and political document affirming the people's revulsion to any form of autocratic rule. It likewise ensured the freedom of the press, speech and association, among others, and put importance to accountability and human rights.

Now, President Duterte intends to amend the 1987 Freedom Constitution and for this he has opted for a constitutional assembly, made up of politicians in Congress, to do it. If this pushes through, let us hope that they know what they will be doing. Likewise, Duterte's strong-arm character, his fondness of Martial Law, his friendship with Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos, Jr. and most of all, his admiration of the dictator Ferdinand E. Marcos whom he publicly said was "the brightest among the past Presidents", are also serious concerns.

Let us all be vigilant. The present 1987 Constitution does not need amendments when it comes to our civil liberties, limitation of governmental powers, public accountability, and the advocacy of human rights. It is not the present Freedom Constitution which is the problem. It is the people, particularly government officials, who pervert, ignore, or disregard the Constitution who are the problem.

We must remember that the 1987 Freedom Constitution was not just a document simply to forget a by-gone-Marcos-era. It is about lessons from the dark side of that history, learning from them and not standing idly-by to let others, especially those in government today, repeat them.

Read the original:

MEL STA. MARIA | The 1987 Freedom Constitution should not be changed - InterAksyon