The context of the debate then changed to whether the National Council had the power to veto the Assembly’s proposals in the annual budget. The discussion focussed mostly on the ambiguity raised by Section 5 of Article 13 on Passing of Bills, and two sections in Article 14, covering Finance, Trade, and Commerce.

Speaker Jigmi Tshultrim opened the debate by reminding the parliament that the chairman of the Constitution drafting committee, Lyonpo Sonam Tobgye, had said that it was constitutionally not wrong to remove the clause.

Prime Minister Lyonchhen Jigmi Y Thinley cited examples of about a dozen countries where the Upper House did not have the power to approve the annual budget. He said that the Council and the Assembly should not be separated when it came to making laws, but that the annual budget was the Assembly’s prerogative and need not be presented in the Council.

Citing other parliaments, the Lyonchhen said that the annual budget was forwarded to the upper house after it was approved by the lower house (Assembly) for comments. “The lower house is not bound by the comments of the upper house nor can it delay its passage,” he said, citing the Indian parliament.

“This system is practiced everywhere and, if we change it, It will make it difficult for the government to work,” he said. “Budget should be passed as soon as possible to start work in earnest.”

Lyonchhen Jigmi Y Thinley proposed that clause 121 could be retained, but suggested that the Assembly would see if comments from the Council needed to be incorporated after they review the budget. “If the Assembly can incorporate comments raised by the Council, it will, but it should not be binding.”

The Members of the National Council fought tooth and nail to keep Clause 121 and even proposed a vote on the motion.

“If it’s for information or ceremonial reasons, we can get it from anywhere, the Assembly need not present it to us,” a Council member told Kuensel. “Our Constitution is different and so is our parliament.”

Council member, Dasho Karma Ura, said that the Assembly would be right toraise the issue if they felt that the Council would block everything proposed. “But that is not the intention of the Council. There could be constructive or good comments,” he said.

As members of the parliament invoked the sections in the Constitution, both sides defended their arguments interpreting the provision of the Constitution.

The prime minister said that, according to section 9 of Article 14, the National Assembly has the authority to approve the budget. Sections 8 and 9 outline a procedure where the finance ministry must submit the budget to the Assembly and how the government should function until it is approved.

On the other hand, Council members said that Article 13 carries a clause that says all bills must be passed by both houses of parliament.

“In our case, we didn’t distinguish between money bill and other bills, therefore, the passage of bill has to follow the same,” said the Trashigang council member. “In our constitution, except for the fact that money bill must originate from the Assembly, it makes no difference whatsoever, in comparison with other bills, as to how the bill itself becomes a law. It needs to be processed through both houses.”

Talking to Kuensel, the finance minister, Lyonpo Wangdi Norbu, said that the section 9 of Article 14 makes the Assembly the sole authority to approve the budget and in the Constitution does it say that it should be sent to the Council.

After more than two hours of deliberations, Tshogpon Jigmi Tshultim resolved to remove “Finance Minister” from the clause and instead add Finance Ministry. The suggestion was agreed with all the members of parliament showing their consent with raised hands, but the decision was interpreted in their own ways.

Tshogpon Jigmi Tshultrim told Kuensel that the decision meant that National Assembly would present the budget to the council, but it was not bound to incorporate the comments or recommendations sent by the Council.

NC members claim that the decision went in their favour and that they will continue to stop “unreasonable” funds like the state fund for political parties when the budget bill comes to their house.

Source: http://www.kuenselonline.com