Death knell for checks and balances?

By James Jimenez

The morning after that performance – yes, THAT performance – the internet was awash with posts, hot takes, and videos all essentially celebrating how the legislators had been “put in their place” or how they had finally run up against someone who would stand up to them, or rhetorically asking “did they think they were the only ones who could ask questions in a budget hearing?”

Well, yes. It’s called checks and balances.

Checks and Balances

It’s pretty basic that the functions of government are distributed among three distinct branches: the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. This division is designed to prevent the concentration of power in any one branch. This is a way of protecting the nation against the emergence of autocracies, mainly by ensuring that government remains accountable to the people.

The executive branch – the President, VP, the various Departments and their Secretaries – are responsible for implementing and enforcing laws. The legislative branch, on the other hand, is charged with making laws and passing the budget. And finally, the judicial branch interprets and applies the law, making sure that the laws – and their implementation – conform to the constitution.

At the end of the day, the whole idea behind this complicated arrangement is checks and balances – the legislature can check the executive by passing or withholding the budget, overriding vetoes, approving appointments and conducting investigations, and it checks the judiciary through the confirmation of judges. The executive, on the other hand, checks the legislature through the veto power, and the judiciary through the appointment of judges. The judiciary then checks them both through judicial reviews, basically by slamming the brakes on unconstitutional actions by either one.

At the best of times, this system creates a dynamic equilibrium within the government, built upon cooperation and compromise among the branches. At the worst of times …

Speaking specifically of the budgeting power, the 1987 Constitution declares that “All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing an increase of the public debt, bills of local application, and private bills shall originate exclusively in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments (Section 24, Article VI, 1987 Constitution).” The Constitution then adds that “Congress may not increase the appropriations recommended by the President for the operation of the Government as specified in the budget. The form, content, and manner of preparation of the budget shall be prescribed by law (Section 25, par.1, Article VI, 1987 Constituton).”

In other words, while the Executive gets to say how much he needs to run the country – as embodied in the budget proposal – it is still Congress that has the right to modify, decrease, or reallocate funds within the budget, and to ultimately approve it. And in the exercise of that exclusive authority, Congress is empowered to inquire into how the amounts contained in the budget proposal were arrived at. As some people like saying nowadays, that’s just common sense.

Democratic Norms

Gridlock can result – especially when it comes to the budget process – when cooperation and compromise are absent. For this reason, over the years, some norms have been established to ensure that deliberations on the budget are not unnecessarily bogged down, to the detriment of the public. As one member of Congress said, the General Appropriations Act is the most important piece of legislation Congress can pass on any given year.

The first norm of the budget process is transparency. Everyone involved in the process accepts that it should be open to scrutiny, with clear and accessible information provided both to the public and the legislators. And while transparency to the public can usually be fudged, legislators are not so easily thrown off the scent.

It is the need for transparency that underpins interpellation of budget proponents. Legislators naturally have to be made to understand the whys and wherefores of any particular budget proposal. This affords them the opportunity to challenge the proponent’s assumptions and, when things are going right for we, the people, even identify ways that money can be saved.

Does this reasoning hold when all the details of the budget have been presented in an AVP prior to the period of interpellation?

No, it does not.

Any AVP contains only such information as the proponent – who is not a member of Congress and therefore approaches the budget process from a vastly different point of view – wishes to disclose. The AVP may attempt to provide answers to anticipated questions, but this still does not foreclose the possibility of a legislator approaching the issue from an unexpected angle. And in any case, are the legislators supposed to simply take the proponent’s word as to the completeness of the information presented in an AVP?

Hand in hand with transparency is the norm of accountability. Elected officials and government agencies must be accountable for their budget decisions. This necessarily includes justifying expenditures, if for nothing else then for the purpose of avoiding corruption and ensuring that the funds are being used to meet the public’s needs.

Ideally, the budget process should also include opportunities for public input, allowing citizens to voice their opinions and priorities. Again, interpellation of the proponent accomplishes this since the interpellating member of the House of Representatives is, as the title implies, representing the people who voted them into office.

Ran over

Sadly, these norms were ran over roughshod at that hearing. One wonders now where our system of checks and balances stands? Is it still on firm and solid footing? Or has it been undermined to such a degree that this performance actually sets a precedent? Time, I suppose, will tell.