We will not hear the last word from President Noynoy Aquino or from his spokesmen about the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), on the constitutionality, on the “benefits” — and on the so-called “genius” who thought of such a “stimulus package” to perk up the economy.
Never mind if the DAP skirted the Constitution on such issues as the legality of identifying “savings” even before the year ends, about the authority of the President to use such accumulated cash for worthwhile projects, and about the transparency — or lack of it — in some areas in the disbursement of such funds.
We will not hear the last from Congress on both sides of the political fence — one side brandishing the sword of impeachment and the other side raising the shield of the numbers game. Those for impeachment have branded the President as “dictator” and all equivalent names — epithets that are actually reserved for the worst among rulers. His allies said any impeachment attempt will fail, because it will be dead in the water in a predominantly P-Noy Congress.
Why can’t they just say that the grounds of impeachment are not there – there is no culpable violation of the Constitution (the SC Justices ascribed “good faith”); there is nothing treasonous in the DAP; and it is unthinkable that the President is mired in corruption.
For some of his faults, the President is neither a tyrant nor a crook. His anti-corruption campaign begins at the topmost — his office — and that is enough for foreign investors to respond favorably by channeling their investible funds in the Philippines. That partly explains why our country is registering high GDP growth rate, even ahead of China.
And yet the President’s anti-corruption drive begins with him and the President’s Office – and ends there. That’s because we cannot say that this “daang matuwid” is also the governing principle of the departments and bureaus under him.
There’s the rub. The President believes that, on his mere say so, everyone around him behaves likewise. That’s why he could not see fault in his Budget Secretary. Amidst calls for the latter’s resignation, the President clings to his belief that Secretary Butch Abad could do no wrong — even after many well-meaning sectors have shown that his DAP package has been branded “a bad formula.”
Now on the DAP issue. As I said, we will not hear the last word on this controversial program — some of whose features were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
The last thing we know is that the Office of the Solicitor General, representing the President, had already filed a motion for reconsideration (MR). And the latest thing that came our way is that the Supreme Court did not dismiss the MR outright. So, there you are — as they say, “It’s not over until it’s over.”
Here comes a sobering thought: President Noy, for all his bluster in his nationwide television speech, for all his childish barb against the Highest Court’s decision on the DAP, is described by his well-meaning supporters to be firmly committed to preserve the democratic space that has been the legacy of his mother, the late and former President Corazon Aquino — known around the world as the icon of democracy.
The fact that an MR was filed, and the fact that the Supreme Court did not dismiss it outright – show that the President wants to see the wheels of justice turn. In a larger sense, he wants the democracy we now enjoy — which is the very reason for our dramatic economic turnaround — preserved and advanced.
The SolGen’s MR wants the High Court justices to revisit their decision. Some of the points raised are worth noting.
The SolGen cited Book VI, Chapter 5, Section 38 of the Administrative Code as an “express legislative authorization for the President to permanently stop further expenditures from allotments given to agencies based on his judgment that the “public interest so requires.”
Stopping such expenditures results in savings, if we follow the logic of SolGen Jardeleza. “The final discontinuance or abandonment of a project resulted in unobligated portions or balances of appropriations,” according to the SolGen’s arguments — and these are “indubitably savings” under the General Appropriations Act.
Here lies the contention between the Chief Executive and the Supreme Court. Savings, as defined by the Executive are those realized when a project has stopped at any time during the year, while the SC thinks that savings are recognized as such at the end of any year.
Let’s hear the High Tribunal revisit — and resolve this legal question.
We all know that the “power of the purse” is with Congress. The MR will occasion the ruling or reinterpretation of the SC on whether Congress can extend that power to the President. The SolGen points out in its arguments that “the President has the authority to transfer savings to other departments, as part of Presidential powers vested by the Constitution.”
The SolGen pointed out a finely crafted argument that Article VI, section 25 (5) prohibits the transfer of “appropriations”… but it does not prohibit the transfer of “savings.”
Well, well. This is the beauty of democracy. Our courts, especially the Highest Court of the land will still hear these arguments — and will inevitably make a ruling in their own sweet time. Our President has demonstrated his respect for the Judiciary (contrary to the views of those given to extreme views), as his top lawyers choose verbal and legal skirmishes inside the courtroom.
Meanwhile, the courts of public opinion, are not as sober or as logical — because their voices are strident and, at times, their logic gives way to pathos and passion. My advice is a quote I picked up from National Artist Nick Joaquin: “Think with great fierceness, but speak with great moderation.”
Let the President have his day in court with this motion for reconsideration. Let the Supreme Court, made up of fallible individuals, revisit their own appreciation of law and jurisprudence through the years – and then make their final ruling. As for us lovers of democracy and believers in the truth, we await – not with bated breath – but with a hope that this contentious issue be behind us. Whatever the ruling, everyone must accept it — and then we move on as a country.
Then we dust off DAP from our shoes — and make our way forward!
* * *
A very good family friend passed away recently — Concepion “Cherrie” Tan Escarda — in Iligan City. She was such a sweet and pretty lady who gave inspiration to everyone around her, including myself. Her husband, brilliant civil engineer Johnny Escarda, went ahead of her a long time ago; he was once transitory president of Silliman University, and an executive of the Alcantara group of companies.
Cherrie was one of five children of the late Candido and Mrs. Tan of Masbate and Buenavista, Agusan del Norte. Her siblings are Dodong, a medical doctor; Lily, Andres, and Noel.
Cherrie’s children are Marie “Ging,” married to Jimmy Magbanua (with whom she has three kids – Jae Anne, married to Pete Medica, John and Jim); the late Lilibeth, married to Tonette Jaranilla (whose children are Tedted, married to Nica, and Marco, married to Maricon Lapasaran with two kids Cheska and Mik
Albert(+); Cherry Jean, Josette; Portia, married to Paul Flores (with two children Erika and Enrico), and David, married to Peep Baconguis (with four children).
Goodbye, Manay Cherrie. We will miss you, but your influence on our lives will forever remain with us.
* * *
Email: dominitorrevillas@gmail.com