AG reviewing legality of budget cuts

By
|
Posted on Apr 17 2002
Share

Gov. Juan N. Babauta has referred to the Attorney General’s Office the concern raised by Supreme Court Chief Justice Miguel Demapan, who said the Governor violated the law when he reduced the third and fourth quarter allotments of the Judiciary and Legislative branches.

“I have asked the Attorney General to review his [Demapan] letter and to see where I have violated the law. And I will be responding to his letter,” said Babauta.

Demapan had written to the Governor over what he described as the “unlawful” 8.4 percent cut in the third and fourth quarter spending allocations of the judiciary, saying this could jeopardize the branch’s capacity to serve the public.

Various lawmakers have also questioned the 16.3 percent cuts in each lawmakers’ spending allotments, saying this is an infringement on the separation of powers between the three branches of government.

The Governor had cited the 20.7-percent drop in the first quarter revenue of the government as the reason for the cuts in the allotments.

Legislative sources said the Governor’s move is, however, unlawful since a budget is already in place for this fiscal year under the continuing resolution.

With the judiciary’s appeal for the reinstatement of its original allotment, Babauta said he has already met with the Office of Management and Budget to appeal for a reconsideration in the cuts.

“I met with the budget officer and appealed to the budget officer for a reconsideration of the cuts, as requested by the Chief Justice. However, it was deemed necessary and the cuts in the budget shall remain. The budget officer said the judiciary would, of course, be strained but they would not be undercut by the cuts. It would not paralyze the operation of the judiciary,” he said.

Disclaimer: Comments are moderated. They will not appear immediately or even on the same day. Comments should be related to the topic. Off-topic comments would be deleted. Profanities are not allowed. Comments that are potentially libelous, inflammatory, or slanderous would be deleted.