The Constitutional Demand for Reforms in the State Budget Approval Process

The Constitutional Demand for Reforms in the State Budget Approval Process

Introduction:

In a recent case before the Supreme Court, Dr. Nander Pitty Velásquez filed a demand of unconstitutionality against the final phrase of Article 30 of Law No.49, enacted on December 4, 1984. This law establishes the Organic Regulations of the Internal Regime of the Legislative Assembly. The demand raises important questions about the allocation of powers between the different branches of government in the budget approval process. In this article, we will explore the implications of this demand and discuss the constitutional framework that governs the state budget approval.

The Constitutional Framework and the Budget Approval Process:

The current Constitution, following models adopted in other jurisdictions, precisely defines the level of intervention of each branch of government in the formulation and approval of the State Budget. The Article 153, numeral 4°, stipulates that the intervention of the Legislative Assembly in approving the General State Budget must be compatible with the budgetary regulations introduced by the 1983 reform to the Constitution. This intervention represents a redesign of the public powers in the preparation and approval of the State Budget, with the executive branch responsible for its preparation and the legislative branch for its approval, within the constitutional limitations imposed by Article 268.

The Role of the State Budget Law:

The essence of the State Budget Law lies in being a substantial law that adopts and organizes the financial activity of the State during its validity period. It serves as a mandatory code of conduct for different public entities to implement the financial plan outlined in it. Consequently, the thesis of the State Budget Law being legislatively linked to substantial legislation is incompatible, given its financial regulatory mission.

Insights and Connections:

The demand for unconstitutionality raises important questions regarding the division of powers and responsibilities in the budget approval process. It highlights the need for a harmonious collaboration between the different branches of government to ensure effective governance. The Supreme Court's decision to declare the nomination of Marta Martinelli as Vice President unconstitutional further emphasizes the importance of adhering to constitutional principles in the functioning of democratic institutions.

Actionable Advice:

• 1. Ensure a clear division of powers: Government bodies should adhere to the constitutional provisions that outline the roles and responsibilities of each branch in the budget approval process. This clarity will prevent conflicts and promote effective collaboration.

• 2. Strengthen legislative oversight: The legislative branch should exercise its constitutional duty of approving the State Budget by thoroughly reviewing and scrutinizing the proposed financial plan. This will help ensure transparency and accountability in the allocation of public funds.

• 3. Foster dialogue and cooperation: The executive and legislative branches should engage in open dialogue and cooperation to address any potential conflicts or disagreements in the budget approval process. By working together, they can find common ground and promote the best interests of the nation.

Conclusion:

The demand for unconstitutionality in the State Budget approval process brings attention to the importance of a clear division of powers and effective collaboration between the different branches of government. By adhering to constitutional principles and fostering open dialogue, the government can ensure transparent and accountable financial governance. It is crucial for all stakeholders to work together in the best interest of the nation and its citizens.