AG refuses to get tangled in budget row

Attorney General Edward Manibusan declined on Friday to referee the dispute between the House of Representatives and Senate over proposed provisions in a contested fiscal year 2016 budget bill, about three days after the lawmakers went on recess to await his opinion.

Lawmakers remain in disagreement over the Senate’s proposed use of earmarked funds set aside for the Marianas Visitors Authority.  The House believes this is unconstitutional, but the Senate maintains it is within their legislative authority and previous budget bills have done the same.

In their budget bill, the Senate directs the Marianas Visitors Authority to move about $2.5 million of their earmarked funds to the local hospital and Division of Customs. These earmarks are set outside the pot of funds Gov. Eloy S. Inos declared as “subject to appropriations” for next fiscal year’s budget.

In a letter to Rep. Antonio Sablan (Ind-Saipan), chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Manibusan declined to provide a legal opinion on the question presented by Sablan in his letter to the AG on Tuesday.

The House had asked Manibusan if a budget bill could legally appropriate funds from earmarks set as “outside sources” and not identified by Inos and the House or Senate in setting the budget ceiling at $145 million.

“While my office has provide written comments on multiple bills that have been introduced in the Legislature, I decline to provide an opinion or offer comments on a dispute between the Senate and House over legislative authority,” Manibusan said.

“I take note that the issue regarding legislative authority over appropriation arose during a conference committee deliberation on the FY 2016 budget.

“The Commonwealth Constitution places on my office the responsibility of providing legal advice to the governor and the executive departments (including public corporations and autonomous agencies.). As the governor routinely requests, my office will have an opportunity to review and comment on HB 19-86 when it passes the Legislature and is forwarded to the governor for disposition.”

As Manibusan offers legal advice to Inos, he could still comment on the constitutionality of the Senate’s provisions if these provisions remained in the budget once it arrives on Inos’ desk for signature.

The House and Senate are expected to continue their budget talks today.

Two weeks ago, a bicameral conference committee began talks to resolve their difference on the fiscal 2016 budget. They held their last meeting on Tuesday and went on recess to await Manibusan’s response.

The House says the Senate’s use of earmarked funds is unconstitutional.

The Senate says it has been done before, and even if purportedly unconstitutional, the provisions cannot be subject to judicial review by the courts.

In a Senate conferees statement on the ongoing budget talks, the Senate says similar suspensions of appropriations, earmarks, and allotments were included in past budget acts.

In a statement to the media last Thursday, senators noted provisions within fiscal year 2015, 2014, and 2013 budget bills that they said suspended or applied funds from earmarks to pay for salary increases or other accounts, among others.