Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 38 views

    The Commission On Human Rights Enjoys Limited Fiscal Autonomy

    Uploaded by

    Jenny Dagun
    This memorandum argues that the House of Representatives' allocation of a 1,000 peso budget to the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) is valid for two reasons. First, the CHR has limited fiscal autonomy under the Constitution, unlike bodies like the Judiciary which have full fiscal autonomy. Second, the reduced budget would not impair salaries of CHR leaders as their compensation is set by other laws and funding sources. The memorandum concludes that since the CHR does not have full fiscal autonomy, Congress has the power to reduce its annual budget.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    The Commission On Human Rights Enjoys Limited Fiscal Autonomy

    Uploaded by

    Jenny Dagun
    38 views2 pages
    This memorandum argues that the House of Representatives' allocation of a 1,000 peso budget to the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) is valid for two reasons. First, the CHR has limited fiscal autonomy under the Constitution, unlike bodies like the Judiciary which have full fiscal autonomy. Second, the reduced budget would not impair salaries of CHR leaders as their compensation is set by other laws and funding sources. The memorandum concludes that since the CHR does not have full fiscal autonomy, Congress has the power to reduce its annual budget.

    Original Description:

    memorandum

    Original Title

    Reply Memo

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This memorandum argues that the House of Representatives' allocation of a 1,000 peso budget to the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) is valid for two reasons. First, the CHR has limited fiscal autonomy under the Constitution, unlike bodies like the Judiciary which have full fiscal autonomy. Second, the reduced budget would not impair salaries of CHR leaders as their compensation is set by other laws and funding sources. The memorandum concludes that since the CHR does not have full fiscal autonomy, Congress has the power to reduce its annual budget.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    38 views2 pages

    The Commission On Human Rights Enjoys Limited Fiscal Autonomy

    Uploaded by

    Jenny Dagun
    This memorandum argues that the House of Representatives' allocation of a 1,000 peso budget to the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) is valid for two reasons. First, the CHR has limited fiscal autonomy under the Constitution, unlike bodies like the Judiciary which have full fiscal autonomy. Second, the reduced budget would not impair salaries of CHR leaders as their compensation is set by other laws and funding sources. The memorandum concludes that since the CHR does not have full fiscal autonomy, Congress has the power to reduce its annual budget.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    FOR: Prof.

    Ryan Hartzell Balisacan


    FROM: Jenny Mary C. Dagun
    RE: Validity of the House of Representatives’ Allocation of 1,000-
    Peso Budget to the Commission on Human Rights
    DATE: November 30, 2018

    REPLY
    This reply memorandum seeks to rebut the arguments propounded
    against the validity of the 1,000-peso budget allocated by the House of
    Representatives to the Commission on Human Rights (CHR).

    The Commission on Human Rights


    enjoys limited fiscal autonomy

    The memorandum made an exhaustive explanation of the fiscal


    autonomy that was accorded by the 1987 Constitution to the
    Commission on Human Rights. Indeed, this autonomy is different from
    the one exercised by the Judiciary, Office of the Ombudsman and the
    Constitutional Commissions. Instead, what was provided for by the
    Constitution is for the “approved annual appropriations of the
    Commission” to be “automatically and regularly released.1 Compared to
    the fiscal autonomy provisions for the Judiciary, the Office of the
    Ombudsman, and the Constitutional Commissions where, aside from the
    automatic and regular release of approved annual appropriations for the
    said offices are mandated, it is also stated that they have fiscal
    autonomy.
    As the memorandum had said, the maxim expression unius est
    exclusion alterius was applied by the Court, looking at the deliberations
    where the Constitutional Commission had intended to exclude the CHR
    from the offices to be granted fiscal autonomy.
    The distinction is important because fiscal autonomy means
    freedom from outside control. “Fiscal autonomy… contemplates a
    guarantee on full flexibility to allocate and utilize their resources with the
    wisdom and dispatch that their needs require.“2 In Bengzon v. Drilon,3
    1 CONST. art. XIII, §17(4).
    2
    Bengzon v. Drilon, G.R. No. 103524, April 15, 1992.
    3 Id.
    the Court recognized that the Judiciary, the Constitutional Commissions
    and the Ombudsman must be accorded this kind of independent to
    discharge their constitutional duties, without mention of CHR, a
    constitutional office.
    On the contrary, in Commission on Human Rights Employees
    Association (CHREA) v. Commission on Human Rights,4the Court
    explained that CHR enjoys “fiscal autonomy only to the extent that its
    approved annual appropriations shall be automatically and regularly
    released, but nothing more.”

    Salary not impaired

    The argument that the allocation of 1,000-peso budget to the CHR


    is invalid as it would affect the salaries of its Chair and Members, in
    contravention to the non-diminution of salary provision of the
    Administrative Code of 1987 pertaining to the CHR is erroneous.

    The compensation for public officers must comply with the Salary
    Standardization Law and it is provided that the funding source for the
    same is to be charged against appropriations set aside for the purpose
    in the General Appropriations Act and not in the budget allocated for the
    CHR per se. As such, even with a 1,000-peso budget, the Chair and
    Members of the CHR will be accorded proper compensation.

    Conclusion

    The CHR does not enjoy the same kind of fiscal autonomy enjoyed
    by the Judiciary, Constitutional Commissions and the Ombudsman. As
    such, the Congress has the power to reduce the annual budget of CHR
    to Php1,000.

    4 G.R. No. 155336, July 21, 2006.

    You might also like