An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth runs the headline of the Post. For those who never read the Bible, they would think that the services of an EENT specialist are needed. This must be a preparation for either a staring or a biting contest. One must be well armed to be able to fight. However, to those who are familiar with the scriptures, the full statement would be “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life”. This means whatever damage the enemy has done must be answered with equal if not worse damage.

The confrontation arose when the Upper House of the Philippine Congress, which is the Senate, threatened to scrap the P15 billion Kilos Asenso Support Fund, KASF and the P13 billion Barangay Kalayaan Development Fund BKDF.from the proposed 2006 national budget. The news carried no reason why the proposed appropriations were destined to be scrapped. By the titles of the provisions, the funds were supposed to be given to Local Government Units, from the regional to the barangay level. Each LGU does not now have to go hat in hand to congressmen and senators to beg for funds for their pet projects. It is a general impression that when each appropriation passes though the hands a the lawmakers, at least ten percent is left Now under these two appropriations acts no amount will pass either through the congressman or the senator.

In our present system, persons or offices can be made to toe the line by threatening to scrap items from the General Appropriations Act. Although the provisions had passed the Lower House, the Senate must also have their pound of flesh. Since the KASF and BKDF will be beyond their control, they are in danger of being removed. Although both Houses of the Congress can shout until they are blue in the face about the benefits that they have done for the poor, why is it that we the poor do not experience the claimed relief? Our bicameral system has outlived its usefulness. All the news is about election cheating, impeachment and whatever. Legislation is neglected. The powerful Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Appointment ensure that office heads will kowtow to them. The situation brings us back to the concept of charter change.

There was a time in Canada when Pierre Elliot Trudeau was the Prime Minister. Trudeau, a member of the Liberal party submitted a proposed budget to the parliament. It was supposed to be passed without opposition because it was a parliament with a Liberal majority, which made him Prime Minister. Surprisingly the budget was not passed. Trudeau then asked for a vote of confidence from the parliament but he could not muster the necessary two thirds vote to retain his seat. The parliament was dissolved and an election was called although their terms had not yet expired. Each Member of Parliament went back to their respective districts and ran. Joe Stanfield, Conservative, who was the major opponent to Trudeau lost in his own riding or district while Trudeau won in his home grounds. When a new government was formed, Trudeau was again elected as Prime Minister. The same budget was proposed and this time it was passed.