271059/271347/E-02472/E-04036 Concurring and Dissenting Opinion: Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh — Official PDF

Concurring and Dissenting Opinion 29 G.R. Nos. 271347, 278353, E-02472 & E-04036 Senate requirement of a comparative presentation and explanation80 serve that accountability. Especially where the recommended increase is of this magnitude, the responsibility to disclose and explain is substantial. Apart from the constitutional requirements binding legislative action generally, the safeguard I would insist upon in the conference process is transparency. To this end, Congress should make the keeping of the BCC's official minutes and transcript of proceedings mandatory. The enrolled bill doctrine must likewise be kept within its proper function. The recognition in Farinas of the official attestations of due enactment does not immunize the substance of an enacted law frmn constitutional review. The Court may accept that Congress approved the ' increase and still conclude that Congress lacked coristitutional authority to make it. Ratification establishes Congress's adoption of the appropriation as its own legislative act. Philippine Judges Association illustrates the distinction: although the Court rejected the procedural objection to the conference amendment, it invalidated the withdrawal of the Judiciary's franking privilege on equal protection grounds. Proper enactment and substantive constitutionality remain separate inquiries. The minutes should identify the members present, the proposals and amendments considered, their proponents, the principal reasons given for their adoption or rejection, and the manner in which the committee approved its recommendations. For appropriations measures, they should pennit the amounts and conditions in the House and Senate versions to be traced to the corresponding conference recommendations. Together with the comparative statement and conference report, the minutes should be preserved and made available to the members before ratification and to the public in a timely , manner, subj.ect only to constitutionally permissible restrictions on disclosure. The purpose is not to prevent legislative compromise, but to ensure that its tenns, reasons, and responsible participants can be ascertained. This safeguard gives practical effect to the constitutional policy of full public disclosure, the people's right to infom1ation on matters of public concern, and the principle that public officers remain accountable to .the people. 81 The Constitution also expressly requires each House to keep a Journal and a Record of its proceedings.82 Those requirements reinforce the importance of an ascertainable legislative record, although faey should not be conflated with an already settled, separate constitutional requirement prescribing the minutes of every conference committee. Congress should specify the manner of recording, preserving, and disclosing those minutes so Rules of the Senate, Rule XH, sec. 35. 1 81 G::0NST., art II, sec. 28; art. Ill, sec. 7; and art. XI, sec. 1. 81 CONST., art. VI, sec. 16(4).