Seeing beyond the hypocrisy

ON DISTANT SHORE
By Val G. Abelgas

(File Photo)

There is an unwritten code among PR practitioners that when you are in the losing end of a controversy, you explain your side once and try to keep your mouth shut. Like being caught in a quicksand, the more you move or, in this case, the more you talk, the deeper you’ll sink in the hole.

Either the officials of the Malacanang press office are amateurs in damage control or they just can’t get their boss to understand the worsening situation they are in on the matter of the Supreme Court decision on the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) because President Aquino has obviously refused to keep quiet on the issue.

After Malacanang spokesmen appeared to have toned down their rhetoric over the issue, Aquino went on attack mode again and directly accused the tribunal of implementing their own DAP-like measure when the Court requested the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) that funds earmarked for the building of the Manila Hall of Justice be transferred from the Department of Justice.

The DBM, according to Philippine Star columnist Alex Magno, offered P100 million from “pooled savings” but the tribunal rejected the offer through a court resolution.

Bayan Muna party list Rep. Neri Colmenares asked why the budget for the construction of the Manila Hall of Justice, which would house city courts, was placed with the DOJ in the first place when the construction of courts in the country rightly belongs to the Supreme Court.

“This means the Supreme Court will have to beg from the President for the construction of its courts like an RTC judge pleading for funds from the fiscal or prosecutor. This is purposely done by the executive so it can exercise control over the judiciary thereby impairing the independence of the court,” he said.

In the same speech during rites for the 150th birth anniversary of Apolinario Mabini, Aquino again accused the justices of changing the rules on “good faith” when they ruled that some acts committed under the Disbursement Acceleration Program were unconstitutional.

Aquino is insisting that he acted in good faith because, according to him, Section 39 of the Administrative Code of 1987 allowed cross-border transfer of funds, and even accused the justices of failing to consider the law in their decision. He asked the people to read the “dissenting opinions.”

That alone showed his ignorance of the law because it was a unanimous decision (13-0) and there was no dissenting opinion. Two justices wrote separate concurring opinions that mentioned the Administrative Code of 1987, but did not say the law justified the actions made under the DAP.

Associate Justice Estela Perlas-Bernabe said in her concurring opinion that the government used Section 38 and 39 in justifying the DAP. Bernabe, however, warned that the President “must always observe and comply with existing constitutional and statutory limitations,” otherwise “he would be substituting his will over that of Congress and thereby violate the separation of powers principle…”

Legal experts said Aquino could not use it to justify his actions because the law, which was decreed by the revolutionary government of Aquino’s mother, President Cory Aquino, was superseded by the 1987 Constitution, which expressly disallowed such actions. Even Cory did not avail of the provisions of the Administrative Code that she decreed. Neither did former President Joseph Estrada.

Constitutional law experts Fr. Joaquin Bernas, a leading member of the 1987 Constitutional Commission and dean of the Ateneo College of Law, and Fr. Ranhillo Aquino, dean of the San Beda Graduate School of Law, said that contrary to the President’s claim, the SC justices were aware of the Administrative Code of 1987.

Fr. Aquino wrote: “Any freshman student of law will know that when you interpret a statutory provision (referring to Section 39), you always do so in harmony with the Constitution (Article VI, Section 25)… You don’t ever make a statute qualify the Constitution. Whatever the grant of power the Administrative Code may seem to afford the President, such a statutory provision must always be read in consonance with the Constitution, and never against it.”

Fr. Bernas, on the other hand, disputed the President’s contention that Section 39 and the code are “still in effect.” He clarified that the code and other statutes or executive orders issued before the enactment of 1987 Constitution must be compatible with the latter to remain valid.

Former Chief Justice Reynato Puno commented that the constitutional violations under the DAP was more serious than those of the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) which the court had earlier also declared unconstitutional.

In separate speeches, Aquino insisted that the DAP was implemented to stimulate the economy and the funds were channeled to urgent projects that would produce jobs and improve the economy. But it turns out most of the fund releases were political in nature rather than economic because many of the projects, which were far from urgent, were given to favored members of Congress and other politicians obviously for political leverage.

For example, Senators Ralph Recto and Nancy Binay – who, by the way, was impressive in the Senate hearing on the DAP – questioned why the Aquino government impounded and diverted some P14.5 billion meant to rehabilitate 22 key airports and seaports to projects “with little or no economic impact.”

“I could not understand why the repair and rehabilitation of the airports, seaports and lighthouses would be abandoned when these could have accelerated and spurred economic growth,” Recto said.

Binay, on the other hand, asked: “On these shelved projects, did you even conduct research [about whether]… these projects have a multiplier effect compared to those you have approved under DAP?” Budget Secretary Florencio Abad and Transportation Secretary Emilio Abaya couldn’t answer the question. Abad asked Abaya to explain, while Abaya repeatedly said he was still a member of Congress at that time.

Clearly, the Aquino administration has no clear answers to the points raised against the DAP, but continues to lie through its teeth in claiming “good faith.”

The people are beginning to see beyond the hypocrisy of this administration. Aquino’s approval ratings — even on his two biggest promises of curbing corruption and poverty — have dropped to their lowest levels. He set the bar high with his promises of reforms and now he is doing exactly what his predecessors practised – patronage politics.

Worse, his campaign manager in the presidential elections, Sen. Serge Osmena, and another ally, Sen. Antonio Trillanes declared him a failure in his handling of the energy crisis, poverty, and the DAP.

Osmena cited Aquino’s management failure while Trillanes said Filipinos have to bear and live with the shortcomings of a “sloppy” president because “we have chosen one who is sloppy.”

Maybe Aquino can still salvage his legacy by pushing for the passage of the proposed Freedom of Information Act. But he still refuses to certify it as urgent and could only promise to pass it before the end of his term in 2016. Maybe the FOI law would see the light of day a few days before the May 2016 presidential elections, when it could no longer be used to probe Aquino’s actions.

His promise on the FOI is as empty as the others.

(valabelgas@aol.com)