Press Release
November 26, 2010


Q: Lusot na yung P880 million?

DRILON: Yes, but how the P880 million will be spent--whether or not it will include contraceptives--is something that is still the subject of debate. What is indicated in the interpellation is that condom appears not to be objectionable. That is the implication of the statement of Sen. Sotto. Although not very express, but the implication is very clear.

Q: Not objectionable pero you're spending gov't money?

DRILON: Well there appears to be some leeway on that because the issue is when does conception start? And therefore it would appear that with the use of condom, ovulation is not commenced, there is no conception. So I can see some leeway insofar as condoms are concerned.

Q: Yun ang pinaka compromise na nakikita nyo?

DRILON: I don't want to foreclose at anything. I'm just saying at how I see the debate at this point.

Q: On SUCs.

DRILON: I just wanted to clarify. There is no reduction in the budget of SUCs, including UP. The President's budget in 2010--this is what you call the NEP--is P19.592 billion for SUCs. We call this the 2010 NEP or the President's budget. Now, when the GAA was approved by both houses, the P19.592 billion became P22.402 billion. So there was an increase of P2.810 billion. The P2.810 billion were congressional insertions. Now, what happened to the congressional insertions? There was a veto message saying that these should not be released unless there are funds available. Now, what happened for 2011, the President's budget indicated a budget of P21.717 billion for SUCs. If you compare the President's budget for 2010 and the President's budget in 2011, there is an increase of P2.125 billion. Under the GAB (House version), following its passage, it (SUC budget for 2011) became P21.725 billion.

So while it appears that on the basis of GAA and the NEP or even the GAB, there appears to be a deduction, the truth is merong increase because congressional insertions yung P2.810 billion which are not retained because these are congressional insertions. So that is the truth of the matter.

Sa UP, 2010 and NEP, P4.935 billion. In the 2010 GAA, it became P6.197 billion, or an increase of P1.982 billion which was again the congressional insertion, subject to that condition of the President. If you compare now, 2010 President's budget and 2011 President's budget, there is an increase of P591 million, and the GAB passed by the House maintained the increase. It retained the budget of UP at P5.526 billion. Of course I don't blame the students because they won't be able to distinguish between what was the President's budget and what was increased in the House or in Congress.

Q: Yung P1.982 billion it was never funded din po?

DRILON: Ganun din. It was never funded. The first figures I described is for all SUCs of which UP is part of. And then I culled out what is in UP.

Q: inaudible

DRILON: At the very least it will adopt the increase, it could even be possible that we will add something more to UP, particularly the PGH.

Q: Pero sir mauulit ba yung conditional veto?

DRILON: We will avoid that. The problem in the current budget is that with the transfer of P64 billion from debt service, the budget priorities assumed a completely different nature. The budget budget priorities set by the President in 2010 got distorted because of the insertions. So the Aquino administration moved back to the original President's budget submitted in 2010 to follow or use the same priorities. I would repeat, the priorities were changed with the insertions in 2010.

Q: Yung increase daw sa budget ng SUCs nalaan sa personal services brought about by SSL?

DRILON: No, it's here. I will not pull your leg. I am basing all my statements on the basis of the records. This is what has happened, especially with more reason when you say that the insertion were in PS because then you are authorizing the hiring of new personnel which the budget will have to fund continuously and which were not in their priority at the start. I don't know what they are talking, I mean, I have studied this budget carefully. I do not know what were they saying that these were part of the salary standardization.

Q: Sabi ni Sen. Alan Cayetano.

DRILON: The increases brought about by salary standardization are maintained. We will not remove that. But the insertions in the 2011 budget, if they pertain to PS which will result in additional hiring, these were vetoed by President Arroyo, not this administration. It was vetoed during the time of GMA.

Q: Kasama din sa insertion yung scholarship?

DRILON: Presumably. So this is not this administration that deleted it. It was the previous administration which imposed a conditional veto.

Q: Sir kanina nag rally yung health sector kasi sa DoH binawasan po.

DRILON: You know that is the difficulty now. I do not blame them--the different sectors because they are looking at the GAA totals and without knowing the details of these allocations, where it came from.

News Latest News Feed