February 2000

MIRIAM ON TODAY'S ISSUES: PORK BARREL, JIMENEZ EXTRADITION (7 Feb 2000)

MIRIAM ON TODAY'S ISSUES:
7 February 2000

It might be unconstitutional to require the "prior concurrence" of, or "prior consultation" with, Congress members before funds of the DPWH, DECS, and other offices are released.

The Constitution provides that the only condition for paying money out of the Treasury is an appropriation made by law. Giving Congress members the power to concur or to be consulted, is tantamount to adding another condition not found in the Constitution. 

In effect, the result is to give a Congress member the power to veto or at least to harass the process of releasing funds. It would be a rich source of corruption. 

In my view, this clause might amount to an unconstitutional impoundment of duly appropriated funds. More specifically, it would be unconstitutional "reverse impoundment" by Congress, because impoundment is usually done by the President, as in the US. The US Supreme Court has ruled that impoundment is unconstitutional. 

For these reasons, I voted "no" on the budget.
 
 

The US state department memorandum is absolutely correct under international law. Ours is the only Supreme Court in the world to give an extraditee the right to demand copies of the evidence against him, even before the start of the extradition trial. 

In effect, the Supreme Court majority has defied international law as it stands today. It has already raised eyebrows around the world, causing the international community to emit a collective gasp. 

Jimenez should simply go to trial. His best bet under international law is to raise the defense that he is a political offender, and therefore exempted from extradition. He might want to use my book, Political Offences in International Law. In any event, this Supreme Court ruling is like waving a red flag in front of a bull.