Are the Proposed Amendments Contradictory?

Andrew Marshalleck

According to Marshalleck, the spirit of the amendments remains inconsistent, particularly where it concerns the passage of retrospective supplementary allowances.

Isani Cayetano

“These proposed changes have been described as cosmetic elsewhere.  What do you make of it in terms of what is being presented.  Does this provide any substantial or significant changes to what I would consider to be status quo at this point or does this only cover the surface?”

Andrew Marshalleck, Attorney in Legal Claim

“No.  These are designed to preserve the status quo.  This is to allow things to continue exactly as they have been, save for the quarterly reporting.  It’s also designed to lend a hand, a legal leg to this notion of retroactive supplementary appropriations.  You will notice the change in four makes specific reference: shall require the passage of retrospective supplementary allocation.  It’s also contradictory in nature.  How do you actively go and ask for permission to allocate monies to certain spending?  How do you, after you’ve already taken the money and spent it, go to the house to seek approval for it?  Doesn’t the nature of the debate necessarily change?  If you’re faced with a situation where monies are available to be spent and you have a debate as to what are the best ways to spending it, isn’t that debate necessarily different from saying look we had this money and have already spent it, now I want your approval for it?  It’s turning the process on its head and I am of the view that it’s unconstitutional and remains unconstitutional.  It’s in breach of sections 114, 115, 116 and 117 of the constitution.  While the constitution does envisage retrospective appropriations, it’s only for very limited, defined and limited spending.”