So, while the PUP parliamentarians want to challenge the Government on the Special Agreement, Opposition Leader John Briceño and Julius Espat, the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee have brought a separate lawsuit against GOB.
They are challenging the supplementary appropriations bills that the Barrow Administration has been passing in parliament during its 3 terms in elected office. You'll remember those supplementary appropriation bills as the ones where the Government spends taxpayers dollars from the consolidated revenue fund on whatever government business they deem a priority. The problem is that those expenditures are not budgeted for, and so, these bills are passed to seek parliamentary approval long after those monies were spent.
The claimants see this as a slippery slope to financial transparency and accountability, and they want to get the Supreme Court's opinion of this longstanding practice once and for all. Their case was called up today before Chief Justice Benjamin for a case management conference, and after the hearing, we spoke with Andrew Marshalleck, who is representing Briceño and Espat. He explained it to us:
Andrew Marshalleck, SC - Attorney for the Claimants.
"The case is a simple one. The claimants are John Briceno and Julius Espat, and the claim is to have the court declare the constitutionality, or unconstitutionality of the retrospective appropriation of monies from the consolidated fund. As you know, that's been happening for years, and it's to get a determination on it. We've always felt that it was wrong, and there seems to be no sign of practice stopping. It needs to be dealt with."
Reporter
"Can you give us a specific instance of which the claimants currently complain that the Government has unlawfully spent from the consolidated revenue fund?"
Andrew Marshalleck, SC
"There are some 22 instances, and they're all embodied within supplementary appropriation acts, where they seek to appropriate funds after they've already been spent, and there are quite a few of them."
Reporter
"Are you able to give us a ball park figure of what the claimants say has unconstitutionally spent over these last 22 instances?"
Andrew Marshalleck, SC
"I have the total, I think it's a little over a billion dollars they add up to."
"You need to get approval before you spend. You don't spend, and come back a year later and say, last year, I spent an extra 40 [million dollar] can you approve that now? It doesn't work. It must be prospective."
"We're in very early stages. The claim has been filed and served, and a defense was only delivered this morning. I haven't had a chance to review it. The case management that was scheduled for this morning has been adjourned for the Second week in May, so that everyone can take a look at that defense, and see what directions need to be given, in order to try the case."
Email
Print