Inside Philippine politics & beyond

Fr. Joaquin Bernas probably forgot the Admin Code came AFTER the 1987 Constitution

Share:
LinkedIn0
Pinterest0

By Raïssa Robles

Father Joaquin Bernas, a constitutionalist and Jesuit priest whom I deeply respect, has posted a short note on his Facebook page presumably commenting about my legal arguments on DAP.

Here’s what Fr. Bernas wrote about Section 49 [underlining is mine]:

The “Discovered” Section 49.

Much is being said of Section 49 of the Administrative Code which gives to the President broad powers to transfer funds. It is even suggested that had the Supreme Court made use of this provision it would have decided the DAP case differently and in favor of President Aquino.

I believe it is safe to assume that the Supreme Court is aware of the existence of Section 49. The Supreme Court is also aware that the Code where Section 49 is found is an Executive Order of President Aquino issued while she still had legislative power before Congress became operative. It antedates the 1987 Constitution. Statutory provisions and executive orders antedating the Constitution and incompatible with the Constitution no longer have effect.

More importantly the Supreme Court is aware of the constitutional provision on the transfer of funds. It is found in Article VI, Section 25 which says: “No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations; however, the President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of Constitutional Commissions may, by law, be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations.”

The law authorizing augmentation transfers is usually found in the current Appropriation Law. To understand the constitutional provision one must know that the budget for the various offices consists of “items.” An item is an amount of money to be used for a specific purpose. When the purpose of the item has been achieved and some money is still left over, such leftover is the “saving” which may be transferred to augment other items in the budget for the same office.

The law cites three instances which give rise to savings. They are balances “(i) still available after the completion or final discontinuance or abandonment of the work, activity or purpose for which the appropriation is authorized; (ii) from appropriations balances arising from unpaid compensation and related costs pertaining to vacant positions and leaves of absence without pay; and (iii) from appropriations balances realized from the implementation of measures resulting in improved systems and efficiencies and thus enabled agencies to meet and deliver the required or planned targets, programs and services approved in this Act at a lesser cost.

There is no authorization for what is called “cross border transfer,” that is, the transfer of savings in one office or department to another office or department. Thus savings in the President’s budget may not be moved to other departments or offices, e.g., to Congress, to the judiciary, or to a constitutional commission.

The “discovered” Section 49 cannot fit into this constitutional limitation.

I think Fr. Bernas made a slight mistake in his chronology of events.

It’s easy to do that because these events took place 27 years ago. I also had a hard time determining the dates of the events.

Fr. Bernas concluded that since the Administrative Code of 1987 “antedates” or came before the 1987 Constitution took effect, therefore “statutory provisions and executive orders antedating the Constitution and incompatible with the Constitution no longer have effect.”

However, the reality is that the Administration Code post-dated or came AFTER the 1987 Constitution.

The mistake in the dates might, perhaps, change the complexion of Fr. Bernas’ legal opinion.

Because of this, I would like to ask him to reconsider and take a look at the constitutionality of Sections 38, 39 and 49 of Chapter 5, Book VI of the Administration Code of 1987 – TOGETHER.

  • Do these three sections, if taken altogether, give the President the power to pool funds into a Disbursement Acceleration Program or DAP?
  • At the time the DAP was operational, were Sections 38, 39 and 49 still in effect?
  • Or were Sections 38, 39 and 49 void ab initio or from the beginning and needed no Supreme Court ruling to void it?
  • If these were void ab initio, are President Aquino and Budget Sec Abad criminally liable for using these powers?

Fr. Bernas concluded that since the Administrative Code of 1987 “antedates” or came before the 1987 Constitution took effect, therefore “statutory provisions and executive orders antedating the Constitution and incompatible with the Constitution no longer have effect.”

However, the reality is that the Administration Code post-dated or came AFTER the 1987 Constitution.

A commenter on my site who said he was a judge and goes by the handle AMR wrote the following as his first paragraph [again the underlining is mine]:

“Hi Raissa. First, let me say that you have raised some interesting and well-reasoned arguments. I’m a judge by profession. Here’s my two cents. The 1987 Constitution was ratified on Feb. 2, 1987. While Admin Code took effect ONE YEAR AFTER its publication in the Official Gazette on July 25, 1987. In other words, the Admin Code does NOT antedate the Constitution. Therefore, pertinent sections in Admin Code are still good law since it was never declared unconstitutional by the SC. Every law enjoys the strong presumption of constitutionality. While it is the SC which is the final arbiter of the constitutionality of laws, the executive and the legislature get a first crack at constitutional interpretation.”

I counter-checked the dates. Here’s what I found:

July 30, 1977 – Dictator Ferdinand Marcos issues Presidential Decree No. 1177, called “Revising the Budget Process in order to Institutionalize the Budgetary Innovations of the New Society.” PD 1177 gives vast powers to the President over the government budget.

September 19, 1985 -The Supreme Court issues a resolution compelling the Solicitor General (Estelito Mendoza) to comment on a petition filed by opposition lawmakers in Batasang Pambansa who had asked the court to void Section 44 of PD 1177 because this violated the 1973 Constitution.

February 25, 1986 – Marcos flees the Philippines. Then Corazon Aquino declares a revolutionary government, throws out the 1973 Constitution and issues a Freedom Constitution. Most members of the Supreme Court are replaced with her appointees.

February 2, 1987 – a new Constitution is ratified in a referendum, replacing Mrs Aquino’s Freedom Constitution.

February 27, 1987 – The new Supreme Court issues a decision on Section 44. It voids paragraph 1 of Section 44 of PD 1177 “for being unconstitutional”. Here’s the link to the SC decision.

Here’s what the court voided:

The President shall have the authority to transfer any fund, appropriated for the different departments, bureaus, offices and agencies of the Executive Department, which are included in the General Appropriations Act, to any program, project or activity of any department, bureau, or office included in the General Appropriations Act or approved after its enactment.

Fr. Bernas is correct in saying that the 1987 Constitution voided all other sections of PD 1177 “inconsistent” with the charter because of the Transitory Provisions which said:

“Sec.3 – All existing laws, decrees, executive orders, proclamations, letters of instructions, and other executive issuances not inconsistent with this Constitution shall remain operative until amended, repealed or revoked.”

But our train of events does not end there.

July 25, 1987 – Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987), bearing this date, was signed by President Corazon Aquino and co-signed by her Executive Secretary Joker Arroyo. It contains the following date of effectivity: “This Code shall take effect one year after its publication in the Official Gazette.”

July 27, 1987 – The first post-Martial Law Congress convened.

What’s so significant about the Admin Code being enacted into law by President Aquino AFTER the 1987 Constitution took effect?

Here is my answer.

Those who drafted EO 292 – and I believe they were law professors from the University of the Philippines Law Center –  bodily lifted the provisions of PD 1177 and inserted them into the Admin Code. Yes, they resurrected some of Marcos’ dictatorial powers in the shape of sections in the Administrative Code produced by the Cory government.

My hubby Alan posed to me the following question which I believe strikes at the heart of this controversy:

“Were Joker and company — whoever the legal luminaries behind the 1987 Admin Code were — were they stupid enough to enact a possibly unconstitutional Administrative Code just months after the Constitution had come into force? Were they stupid? Malignant? Eager to make a demonstration of unconstitutional behavior only shortly after a beastly dictator who had trampled the constitution had been chased out of the country?

Or, did they know what they were doing?”

Looking back I also wonder – were these sections meant to be an escape hatch for the President in case of congressional gridlock? I covered the first post-Martial Law Senate. And I remember that many people were actually afraid that Congress would make it difficult for the President to govern a ruined, bankrupt  country. The first Senate President Jovito Salonga declared early on that the Senate would assume a stance of “critical collaboration” toward Pres. Cory even if 22 members of the Senate owed their victory to her.

So even if PD 1177 was considered revoked by the 1987 Constitution, this wholesale lifting of the Marcos decree resurrected the following controversial provisions in our present Admin Code, which President Benigno Aquino and Budget Secretary Butch Abad used to justify their fund-juggling. These are Sections 38, 39 and 49 of Chapter 5, Book VI of the Administration Code of 1987. All three sections have not been revoked by the Supreme Court. the Court’s recent ruling on the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) only touched on Section 38.

NOTE: This is not a stand-alone piece but has to be read together with two previous pieces:

President Aquino’s dead mom, President Cory, may yet save her son from jail over DAP

Saguisag fully backs me on DAP and shares a startling suspicion

Here are the controversial sections from PD 1177 which ended up in the Admin Code: 

Section 43 of PD 1177 –

Section 43. Suspension of Expenditure of Appropriations. Except as otherwise provided in the General Appropriations Act and whenever in his judgment the public interest so requires, the President, upon notice to the head of office concerned, is authorized to suspend or otherwise stop further expenditure of funds allotted for any agency, or any other expenditure authorized in the General Appropriations Act, except for personal services appropriation used for permanent officials and employees.

Became Section 38 in Chapter 5, Book VI of the Administration Code of 1987:

SECTION 38. Suspension of Expenditure of Appropriations.—Except as otherwise provided in the General Appropriations Act and whenever in his judgment the public interest so requires, the President, upon notice to the head of office concerned, is authorized to suspend or otherwise stop further expenditure of funds allotted for any agency, or any other expenditure authorized in the General Appropriations Act, except for personal services appropriations used for permanent officials and employees.

Section 45 of PD 1177 – 

Section 45. Authority to Use Savings in Appropriations to Cover Deficits. Except as otherwise provided in the General Appropriations Act, any savings in the regular appropriations authorized in the General Appropriations Act for programs and projects of any department, office or agency, may, with the approval of the President, be used to cover a deficit in any other item of the regular appropriations: provided, that the creation of new positions or increase of salaries shall not be allowed to be funded from budgetary savings except when specifically authorized by law: provided, further, that whenever authorized positions are transferred from one program or project to another within the same department, office or agency, the corresponding amounts appropriated for personal services are also deemed transferred, without, however increasing the total outlay for personal services of the department, office or agency concerned.

Became Section 39 in Chapter 5, Book VI of the Administration Code of 1987:

SECTION 39. Authority to Use Savings in Appropriations to Cover Deficits.—Except as otherwise provided in the General Appropriations Act, any savings in the regular appropriations authorized in the General Appropriations Act for programs and projects of any department, office or agency, may, with the approval of the President, be used to cover a deficit in any other item of the regular appropriations: Provided, that the creation of new positions or increase of salaries shall not be allowed to be funded from budgetary savings except when specifically authorized by law: Provided, further, that whenever authorized positions are transferred from one program or project to another within the same department, office or agency, the corresponding amounts appropriated for personal services are also deemed transferred, without, however increasing the total outlay for personal services of the department, office or agency concerned.

Section 55 of PD 1177 – 

Section 55. Authority to Use Savings for Certain Purposes. Savings in the appropriations
provided in the General Appropriations Act may be used for the settlement of the following
obligations incurred during a current fiscal year or previous fiscal years as may be approved by
the Commissioner in accordance with rules and procedures as may be approved by the
President:

(a) Claims of officials, employees and laborers who died or were injured in line of duty,
including burial expenses as authorized under existing law;

(b) Commutation of terminal leaves of employees due to retirement, resignation or separation
from the service through no fault of their own in accordance with the provisions of existing law,
including unpaid claims for commutation of maternity leave of absence;

(c) Payment of retirement gratuities or separation pay of employees separated from the
service due to government reorganization;

(d) Payment of salaries of employees who have been suspended or dismissed as a result of
administrative or disciplinary action, or separated from the service through no fault of their own
and who have been subsequently exonerated and/or reinstated by virtue of decisions of competent
authority.

(e) Cash awards to deserving officials and employees in accordance with the civil service law;
(f) Salary adjustments of officials and employees as a result of classification action under, and
implementation of, the provisions of the Compensation and Position Classification Act, including
positions embraced under the Career Executive Service;

(g) Peso support to any undertaking that may be entered into by the government with
international organizations, including administrative and other incidental expenses;

(h) Covering any deficiency in peso counterpart fund commitments for foreign-assisted projects,
as may be approved by the President;

(i) Priority activities that will promote the economic well-being of the nation, including food
production, agrarian reform, energy development, disaster relief, and rehabilitation.

(j) Repair, improvement and provision of government buildings and infrastructure and other
capital assets damaged by natural calamities;

(k) Expenses in connection with official participation in trade fairs, civic parades,
celebrations, athletic competitions and cultural activities, and payment of expenses for the
celebration of regular or special official holidays;

(l) Payment of obligations of the government or any of its departments or agencies as a result of
final judgment of the Courts, and

(m) Payment of valid prior year’s obligations of government agencies with any other government
office or agency, including government-owned or controlled corporations.

Became Section 49 in Chapter 5, Book VI of the Administration Code of 1987:

SECTION 49. Authority to Use Savings for Certain Purposes.—Savings in the appropriations provided in the General Appropriations Act may be used for the settlement of the following obligations incurred during a current fiscal year or previous fiscal years as may be approved by the Secretary in accordance with rules and procedures as may be approved by the President:

(1) Claims of officials, employees and laborers who died or were injured in line of duty, including burial expenses as authorized under existing law;
(2) Commutation of terminal leaves of employees due to retirement, resignation or separation from the service through no fault of their own in accordance with the provisions of existing law, including unpaid claims for commutation of maternity leave of absence;

(3) Payment of retirement gratuities or separation pay of employees separated from the service due to government reorganization;

(4) Payment of salaries of employees who have been suspended or dismissed as a result of administrative or disciplinary action, or separated from the service through no fault of their own and who have been subsequently exonerated and reinstated by virtue of decisions of competent authority;

(5) Cash awards to deserving officials and employees in accordance with civil service law;

(6) Salary adjustments of officials and employees as a result of classification action under, and implementation of, the provisions of the Compensation and Position Classification Act, including positions embraced under the Career Executive Service;

(7) Peso support to any undertaking that may be entered into by the government with international organizations, including administrative and other incidental expenses;

(8) Covering any deficiency in peso counterpart fund commitments for foreign-assisted projects, as may be approved by the President;

(9) Priority activities that will promote the economic well-being of the nation, including food production, agrarian reform, energy development, disaster relief, and rehabilitation.

(10) Repair, improvement and renovation of government buildings and infrastructure and other capital assets damaged by natural calamities;

(11) Expenses in connection with official participation in trade fairs, civic parades, celebrations, athletic competitions and cultural activities, and payment of expenses for the celebration of regular or special official holidays;

(12) Payment of obligations of the government or any of its departments or agencies as a result of final judgment of the Courts; and

(13) Payment of valid prior year’s obligations of government agencies with any other government office or agency, including government-owned or controlled corporations.

Comments

  1. Any law before or after the ratification of the Constitution inconsistent with any of its provision has no legal effect whatsoever. This is in line with the supremacy status of the Constitution over any law passed by any Congress. The Constitution is the highest law of the land. All laws must be created, interpreted, and implemented in accordance with it. The relevant constitutional provision does not have any defect such as vagueness. It is very clear on what it means.

    This the relevant constitutional provision.

    Article VI, Section 25, Paragraph 5

    “No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations; however, the President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of Constitutional Commissions may, by law, be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations.”

    ” Hindi dapat magpatibay ng isang batas na magpapahintulot ng ano mang paglilipat ng mga laang-gugulin; gayon man, ang Pangulo, ang Pangulo ng Senado, ang Ispiker ng Kapulungan ng mga Kinatawan, ang Punong Mahistrado ng Kataastaasang Hukuman, at ang mga puno ng mga Komisyong Konstitusyonal ay maaaring pahintulutan sa pamamagitan ng batas na dagdagan ang alin mang aytem sa panukalang-batas ng pangkalahatang mga laang-gugulin ukol sa kani-kanilang tanggapan mula sa natipid sa ibang mga aytem ng kani-kanilang mga laang-gugulin.”

    There is no argument that the President, along with the heads of the other branches of the government, has the right to transfer funds. But it is also clear where the funds shall be taken and where the funds shall be used as specified in the last part of the said provision, “…may, by law, be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations.”

    It would be beneficial if we should focus our attention on the last phrase “…for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations.”

    It is clear that the funds transferred shall be FOR THEIR RESPECTIVE OFFICES FROM SAVINGS in other items of THEIR RESPECTIVE APPROPRIATIONS.

    The word RESPECTIVE is clearly involved. And the word RESPECTIVE means SPECIFIC, PARTICULAR, or SEPARATE.

    This essentially means that transferring funds to the other branches of our government, the Judiciary (the Supreme Court and all lower courts), the Congress (the Senate and the House of Representatives), and the Constitutional Commissions ( the Civil Service Commission, the Commission on Elections, and the Commission on Audit.), is NOT ALLOWED BY OUR CONSTITUTION.

    One of the main reasons why cross-border funds transfers are not allowed is because every branch of the government is independent from each other even financially. Every branch has a role to play in the the system of checks and balances. The system of checks and balances is an important part of the Constitution. With checks and balances, each of the three branches of government can limit the powers of the others. This way, no one branch becomes too powerful. Each branch “checks” the power of the other branches to make sure that the power is balanced between them.

    Let’s take the Commission on Audit for example. According to the Constitution, the Commission on Audit has the power to audit and examine the use of public funds of the Government. How could this independent constitutional body retain its integrity if it request or receive funds from the other branches of our government? The Commission’s role in the system of checks and balances is to check and confirm if the public fundse of the Government have been spent properly. They have their own budget in the first place. Why ask the other branches for additional funds? If they want more funds, they can only go to Congress. Since the role of Congress in the system of checks and balances is to decide how the public funds should be spent during the annual budget deliberations.

    The Executive branch’s role, through the President, is to propose how the public funds should be spent. Only to propose and if the Congress approved the President’s budget proposals, his duty is to execute or implement them. The President has no role on how the public funds should be spent except on submitting his proposed budget.

    The President has no role whatsoever in determining how the public funds should be spent after the Congress’ approval of his budget proposals. The President’s DAP usurps the Congress’s role in the system of checks and balances and circumvents the mandate given to him by the Constitution which he swore to uphold in his oath during the start of his office.

      • The law seeks to prevent abuse while granting the chief executive some flexibility in the administration of funds. All this talk about the supreme court failing to see the small print, as it were, in the law tends to obfuscate the issue of executive abuse. Granting legality, a legal act that is abusive is, in my humble view utterly reprehensible. especially when committed at the highest levels of governance. And Pnoy’s attitude simply rubs salt on wound. Of course one can question the judgment of the supreme court, but not in the way he did it. Combative and coarse. Patently abusive.

        • The small print would show, Sir, there is no executive abuse.

          The executive was skating on thin ice but it was still, nevertheless, ice.

        • You seem to be still talking about the legality of DAP.. I was trying to point out it’s abuse, legal or not. To dispel the suspicion that DAP was indeed abused, PNoy need only to make a clean breast of it. He has not done that so far. Neither has Abad.
          If this were a chess game, PNoy should strengthen his worst weaknesses voluntarily. And then he can think of attacking the weak points in his adversary’s position.

    • @alan,
      ang tawa ko kay spinboogers,
      that issue fits the unthinking critics and enemies of pnoy and abad.
      being blinded by ‘inggit to death’.
      ang sigaw nila, “impeach pnoy!”,
      para, “kami naman!”

  4. @jaxius,

    Please take note…again…because you were keen in your observation and your summary here: http://raissarobles.com/2014/07/15/fr-joaquin-bernas-probably-forgot-the-admin-code-came-after-the-1987-constitution/comment-page-2/#comment-143413 was factual…

    EO No. 292, which independent Raissa Robles has dissected, came on July 25, 1987. It did not antedate the Consti, wich was ratified in February, 1987. So my submission is that it is colorable and entertainable to argue that the two documents stand and should be read and given effect together. PNoy’s mother, who had a year of law before marrying Ninoy, cannot be presumed to have enacted an unconstitutional order, given his powerhouse legal team headed by Joker Arroyo, all experienced craftsmen, cum bar topnotchers who had obtained their master’s abroad.

    – Rene Saguisag, 07.18.2014

    Judge AMR, to give credit where credit is due, actually gave the timeline through his (or her?) comment somewhere in this blog.

    Now, let’s consider this statement…

    But what if there already existed a law authorizing the President to go beyond the limits set by Section 25 (5), Article VI of the Constitution? If you look at the wording of Section 25 (5) – “No law shall be passed” – the ban is prospective, not retrospective.

    What if the existing law happens to be the Administrative Code of 1987?

    – Raissa Robles, 07.08.2014

    @jaxius, you’re spot on. Someone’s cookie…este…theory crumbled.

  5. I’d like to get the views of readers here who hold the Constitution as “sacred.”

    When Lincoln was US President, he had a big problem with slavery – it was sanctioned by the Constitution! So going against it was unconstitutional and a culpable violation.

    Which had greater value, abolishing slavery or following the Constitution of the US?

    • You forgot to take note that the US Constitution was eventually amended to account for the prohibition against slavery. Nevertheless, prior to the 13th amendment, no clear sanction was given in any part of the US Constitution.

      We have the customary principle that the Constitution is the ultimate source of all law (within a certain jurisdiction). All other laws need to be reconciled with the Constitution, and this is why it has been regarded as “sacred”, as you have espoused. Yet you have to take note also that the Constitution constantly evolves. For that matter, we have those provisions for revision and amendment. This is not feasible in practice, but likewise not impossible.

      Basically, your question lacked proper appreciation, or even knowledge, with regard to the nature of a constitutional law. For instance, “unconstitutional” is outside the privy of “culpable”. The terms are in a different realm (my god). The latter applies to penal laws only.

      If I may ask also, considering our present values, how is the abolition of slavery similar to the concerted distribution of funds? If only I had the time, I would certainly comment on how your futile analogy miserably failed.

  6. POLITICS IS A GAME OF CHESS, BEWARE OF DECEPTIVE MOVES
    .
    The move being instigated by a certain group to oust Pnoy over his use of DAP, to me, is not really about DAP. After all DAP is already ended even before the Supreme Court rendered its decision, and even the SC acknowledged that the implementation of DAP did some good to our country.

    The move to oust Pnoy is a covert operation to seat Binay as President, so that he can do an Arroyo – serve the remainder of his predecessor’s term and ensure his election as president for another six years.

    Na-Arroyo na tayo nuon, huwag na tayong magpa-Binay ngayon.

    • This is about DAP. Do not try to put things like ousting the President just for his seat to be taken by another. He is in charge of this “unconstitutional DAP” so he must face this issue.

      Filipino people are so naive in looking behind things when the actual problem has not been really resolved. Can we just try to finish the main cause before looking unto another? If you are not into Binay then go anti-Binay and not pro-DAP.

      Also have you looked unto to unresolved or questionable cases? This is just like it. As to what you have said that it already ended, well now it is not. And I think Filipino people need to know where there bloody hell taxes are going to.

      You do not want any incompetent official in you country? Then try not to derail people from finding the truth about this.

    • @ Yvonney,

      Tama ka Yvonney, na Araro este na Arroyo na tayo noon huwag na magpa Bitay este magpa Binay ngayon…

      I still believed and Trusted President Pnoy Aquino et. al. at saka portion lang naman nang DAP ang unconstitutional that means ang ibang portion nang DAP ay Constitutional at saka may inihain nang motion for reconsideration ang kampo ni Pnoy tungkol sa DAP issues? Nakapagtataka aminado mismo nang supreme court na malaki naitulong nang DAP sa Mamamayan,sa Bansa at sa Economiya bakit kailangan hadlangan ang kaunlaran at Pagbabago tungo sa magandang kinabukasan…Bakit? Saka ginagawa din ito nang korte suprema ibig ba nilang sabihin kong sa judiciary branch “Legal” pero kong sa Executive branch ay partly “unconstitutional”…ha ha ha nalilito ako na parang na flip-flopping na naman… umayos kayo? Amen…

      • saan ba tayo? sa legal na gaa na ibinubulsa o sa dap na napupunta sa bayan?
        ayaw ko rin ng disbursement na walang check and balance.
        kaya nais ko ring matuldukan kung anuman ang unconstitutional na gawain.
        maliwanag naman na ang mga atake sa admin ngayon ay may iba pang motibo.
        tama ka j.bernas.
        wag na tayong magpa-araro at wag ding magpapa-bitay.

    • True that!

      Binay’s friend Bobby, former treasurer of Makati, has been “chilling it” here in Toronto. Heard from a reliable source that he is rarin’ to go back to the Philippines. He has many stories to share, I reckon.

  7. Hello Raissa…I got stucked up on the road due to GLENDA’s moderation…hahaha

    maybe also brownout…cannot be seen.

    I have posted something…thanks if you can save it and declare it in par with the consti….hahaha

  8. Raissa,

    Seems like Rene Saguisag also noticed the timeline you pointed out. Looks like he follows your blog. Your posts on the Administrative Code have given pause to many op-ed writers. Without your posts, many of them would have taken the SC at its word. A big mistake of you ask me, this attitude of putting the SC on a pedestal and practically bestowing upon it infallibility.

    I share the reservations about the SC expressed by Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln almost two centuries ago. They warned that an all-powerful court unaccountable to the public except through impeachment would become an oligarchy, a dictatorship. We have given our SC more power than the US did their SC and we are beginning to pay the price. Sure in 1987 we wanted an all powerful court to check the president but here we are in 2014, the Constitution has other measures to control the capricious imposition of martial law other than the SC so maybe it’s time to review its powers and clip them where necessary.

  9. Dean La Vina has a very candid and enlightening interview over at Rappler. You might want to check it out. I believe it’s balanced and sober.

  10. siguro lets wait na lang yung sagot ng sc sa mr ng malacanang , supreme court have a history of flip flopping sa kanilang desisyon , remember yung desisyon nila sa flight attendant and also about a certain province .

      • kaya lang what happens IF (that’s a big IF the size of Samar–site of one of their flip-flops) they change their opinion on this? Mukang sasambulat na nga ang social media at mauubos ang pondo ng mga political operators.

        I am only hoping that they change the content of the decision in the assigning of bad faith on the government”s part. Yung walang criminal liability na lalabas dahil sa uncinstitutional verdict. It would be really unfair kung maipapakulong ang mga implementors dahil naglipat sila ng funds from one cause to another while yung ibang pinakulong natin naglipat ng funds from one cause to their pockets.

        I know that’s not legalistic pero ang unfair lang pag ganun.

  11. Per Alan and Raissa they just wanted for SC to rule with finality on the Admin codes and other provisions regarding DAP. The decision will come soon.

    Per our layman’s understanding of DAP, us have some straw vote here.

    Others can show their vote under this thread, thanks.

    @Parekoy- unconstitutional

    • Unconstitutional–but the SC will have to check its assumption of bad faith. The decision has a partisan flavor.

        • This is a copy-paste from a post of mine replying to Cha’s post:

          “Authors, proponents and implementors of the Disbursement Acceleration Program may be held liable unless a proper tribunal found that they acted in good faith.”

          This was pointed out in Montelibano’s column in PDI, also by Dean La Vina in his rappler interview and some other bright people.

          The SC assumed bad faith on DAP and asked the implementors to prove them otherwise.

          Would that be a fair interpretation? Also, what’s TIA?

    • My ebot is the DAP and EO 294 both constitutional…based on exigent and demanding circumstances; EO provisions as basis which is still ‘a legislative power’ granted and existing.

      Once the SC declares EO 294, Secs. 38 & 49 as unconsti…I still ebot that the ‘acts and practices’ were all done in accordance with then “a valid EO 294 based on the doctrine of ‘OPERATIVE FACT’ “…also. Add GOOD FAITH too!

      We’ve deliberated on this issue much more than the SC….hahaha

      Eboto mo! Conti or Unconti…?

  12. At Comment No. 59.2.2, Lol said:

    Lol says:
    July 17, 2014 at 4:16 pm

    That provision must be read along with general provisions of the Admin Code which expressly prohibits cross border transfers. Sec. 1(6) of Chap. 1 Book VI of the Admin Code says:

    “No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations. However, the President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the house of representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the heads of the Constitutional Commisions may, by law, be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their RESPECTIVE offices from savings in other items of their RESPECTIVE appropriations.”

    Sounds familiar? Of course those are the same exact words found in Sec. 25(5) of Art VI of the Consti. Guess what, its not only the Consti that prohibits cross border transfers. In fact, forget the consti, the ADMIN CODE ITSELF prohibits it.

    Sec. 39 therefore, following the rule on Statutory Construction, must be understood as to mean as referring to offices WITHIN the SAME branch of the government. The savings in the executive dept cannot be transferred to the legislative dept or the judiciary. The savings of the legislative dept cannot be transferred to the executive and judiciary. And so on and so forth.

    —–

    The Administrative Code provisions (Sections 38, 39, and 49) speak of the same SAVINGS written down in the 1987 Constitution because the crafters of the Administrative Code copy-pasted from the 1987 Constitution. Thus, 38, 39, and 49 are operational and constitutional…especially because the primary source was, and is, the 1987 Constitution…and partly because the 1987 Constitution precedes the Administrative Code.

    Sec. Abad is only afraid to tell the truth because he lifted from the 1987 Constitution, and thereby, from the 1987 Administrative Code as well, WRONGLY…not only once, but THRICE.

    It’s really unforgivable to quote the Constitution, and the Administrative Code as well, wrongly because he IS a lawyer, former lawmaker, and an Executive branch official!

    With great power comes great responsibility…so they say.

  13. @Daves,

    Wish PNoy would say…

    “Mga boss ko. Huwag kaming tularan. Gaya nang sinumpaan ko, ipaglaban ang Batas…Ang Saligang Batas…

    Huwag kaming tularan!“

    This will be the most effective speech a Chief Executive must deliver. The supreme sacrifice that a highest public servant na tunay na MAKABAYAN could easily do.

    • If Pnoy will do or if only He did that , Pnoy should have been magnanimous in accepting that defeat and that numerous of the majority of the Filipinos will instantly forgive him and love him more… NA TAYO TALAGA ANG BOSS NYA …… lalong lulubug sina Enrile and etc… so with BINAY……wrong move…. He could have stay silent while preparing their Motion of Reonsideration to the SC decision….

      • MAGNANIMOUS…

        That’s the word…

        And Binay will be zilch…as in zero, figuratively…in the next election! He doesn’t even have a chance to relieve PNoy before 2016 through the political power of impeachment as what gloria did to Erap.

        • Dahil kahit sino man ang hirangin niya sa 2016 Presidential ay pihong mananalo kahit pa siya si Roxas.

      • @Victin Luz,

        Na-imagine ko tuloy ang luha kong bumabaha dahil sadyang may katuturan ang pagkamatay ni Cory at pagkapanalo ni PNoy.

        Sayang. Missed opportunity noong takdang alas 6:00 ng gabi ng ika-14 ng Hulyo 2014.

        Sayang…

        Nguni’t, subali’t, datapwa’t…may panahon pa sa tunay na pagbabago at panininukluhod sa kaniyang mga BOSS…

        Sana nabago ni Glenda ANG pag-iisip o kaya naman ni Henry…

      • Ang mga BOSS ni PNoy ay subok na mapagpatawad lalo na kung siya’y magiging mapagkumbaba…

        • para sa akin, PNoy is already mapagkumbaba. but he knows how to fight. so those bosses that wants to kick him in the guts just because mapagkumbaba siya had better watched out. he’s one slave that may hit back. we are now in modern times and being boss these days does not give one the right to kill, maim or insult workers.

          those that want to snuff out PNoy’s existence, are not really his bosses. they’re fake bosses.

    • That’s too much sir and I believe that you know it. Kung sakaling gawin anong susunod nating hihingin? Buwan?

      If you were on PNOYs shoes itataya kong bay*g ko di mo rin gagawin yang pinagagawa mo kay Aquino.

    • @ Baycas,

      Dahil sa ginawang pagpapaliwanag ni Pnoy noong lunes ay dumami nga ang humanga at nakisimpatiya sa kanya dahil sa kabutihang dulot nang DAP at maging ang korte suprema ay aminadong malaki ang naitulong nang DAP sa Mamamayan, Bansa at sa Ekonomiya, at saka portion lang naman nang DAP ang Unconstitutional which means ang ibang programa nang DAP ay Constitutional diba? saka mayroon pang inihaing Motion for Reconsideration kaya may pag-asa pa ang DAP…

      OK ang DAP kumpara sa PDAF na binulsa nang mga Kurrapt…

  15. 2 of 4

    Yet something about the abolition of this SC “pork” leaves a bad taste in the mouth: its motive. The Legislative and the Executive are doing it out of personal spite, not out of principle. Because the SC last Nov. illegalized the congressional pork barrel (Priority Development Assistance Fund, PDAF) and the other week the presidential version (Disbursement Acceleration Program, DAP), then they would deprive the SC too of its JDF.

    Proof of the combined ill motive in going after the JDF comes from President Noynoy Aquino no less. Threateningly said he last Monday in closing his TV-simulcast defense of his illegalized DAP: “My message to the Supreme Court: We do not want two equal branches of government to go head to head, needing a third branch to step in to intervene. 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 graver, if we were to base it on your decision. Abiding by the principle of ‘presumption of regularity,’ we assumed that you did the right thing; after all, you are the ones who should ostensibly have a better understanding of the law. And now, when we use the same mechanism — which, you yourselves have admitted, benefit our countrymen — why is it then that we are wrong?”

    • 3 of 4

      That was the signal to attack. On cue the next day P-Noy’s congressional allies filed a resolution to scrutinize the JDF, and a bill to limit the SC’s power over it. P-Noy came out with more scathing words against the SC. The Commission on Audit leaked out an old finding against the use of the JDF as stipends. This is the same “independent” agency that had partaken of the DAP (P145 million for “poverty alleviating” new limousines and computers) in a “cross-border” disbursement that the SC found particularly objectionable. This is the same agency that to this day has not audited the P136-billion (or is it P142 billion, or P150 billion, or P157 billion?) DAP since 2011-2012.

      Particularly worrisome about this ill motivation against the JDF is the intended outcome: for the SC to flip-flop and restore the PDAF and DAP. Meaning, a return to the political elite’s free spending of the people’s money. Meaning too, no more need to disband political dynasties, and to free up the electoral system in a sweep of political reforms.

    • Parang na-‘impound’ na naman ni Akismet ang komento ko na “1 of 4” na dapat nasa itaas ng Comment No. 103.

      Ito…kaya hahatiin ko sa tatlo ang “1 of 4”

      …

      • 1.2 of 4

        If the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) truly is the “pork barrel” of the Supreme Court, then abolishing it is but proper. No branch of government has the right to spend the people’s money at will. The Legislature, with the power of the purse, funds projects but may not invent their own, for member’s personal promotion or profit. The Executive, with the power to use the funds, may use good judgment to schedule but never juggle the releases. The Judiciary, with the power to review the legality of their acts, may declare them in excess but not overrule their powers to guard over the funds. On that solid demarcation of turfs stands the tripod of democracy.

      • 1.3 of 4

        Created by Marcos decree, the JDF is a pool of court fees and bonds collected from litigants. Administration of the fund is left to the SC, under the Constitutional guarantee of fiscal independence. Use of the billions of pesos a year supposedly is for improvement of the justice system, including equipping and computerizing of courthouses. But the SC distributes a good slice to its members, lower justices and judges, and personnel as additional allowances. Good governance advocates find this questionable, arguing that if the Judiciary needs extra perks, then the SC must ask Congress so, and not overstep the budgeting process. Twice has the House of Representatives strived to impeach two Chief Justices for it — the second successfully, although it did not bring up the issue during the Senate trial, in favor of the easier-to-prove offense of unexplained wealth. So the JDF’s integrity remains in question.

    • @ Baycas,

      Tama naman diba, Para kasing gusto palabasin nang Judiciary na kong sila gumawa nang ganitong kalakaran katulad nang DAP ay Legal pero kong Executive branch ay Unconstitutional, nasaan ang pantay pantay diyan gayong sila dapat mangunang magbigay nang magandang halimbawa para pamarisan, Diba?

      Saka yong Judicial Independence ay huwag gamitin kapag mayroong imbestigasyong ginagawa? Paano nila maipapaliwanag na ang Savings ay sa Bonus at allowances napupunta gayon hindi maganda ang Serbisyo nila sa mga Korte? Napakabagal at sila nagpapabagal… je je je je….