MANILA, Philippines - After President Aquino’s televised rebuke of the Supreme Court’s ruling against his Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), Malacañang softened its tone yesterday and said it is ready to abide by whatever is decided by the SC on an appeal, which is set for filing today.
“We are a government of laws and not of men. We will accept any court decision just as this administration had accepted other decisions,” Presidential Communications Operations Office Secretary Herminio Coloma Jr. said in Filipino, when asked if the administration has any extra-legal move in mind in case the SC stands pat on its ruling against DAP.
Coloma said that based on record, the government had always shown its readiness to abide by any SC ruling, such as those against the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), the creation of a Truth Commission and the Reproductive Health law.
“The record is clear, isn’t it? The President and the government accepted these decisions and it moved forward. This shows the vibrancy of a democracy,” he told a press briefing.
“We follow different constitutional and judicial processes. We have different opinions, but once a decision is made our country moves forward,” Coloma said.
But there were at least two cases of Aquino’s disregard for SC decisions in 2010 and 2011 – on the legitimacy of the appointment of then chief justice Renato Corona and the legality of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s seeking medical treatment abroad.
There was no legal impediment to Arroyo’s request for hospital treatment abroad. The SC also upheld the legitimacy of Corona’s midnight appointment by Arroyo.
Aquino lawyers had said Corona’s appointment was a violation of the 1987 Constitution.
Last Monday, in his televised address, Aquino minced no words in castigating the SC for its decision against DAP.
“It’s clear that the SC has much to consider that they may better clarify their decision. My message to the SC: We do not want two equal branches of government to go head to head, needing a third branch to step in to intervene,” he said.
“We find it difficult to understand your decision. You had done something similar in the past, and you tried to do it again; there are even those of the opinion that what you attempted to commit was far graver,” Aquino added.
“To the honorable justices of the SC: Help us help our countrymen. We ask that you review your decision, this time taking into consideration the points I have raised,” he said. “Do not bar us from doing what we swore to do.”
For all his show of stubbornness, the President is not above the law, Coloma stressed.
He was reacting to observations and opinions in the media and in social networking sites that Aquino had displayed arrogance in his response to the SC ruling on DAP.
“There’s no agenda or intention to strike back. It’s not in the vocabulary of this administration,” Coloma said.
MR filed today
Meanwhile, the Palace is set to file its motion for reconsideration today on the SC decision on DAP.
Solicitor General Francis Jardeleza, the government’s chief lawyer, said they would insist on the need by the executive department to implement DAP or any economic stimulus program.
He said the MR would echo the stand of President Aquino that the justices had failed to consider the legal justification for the creation of DAP.
While many believe that appealing a unanimous decision is an exercise in futility, Jardeleza said the executive is still using such option under the principle of due process. Today is the deadline for filing of appeal. Parties were given 15 days from receipt of notice to appeal the decision.
In its ruling, the high court held that the acts and practices under the DAP violated the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers and the provision prohibiting inter-branch transfer of appropriations.
The SC specifically struck down as unconstitutional the withdrawal of unobligated allotments from implementing agencies and using them as savings.
The SC also declared unconstitutional any cross-border transfer of savings for funding of projects and programs not covered by the General Appropriations Act (GAA).
It also voided the use of unprogrammed funds in the absence of a certification by the national treasurer that revenue collections have exceeded revenue targets.
The constitutional violations cited by the SC for discrediting DAP were the same ones used in its ruling last year against PDAF.
In its 92-page ruling, the SC explained that while recipients of DAP funds cannot be held liable for benefiting from programs, activities and projects done in good faith under the program, the executive branch cannot be instantly cleared of culpability.
“The doctrine of operative fact can apply only to the PAPs (programs, activities and projects) that can no longer be undone, and whose beneficiaries relied in good faith on the validity of the DAP, but cannot apply to the authors, proponents and implementors of the DAP, unless there are concrete findings of good faith in their favor by the proper tribunals determining their criminal, civil, administrative and other liabilities,” the SC ruling read.
What constitutional crisis?
At the Senate, an administration ally shrugged off concerns raised by some quarters that President Aquino’s open criticism of the SC ruling on DAP would cause a constitutional crisis
“I don’t believe in that,” Sen. Francis Escudero said, emphasizing that the President had merely expressed his frustration over the delays in the implementation of government projects.
Escudero also rejected the claim of Sen. Sergio Osmeña III that the President had become so hard headed that he is unlikely to accept even a final decision from the Supreme Court.
Osmeña lashed out at the President for insisting that DAP was legal. He said Aquino was being “true to form” in his display of arrogance.
But Escudero said he doesn’t see the President defying the Supreme Court, as the latter was even seeking a supplemental budget from Congress. “Isn’t it a clear manifestation that he will comply?”
He also said the President’s declaration that he would file a motion for reconsideration indicated that he is letting the SC make the ultimate decision.
“All this talk about constitutional crisis, whoever said that, is unfounded and exaggerated,” he added.
Escudero and Osmeña are allies of the President who supported the Noy-Bi tandem, with then Makati Mayor Jejomar Binay as their vice presidential bet in the 2010 elections.
The other faction included Interior Secretary Manuel Roxas II, who lost to Binay. Roxas belongs to the Liberal Party, which counts Senate President Franklin Drilon and Budget Secretary Florencio Abad as party members.
Sought for comment on former senator Joker Arroyo’s statement that the Chief Executive had virtually declared war on the judiciary, Escudero said the President only wanted to do what is right under prevailing circumstances.
Escudero said the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) is not singling out the SC justices since senators and Senate employees had also been slapped with higher tax rates on their allowances and bonuses.
“The BIR also went after us. We were also under attack, which is why three (of us) were detained,” he said, referring to Senators Jinggoy Estrada, Ramon Revilla Jr. and Juan Ponce Enrile who are in detention for their alleged involvement in the pork barrel scam.
“We should stop being alarmist, it is not helping the situation,” Escudero said.
Escudero also defended some members of the House of Representatives’ questioning the Judicial Development Fund, which they called the judiciary’s pork barrel.
Escudero said he had filed similar bills questioning the JDF when he was still a congressman.
He pointed out that during the time of former chief justice Hilario Davide, the JDF was untouched.
Other chief justices spent the JDF at will and cited fiscal autonomy as justification to do so, the senator added. Edu Punay, Christina Mendez
No comments:
Post a Comment