Question 110

Does the legislature have the authority in law to amend the Executive’s Budget Proposal?
 * a. Yes, the legislature has unlimited authority in law to amend the Executive’s Budget Proposal.
 * b. Yes, the legislature has authority in law to amend the Executive’s Budget Proposal, with some limitations.
 * c. Yes, the legislature has authority in law to amend the Executive’s Budget Proposal, but its authority is very limited.
 * d. No, the legislature does not have any authority in law to amend the Executive’s Budget Proposal.
 * e. Not applicable/other (please comment).

OBS Guidelines
Question 110 examines the legislature’s power to amend—as opposed to simply accept or reject―the budget proposal presented by the executive. This question is about legal authority rather than actions the legislature takes in practice. The legislature’s powers to amend the budget can vary substantially across countries.

The “a” response is appropriate only if there are no restrictions on the right of the legislature to modify the Executive’s Budget Proposal, including its right to change the size of the proposed deficit or surplus. The “b” response would be appropriate if, for instance, the legislature is restricted from changing the deficit or surplus, but it still has the power to increase or decrease funding and revenue levels. The more limited “c” response would apply if, for instance, the legislature can only re-allocate spending within the totals set in the Executive’s Budget Proposal or can only decrease funding levels or increase revenues. Finally, response “d” would apply if the legislature may not make any changes (or only small technical changes), or if amendments must first be approved by the executive. In these cases, the legislature is essentially only able to approve or reject the budget as a whole. If the answer is “b” or “c”, please indicate the nature of the amendment powers available to the Parliament and how they are limited.

1) Differing approaches depending on legal systems/traditions
Two approaches:
 * A. In the absence of a specific rule forbidding something, then it is allowed (English systems).
 * B. If it is not included in the law and allowed by the law, then it is understood as not allowed (French).

While we are aware of this difference, option “A” generally applies.

Example: in Cameroon, the law includes a limit in the legislative amendment powers (it does not allow a decrease in revenue or reduction in spending without compensation), but it does not indicate any other limits. However it also does not positively stipulate that the legislature has authority to amend the EBP otherwise. In this case, since the law does not forbid amendments altogether (but it only states some limits), a “c” response applies.

2) Case of eSwatini
There was a disagreement about whether Sections 111 and 112 are the relevant portions of the Constitution in this case. Some sections suggest that amendments can be made to the draft budget in Parliament, but also suggests that the decision to accept such amendments ultimately rests with the King without a direct vote from Parliament. The final line in Section 112 states: “the bill, with such amendments, if any, as may have been agreed to by both chambers, shall, unless the House otherwise resolves, be presented to the King for assent”

Still waiting on whether the Standing Orders for the legislature are available to the researcher, who had mentioned them as potentially relevant to the legislature’s ability to amend the EBP.

Is the Constitution text along with the fact that Parliament made amendments to the budget in the most recent process enough to answer something other than “d”? YES

Why? In many countries presidents sign bills approved by parliaments into law before they become effective, and in some countries presidents have veto powers. Swaziland seems to fall in a similar case, the King being the one with veto powers. By law, they seem to have amendment powers, and that is demonstrated by the fact that they have used such powers.

Note: the choice between “b” and “c” is made by looking at the extent to which the legislature has authority to amend both revenue and expenditure.

eSwatini Questionnaire

3) What do we mean by “limitations” in the wording of the question?
We are looking for content limitation, not process.

For example, in the Dominican Republic the legislature can add new budget items or changes those proposed in the EBP, as long as that is accepted by 2/3 of each Congress chamber (the House and the Senate), which is process limitation. We mean “limitations” in terms of not being able to modify/add areas, but not in the sense of the Congress' own internal regulation response “a” applies, not "b".

Dominican Republic Questionnaire

4) What determines the difference between a "b" and "c" answer to this question?
According to Moldova's law on public finance no. 181/2014 (art 54, (4)), the amendments proposed by the Parliament to the EBP shall comply with the principles and the budgetary-fiscal rules established by the present law. At the same time, the Constitution (Art 131, (4)) stipulates that any legislative proposal or amendment that increases or decreases budget revenues, debt, or budget expenditures should be adopted only after they are accepted by the Government. According to this article, the power of the legislative on the modifications of the budget law is limited by the acceptance of the Government.

In OBS 2019, from the text cited from the Constitution, answer "c" is most appropriate here. If the legislature has to seek approval from the Government in order to amend the budget, clearly its powers are very limited.