Abang Lingkod party-list Rep. Joseph Stephen Paduano on Thursday said the veto is a presidential power, while “override” is for Congress.
He said the provision in the 2021 budget requiring quarterly reports on the utilization of intelligence funds, which was rejected by President Rodrigo Duterte, was in adherence to the principle of transparent and accountable governance.
In his veto message, Duterte said “all activities involving intelligence gathering that have a direct impact on national security and public safety shall be reported directly to me,” adding that such information is deemed “confidential or classified.”
The vetoed provision requires the submission of quarterly reports on the use of intelligence funds to the House Speaker of the and Senate President.
Paduano said that “as Commander in Chief, the President has the ultimate responsibility on matters of national security, (and) we are bound to rely on his assessment as he is in possession of information that, apparently, prompted him to make this decision.”
He, however, clarified that everything’s not lost for Congress, citing Article 6, Section 27 of the Constitution which provides for the procedure to override a veto.
“We may either agree or override the veto but as for me, national security is paramount vis a vis the reportorial requirement,” he said.
“In the end, we in Congress are duty-bound to pass upon the veto of the President as provided for in the Constitution” he noted.
Meanwhile, Senator Franklin Drilon said the vetoed provision on the use of public funds for the Public Attorney’s Office forensic laboratory division is a replication of an existing provision in the 2020 General Appropriations Act.
He said the forensic function is best left to experts in the Philippine National Police and the National Bureau of Investigation.
“To allow PAO to conduct forensic examinations is a mere duplication and a total waste of public funds,” said Drilon.
He said that his proposed provision would have prevented not only duplication of functions but also a possible scenario wherein the forensic findings of PAO would differ from that of the NBI or the PNP.