Exclusive by Raïssa Robles
ABS-CBN’s Doris Bigornia had a very insightful news report following President Benigno Aquino’s combative speech last Monday.
Doris covered the President’s speech live in Tayuman Street, Tondo, Manila. When it was over, she asked what the residents thought of it.
Few said they understood the controversy over the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) which the government insists has helped the nation’s economy grow.
The first woman whom Doris interviewed had a mouthful to say. She bluntly said she hardly understood the speech. And then she added:
“Ang naiintindihan ko lang ay yang savings. Anong savings? Kami bang mahihirap ay mag-aantay pa ba ng savings niyo kung kailan niyo ilalabas? Unang una sa ospital na lang. Yung savings na sinasabi niya na sobra yan sa DAP na yan, una PDAP, ngayon DAP naman. Ang mga savings sana unahin ay ang mga may sakit. Pag walang pera inilalabas ng ospital, at mag-antay na lang ng kamatayan sa bahay.”
The social networking site Twitter erupted with comments like Doris was “so much fun to watch” or they found the people’s remarks “funny” or “entertaining”.
Many law students would probably mutter that these viewers were just too dumb to comprehend what the word “savings” in the Constitution means. They probably think – as some of them have repeatedly told me – that matters like the Constitution are best left to lawyers who study it for four years then take an exam – which many of them pass with very low scores.
Not so, according to a law dean I just talked to today.
Melencio Sta. Maria, Dean of the Institute of Law of Far Eastern University, said opinions of ordinary citizens on the Constitution matter. As an example, he pointed to the raging controversy over the constitutional definition of the word “savings”.
He said:
“When one realizes that the central issue in this controversial DAP case revolves around the word ‘savings’ in the Constitution, one might wonder how on earth could such a simple word become so complicated and contested when all of us know in our own ‘normal’ world that it simply means unspent money placed in a bank, in a cabinet, in the “baol”, in a piggy-bank, or just anywhere else for safekeeping to be spent when the need arises.”
Perhaps, he said, the Supreme Court justices are interpreting “savings” not in the way ordinary Filipinos understood it to mean when they ratified the 1987 Constitution.
He said the DAP case revolves around Article 6, Section 25 (5) of the 1987 Constitution, which provides that the President “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.”
Before I go on, I would like to explain why I decided to interview Sta. Maria. Besides graduating from law from the Ateneo de Manila University and teaching there for 27 years, he has a Master of Laws degree in banking law from Boston University. So he would be familiar with the issue at hand since DAP involves fiscal management of government funds.
Sta. Maria said:
“The word ‘savings’ is not defined in the Constitution. But in the DAP case, the Supreme Court ruled that ‘savings’ should be within the ‘statutory definition of savings contained in the General Appropriation Acts (GAA).’ And in the General Appropriation Acts, ‘savings’ are generally defined as portions or balances of funds that are freed as a result of the completion of a project or its abandonment or non-continuance. So if P10 million were originally appropriated for the Department of Public Works and, in building a road, it spent only P4 million, the balance of P6 million can be transferred by the President to augment the deficient funds of the Department of Education to build a school. The P6 million-balance is savings.”
Then he pointed out the implications of the Supreme Court ruling on what constitutes “savings” that would limit what the President could spend:
“However, if the P10 million were never used at all, that money cannot be given to the Department of Education because it is not a balance of any undertaking and therefore, in accordance with the GAA definition, is not savings. Accordingly, the President cannot just take this amount and use it for another project even if it is for a public purpose such as building a school. He has to wait for the end of the year for the amount to be determined whether or not it may even be considered “savings”. By that time, the cost of supplies and labor will have already gone up and the money that should have been originally adequate (for building the school) has become inadequate to the detriment of the government. What a waste of opportunity and money!
One wonders why this qualification in relation to unused and used allotments for purposes of defining ‘savings’ was used when it is not even textually reflected in the Constitution.”
Sta. Maria then asked the following questions:
“Did the 1987 Constitution really intend this distinction when it referred to ‘savings’?
And more particularly, is the GAA definition of “savings” the one contemplated in the Constitution?
Was it even intended by the Constitution that the government must wait for the end of the year to consider money as ‘savings’?
Are all these complications necessary?
Should we not interpret ‘savings’ in the simplest way possible to be able to readily and immediately respond to the needs of the country?”
Finally, he posed two clincher questions.
Number One –
“The Supreme Court said savings must be defined within the meaning of the GAA. The next question to ask is, how are you sure that was the intent of our framers of the constitution? How are you sure the definition of ‘savings’ we now ask the President to follow is what the framers wanted it to be?”
And Number Two –
“Did the Supreme Court decision reflect the way the people understood the meaning of the word ‘savings’?
The Filipino people ratified it in the way they understood it. And therefore, constitutional provisions must be applied in accordance with their understanding.”
Sta. Maria pointed to two legal precedents decided by the Supreme Court to support his thesis. One is Civil Liberties Union vs. Executive Secretary, 194 SCRA 317. The other is Tan vs. Socrates 278 SCRA 154. In a previous column for Interaksyon, the news website of ABC5 where he is the resident legal analyst, Sta. Maria had written that –
“…while the Supreme Court cannot discern the thoughts of the 22 million Filipinos who ratified the Constitution, one thing is nonetheless sure: they do not think like lawyers, justices, and politicians. They are ordinary people whose uncomplicated minds do not create any legalistic undertones on what they ratified as their Constitution and the provisions thereof. The words of the Constitution must therefore be given their ordinary meaning devoid of any complications and “ in the sense it has in common use.”
“The people ratifed the constitution without any ability to make undertones, legal implications, qualifications,” he reiterated to me. He explained that:
“The Constitution is not purely a legal document. It is not a document intended primarily for lawyers. It is a political document that embodies our aspirations. It is unlike ordinary legislation deliberated on by Congress.
The Constitution was ratified by the Filipino people. Therefore according to the Supreme Court, in the interpretation of the Constitution, any ambiguity of any meaning must be consistent with how the people who ratified it understood it to be.”
What are you telling me, in short? I asked Dean Sta. Maria.
He replied:
“So what I’m telling you is that the word ‘savings’ in the Constitution might be broader in scope than the very technical definition in the GAA which might not be the one contemplated by our framers of the Constitution and by Filipinos when they ratified the Constitution.”
My interview with Dean Sta. Maria puts in context a comment that Philippine Daily Inquirer columnist lawyer Oscar Franklin Tan recently posted on this blog.
Although Tan does not agree with my suppositions, this graduate of Harvard Law wrote the following words of encouragement:
Raissa,
I hope you never let anyone tell you that only lawyers have the right to venture an opinion on what the constitution and related laws mean. The constitution is intended for the general population and future generations, a foundational document in simple words that is supposed to enshrine our most deeply held values. A high school student’s opinion is just as valid as a Supreme Court justice’s in this context. The constitution is too important to be left to the lawyers, you might say
I totally agree.
Besides I think the Constitution is not a dry-bones topic but, on the contrary, quite hot and sexy.
And so I dedicate the song below to those who think like me:
Richarddr1234 says
Mrs. Robles,
This “interpretation-as-the-ratifiers-understood-it” theory of constitutional construction is a very good theory, and it was the very same theory that I was invoking when I wrote this comment a while back in another one of your posts:
“Richarddr1234 says:
July 14, 2014 at 2:27 pm
Mrs. Robles,
You said:
“‘Notice that Del Castillo used the word “Congress”. In other words, Del Castillo limits the constitutional prohibition only to all laws passed by Congress.
“‘What does this mean? As even my lawyer-critics would concede, under the rules of statutory construction (which simply means the manner of making laws and interpreting them), if you negate only one specific instance, then all other things of a similar nature are allowed. A crude example: if a security guard tells you “‘“you cannot enter through this door” that does not mean he’s banning you from entering through other doors, just not this door.
“‘In short, while Congress cannot pass a law; President Corazon Aquino could and did, using her legislative powers that were recognized by the 1987 Constitution. And her law is exempt from the ban imposed on Section 25 (5) of the Constitution.’
“This is a very strange argument indeed and I don’t think any judge will agree with. What you are proposing is that the constitutional commission intended and foresaw that they were making an ironclad constitution to which all laws must conform to, with the exception of a few executive orders that the then President Cory Aquino may pass. If that is indeed the case, that the framers (constitutional commission) and the ratifiers (the Filipinos who voted for its passing) of the constitution were thinking about allowing poor little old Cory sneaking in a few “extra-constitutional” provisions in the interim of the Freedom Constitution and the Present Constitution, then I think that the Filipino people have been thoroughly ripped off and screwed.”
This comment was in reply to your contention that Sec. 49 and Sec. 38 have not been declared unconstitutional and probably will not because they were passed after the 1987 Constitution has been ratified and because Justice del Castillo thinks that “no law shall be passed” (Sec. 25(5) Art. VI Constitution) refers only to legislation passed by Congress, to wit:
“My critics’ interpretation of the phrase “no law shall be passed” turned out to be wrong — at least, that’s what Justice del Castillo said in his opinion on what Section 25 (5) of the Constitution means.
“He wrote on page 4 of his 56-page opinion [with my emphasis added]:
“’The subject constitutional provision prohibits the transfer of appropriations. Congress cannot pass a law authorizing such transfer. However, it is allowed to enact a law to authorize the heads of offices to transfer savings from one item to another provided that the items fall within the appropriations of the same office: the President relative to the Executive Department, the Senate President with respect to the Senate, the Speaker relative to the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice with respect to the Judicial Department, and the heads of the constitutional bodies relative to their respective offices.’
“Notice that Del Castillo used the word “Congress”. In other words, Del Castillo limits the constitutional prohibition only to all laws passed by Congress.”
Now that was what I was saying in my response to your post Saguisag fully backs me on DAP and shares a startling suspicion—that the Admin code provisions will likely be declared unconstitutional, they having been carried over wholesale from a provision P.D. No 1177, which has already been declared unconstitutional in Demetria vs. Alba for contravening Section 16(5) of the 1973 Constitution which became the present Sec. 25(5). Why? Because that what the people were thinking when they ratified the 1987 Constitution. “No law shall be passed” means all laws including Executive Orders, Admin Orders, Memo Circulars, etc that have the effect of laws.
As for the meaning of savings, I don’t buy it. You’re just quibbling about savings when Sec. 25 (5) talks about using those savings to “augment any item in the general appropriations law” meaning that these savings have to be used for approved items. Take note that in his speech, the President never defined “savings” either.
It was defined in GAA 2011 (and is defined in the same ways in GAA 2012 and 2013) as:
“Sec. 60. Savings refer to portions or balances of any programmed appropriation in this Act free from any obligation or encumbrance which are: (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.
“Augmentation implies the existence in this Act of a program, activity, or project with an appropriation, which upon implementation, or subsequent evaluation of needed resources, is determined to be deficient. In no case shall a non-existent program, activity, or project, be funded by augmentation from savings or by the use of appropriations otherwise authorized in this Act.”
Now this is a very easily understandable definition of savings and incidentally this is now the meaning of savings that the constitution will carry from now on. It is savings when we are sure we don’t need it anymore. The government cannot afford to use the definition of savings as to put something is a “baul”. A private person can of course do that—in fact it is advisable for the working man to automatically put a portion of whatever earnings he receives in that “baul” because it encourages thrift which is a virtue. And an ordinary man will just have to forgo small comforts like the odd pancit canton, less spending on cellphone load, or if you’re a yuppie, the odd starbox or milchtee. The government does not have this luxury and cannot just declare that something that hasn’t been spent yet as savings—precisely because it has been set aside in a budget waiting to be spent on the appropriate item in the general appropriations law. Even the common man has to understand the definition of savings as used in everyday life and savings which pertain to government. Besides with the spirit of edsa still fresh in all of those ratifiers for this constitution, they must understand that government “savings” are much stricter than what is ordinarily meant by savings. Besides in the GAA some items can be declared as savings in the last quarter of the year. Take note also the succeeding Section:
“Sec. 61. Priority in the Use of Savings. In the use of savings, priority shall be given to the augmentation of the amounts set aside for compensation, year-end bonus and cash gift, retirement gratuity, terminal leave benefits, old-age pension of veterans and other personnel benefits authorized by law, and those expenditure items authorized in agency special provisions, in Section 16 and in other sections of the General Provisions of this Act.”
I don’t recall any savings that went in here. Instead, they went to augment the discretionary funds of legislature.
Lastly, the constitution is meant for common people to read and understand. But lets not take the use of these “high-falootin’” words as something anti-masa, but rather a recognition of their intellectual abilities. And lets not forget that the Filipino version of this constitution was disseminated at the same time as the English (Sec. 8 Art. XIV) which the woman interviewed by Doris would certainly understand and which they would not consider “Panes”. Seksyon 25 (5) Artikulo VI provides:
“Hindi dapat magpatibay ng isang batas na magpapahintulot ng no mang paglilipat ng mga laang-gugulin; gayon man, ang Pangulo, ang Pangulo ng Senado, ang Speaker 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 item sa panukalang-batas ng pangkalahatang mga laang-gugulin ukol sa kani-kanilang tanggapan mula sa natipid sa ibang mga item ng kani-kanilang mga laang-gugulin.”
The word used was “natipid” which I think is very accurate. It excludes “ipon” which is another sense used in the English word savings. “Natipid” sometimes means being able to get something for less than expected.
Of course, we could just chock it all up to Filipino culture which seems that they just cannot seem to understand how the President—the Pang-ULO—could not have a discretionary fund: they see him as the father figure, the last say, the man, the king, the biggest alms-giver. In their minds, he should control the other branches of government. The penumbra has always been shifting and since Marcos vs. Manglapus the penumbra has been towards the giving of more and more powers to the President and the people just can’t understand how a bunch of black robed latin speakers can tell the pang-ULO what to do. Checks and balances, separation of powers is just alien to the Filipinos. So while I am indeed arguing that Mrs. Robles is wrong in arguing that the Supreme Court is wrong, one cannot fault the common Filipino for failing to draw the connections.
raissa says
About “poor little old Cory” and being “royally screwed”, I will answer you on Pres. Cory’s death anniversary.
You obviously do not understand our political history.
That’s all I will say for now.
Also, when you comment, pls show the distinction between your comments and quotations from other people including me. I have a hard time following your arguments.
thanks.
Alan says
“One cannot fault the common Filipino” — can one fault the uncommon he-man genius and all around cosmic wonder Richarddr1234 instead?
jaxius says
Dean Sta. Maria makes a compelling argument. However, when the lines are blurred between political advocacy and legal advocacy, things can get confusing.
On his clincher questions, whether the framers of the constitution really intended to define savings within the confines of the GAA, that is easy to answer.
Unlike in the United States where the framers of their constitution are all Dead White Men and they have to rely on the Supreme Court to divine the meaning of the Constitution, we still have some of the ConCom members alive and kicking. And we don’t have to ask them because they have spoken about it.
Based on the statements of 1987 ConCom members Fr. Joaquin Bernas, Bishop Teodoro Bacani, and retired Justice Adolfo Azcuna regarding the DAP debacle, I think it can be equivocably said that “Yes, the framers really intended it the way the Supreme Court interpreted it.”
On the second question, i think it is condescending to think that the people do not understand the concept of savings in relation to a budget. If we are to go by the definition of the administration that “money unspent is savings”, that is defining savings independent of a budget. If a man has a salary of 15,000 and he keeps 5,000 as savings, then such amount is savings independent of his budget. If the 10,000 is devoted and budgeted to his everyday needs, and he was able to lessen his spending but still keeps faithful to the budget, then he has savings from his budget. If he isn’t faithful to his budget and declares savings, then he’s just cheating himself.
Richarddr1234 says
Yes, I think the people are confused with the terms “ipon” and “tipid”. Ipon is the deliberate act of setting aside money (which the DAP did when funds were diverted) while tipid is savings from getting something at a lesser cost than expected (which is the very definition provided for in the GAA 2011-2013). Both “ipon” and “tipid” can be translated as savings. The President’s July 14, 2014 speech did not distinguish between the two, judging from the confused reactions of the taongbayan interviewed by Doris Bigornia. Incidentally, the Filipino text of Seksyon 25(5) Artikulo VI Saligang Batas uses the word “natipid”. To wit:
“Hindi dapat magpatibay ng isang batas na magpapahintulot ng no mang paglilipat ng mga laang-gugulin; gayon man, ang Pangulo, ang Pangulo ng Senado, ang Speaker 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 item sa panukalang-batas ng pangkalahatang mga laang-gugulin ukol sa kani-kanilang tanggapan mula sa natipid sa ibang mga item ng kani-kanilang mga laang-gugulin.”
The Filipino text was published simultaneously as the English and I think both are equally authoritative. If anything, this is how the word “savings” should be interpreted, Tagalog/Filipino is the language of the ratifiers and those interviewed by Doris would readily understand what is written above unambiguously and simply without any lawyerly twisting and turning and definitely not “Panes”.
raissa says
pls give link to the Filipino text.
thanks.
Now see if the same text you are quoting “allows” additional powers to be granted on the use of savings, but only to the President.
baycas says
http://www.seasite.niu.edu/Tagalog/1987_philippine_constitutionfs.htm
Pareho pati mali…
“…ng ano mang paglilipat…”
raissa says
The problem is, is your translation the official translation?
baycas says
I dunno.
It was not my translation.
baycas says
Ito siguro…
May “official” sa “gazette” eh…
http://www.gov.ph/constitutions/ang-konstitusyon-ng-republika-ng-pilipinas-1987/
baycas says
1987 Saligang Batas
Artikulo VI
Sek. 25
baycas says
Ang akin…
Natipid…
http://raissarobles.com/2014/07/19/read-for-yourself-the-actual-motion-for-reconsideration-on-dap/comment-page-1/#comment-144105
Richarddr1234 says
Sorry about putting the wrong text. I think the official gazette version is the correct one.
baycas says
Please don’t be sorry…
You made everyone’s day.
Even the present government didn’t think about referring to the Tagalog translation of “savings.”
Kudos to you!
Loreto c. gopez jr. says
I was reading some of the comments reg “savings” from various people in your article. My comments is this. while everybody is talking savings in our government I believed we have forgotten that in general our government does not have savings at all. Kung sa accounting pa tingnan natin ang liabilities ng atin governtment banckrupt Ang pilipinas dahil sa laki ng ating utang kaya every year may deficit tayo so papaano nating masasabi my saving tayo when in fact negative ang ating government. Magkano ba ang deficit natin ng atin government? ang DAP 140 bill? Is these not enought to cover our deficit? or question baka lang talaga overstated ang mga budget natin para at the end of the day the executive department or the president can easily get it easily by means of DAP?
King Liam says
Medyo malabo po ang inyong mga tanong sa kadahilanang pinaghalo nio ang budget deficit/surplus against savings. Ang savings po na pinaguusapan dito ay project-specific. Hindi po tinitingnan diyan kung ang pundong gagamitin or ginamit ay galing sa utang (government bonds issuance, ODA) or government revenue or a mixed of the two.
Pagdating sa costing ng isang proyekto, mayroong mga datus na pinagbabasehan (kumbaga rule of thumb kung common ang nature ng project). Di natin masasabing tama di rin masabing mali, or kulang ang pera or sobra. Regardless, iyan po ang gagamitin para sa request ng pundo or budgetary outlay. Kung malakihang proyekto yan, dumadaan sa bidding. During the bidding process malalaman natin jung akma, kulang or sobra ang inilaang pundo base sa pananaw ng ibang tao, in this case mga kontraktor. Hindi naman po pwedeng magbidding muna bago ka humingi ng pundo para aprobahan sa Kongreso para lang ito maging akma sa pananaw ng iba.
Rene-Ipil says
In 1990 the Supreme Court in Gonzales vs. Macaraig ruled that PD 1177 remained valid.
“If, indeed, by the later enactments of Section 55 (FY ‘89) and Section 16 (FY ‘90), Congress, as petitioners argue, intended to amend or repeal Pres. Decree No. 1177, with all the more reason should it have so provided in a separate enactment, it being basic that implied repeals are not favored. For the same reason, we cannot subscribe to petitioners’ allegation that Pres. Decree No. 1177 has been revoked by the 1987 Constitution. The 1987 Constitution itself provides for the continuance of laws, decrees, executive orders, proclamations, letters of instructions, and other executive issuances not inconsistent with the Constitution until amended, repealed, or revoked (1987 Constitution, Article XVIII, Section 3).”
Section 43 of PD 1177 authorizes the president to stop expenditures appropriated in the GAA for the executive branch. The savings thus generated are now authorized to cover deficits on appropriations whether in the executive, legislative, judiciary, etc. as authorized in Section 45 of PD 1177. Such savings could also be used by the president to fund priority projects in any branches of the government as authorized in Section 55 of
PD 1177. And Sections 43, 45 and 55 of PD 1177 are also Sections 38, 39 and 49, respectively, of the Administrative Code of 1987.
The transfer of “disappropriated” fund is of course not the prohibited transfer of appropriation contemplated in Section 25(5), Article VI of the constitution.
When an expenditure authorized in GAA for the executive branch has been stopped, savings result as a matter of course. Such savings become “disappropriated” or severed from the GAA and are no more an appropriation under the GAA. As savings the president could now transfer same fund from the executive to other branch of government without violating Section 25(5), Article VIII of the Constitution. This is because PD 1177 and the AC – not the GAA anymore – now authorize the appropriation of the savings to deficient and priority programs, activities and projects. Thus, the expenditure is made without violating Section 29, Article VIII of the constitution which mandates that no money shall be paid out of the treasury without any appropriation authorized by law.
It is a one-way traffic of fund transfer because the president cannot generate savings by stopping expenditures authorized by the GAA in the legislative, judiciary, etc. Otherwise the fiscal autonomy of said entities would be violated. In other words the president could transfer only the “disappropriated” fund from the executive branch to the other branches of the government.
Philcruz says
The Dean has such a common sensical approach and interpretation of such a simple issue made complicated by people who think that complicating simple issues make them sound intelligent.
yvonne says
WHAT ARE AN APPROPRIATIONS?
.
In this Raissa’s blog post, we are discussing the definition of “savings” and already we find the definition of “savings” complicated.
Well, let me step back and ask: How do we define appropriations? I have not read about anyone discussing this term. If someone did, I certainly missed it.
I think it is more important to define the meaning of “appropriations” because this specific word is embedded in the Constitution that is now the subject of extensive discussions in light of the Supreme Court’s decision on DAP.
Article VI, Section 25 (5) of the Constitution states that “No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations”.
The Constitution does not state “No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of funds”.
Had the Constitution used the word “funds” instead of “appropriations” then there will be no ambiguity because the definition of “funds” is narrow and more defined.
I’m not a lawyer by in my reading of the Constitution it is prohibiting the transfer of appropriations – not the transfer of funds.
So what constitutes an appropriation? Is a transfer of funds, a transfer of appropriations? Or is there another element that has to be included in the transfer of funds for it to be considered a transfer of appropriations?
I went the website of the DBM to look for its definition of “Appropriation” but I did not find it. So I checked with other sources of the meaning of Appropriation.
One definition I found, which is from the White House publication on Budget Concepts and Budget Process, states that Appropriation is a permit to an agency to incur an obligation and to make payment on that obligation. There are two elements to an Appropriation: first, to make a spending commitment; second, to spend the money for that spending commitment.
So if DAP is simply transferring the fund but is not transferring the spending commitment, then there is no transfer of appropriation – only a transfer of funds. There is no violation of the Constitution.
Or, is it?
macspeed says
@YVONNE
I am not a lawyer, but since I am a man, a person, portion of people who approved the constitution. I have the right to say THERE IS NO VIOLATION FOR DAP USAGE. Philippine is our Home>one big brother house…
The Funds that were allocation for a certain project which are left over from commissioned one, are saving Funds
If the allocated money were not used for an abandoned project, then these Funds are also savings.
These savings shall be used on emergency or any other requirement needed in Big Brothers house and as one of the Law Maker, one of us, one of the people, I APPROVED IT.
yvonne says
@macspeed,
What I was asking about, or seeking clarity on, is the government’s definition of “appropriations”. Your response is about funds, but I don’t think the terms “appropriations” and “funds” have the same legal meaning taken from the context of the constitutional prohibition. See my additional comments below.
duquemarino says
@yvonne, how about a blog on “Budgeting 101” for us lay people to better understand the terminologies used. @raissa, is it possible?
yvonne says
@duquemarino,
Unfortunately many terminologies have different meanings depending on the context for which you are using the terminologies.
chit navarro says
What an inopportune time for you to ask this question Yvonne. My BFF who works with the Committee on appropriations in Congress is on her annual leave and so I can not ask her to define it for us in layman’s term or in the technical term that is being used in their committee.
but in their website, it states the following as their JURISDICTION:
” All matters directly and principally relating to the expenditures of the national government including payment of public indebtedness, creation or abolition and classification of positions in government, and the determination of salaries, allowances and benefits of government personnel. ”
So “appropriations” may refer to the budgeted amount for each and every conceivable expenditure for the budget year. And since the government has now instituted line budgeting, I believe we can now see a more detailed explanation of where the funds are being appropriated to.
I am just wondering – perhaps DBM should also create in their website a running EXCEL file on the budget vs. actual expenditures so there is no more questions as to where the money is going.
And if there are funds going to the lawmakers, then these lawmakers should also do a summary of funds received vs. funds spent.
And to be fair, the Supreme Court should also disclose a summary of the Judiciary Discretionary Fund – a statement akin to “Sources & Application of Funds”.
TRANSPARENCY & ACCOUNTABILITY.
yvonne says
@chit
Very inopportune indeed. I will be interested in what your BFF would have to say.
I read that in the U.S. budget system an “appropriation” has three elements – a permission to take on a financial liability or obligation, the timing of the obligation, and payment or settlement of the financial obligation. Absent one of these elements there is no “appropriation”. In this context, a mere transfer of funds does not constitute a transfer of appropriation – this is from the viewpoint of the U.S. government..
Hence, I’m very interested on how our government defines “appropriation.”
Cha says
Ah yes, I was thinking of you, Yvonne, when I came across the section in the MR defining appropriations and savings (Section 72). Wonder if you got to read that part and what you might have thought of it.
yvonne says
Cha, I will give you my thoughts when I get to read it. I’m out of town at the moment.
leona says
Palace MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION…portions:
In the motion for reconsideration, the high court was specifically asked to
declare that:
1. Withdrawn obligated allotments and unreleased appropriations under
the DAP are savings;
2. Cross-border transfers under the DAP are constitutional;
3. The President augmented items with appropriation cover under the
DAP;
4. The use of the Unprogrammed Fund under the DAP complied with the
conditions provided in the relevant General Appropriations Acts (GAAs);
5. Regardless of the nullification of certain acts and practices under the
DAP and/or National Budget Circular No. 541, the operative fact
doctrine does not operate to impute bad faith to authors, proponents
and implementers who continue to enjoy the presumption of innocence
and regularity in the performance of official functions and duties.”
““No malice could be attributed to these mechanisms, which represent the
Executive’s contemporaneous interpretation of the budget which it helped
prepare with Congress.”
“This interpretation was validated repeatedly, year after
year, through budget deliberations before Congress,” it said.
At the same time, the Aquino administration objected to insinuations that
bad faith attended the formulation of the DAP.”
“With all due respect, the Honorable Court’s decision redefines existing
administrative practice and potentially assigns malice post facto. Prior to this
decision, respondents had the right to rely on the contemporaneous
administrative interpretation of the law, deemed adopted in subsequent
enactments of the GAA,” it pointed out.”
“On the issue of cross-border transfer of savings, it said the President had
the authority to transfer savings to other branches of government pursuant to
his constitutional powers under Article VI, Section 25(5) of the 1987 Charter,
which prohibits transfer of appropriations but not of savings.”
“The Constitution, it said, does not prevent the President from transferring
savings of his department to another department upon the latter’s request,
provided it is the recipient department that uses such funds to augment its own
appropriation.”
“In such a case, the President merely gives the other department access to
public funds but he cannot dictate how they shall be applied by that department
whose fiscal autonomy is guaranteed by the Constitution,” the Executive said.”
“There were also some documentary evidence showing that the SC itself
had approved the allocation of amounts from its savings to augment an item
within the Executive and sought funds from the Executive for transfer to the
Judiciary.”
”
In July 2012, the SC earmarked its existing savings of P1.865 billion to
augment the P100-million budget for the Manila Hall of Justice that was an item
in the 2012 budget of the Department of Justice (DOJ), which is within the
Executive Department.”
“The high court, in March 2013, also requested the DBM to transfer P100
million in the budget of the DOJ for the Manila Hall of Justice to the Judiciary,
which it intended to utilize to fund the construction of the Malabon City Hall of
Justice.”
“This means that the P100-million allocation will be taken away from the
Manila Hall of Justice, which has an item in the 2012 GAA under the Executive,
and used instead to fund the construction of the Malabon Hall of Justice, which
has no item in the 2012 or the 2013 GAA.”
“However, when petitions were filed against the DAP and while they were
being heard, Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, in a letter dated Dec. 23, 2013,
informed the DBM that the SC was withdrawing its request to realign the P100
million intended for the Manila Hall of Justice to the budget of the judiciary.”
“The Executive also argued that the high tribunal erred in ruling that the
revenue collections must exceed the total of the revenue targets stated in the
Budget of Expenditures and Sources of Financing (BESF) before expenditures
under the Unprogrammed Fund in the GAA could be made.”
“A revenue surplus is not a condition precedent for the release of the
Unprogrammed Fund, it argued, adding that the 2011, 2012 and 2013 GAAs
only require that revenue collections from each source of revenue enumerated in
the budget proposal must exceed the corresponding revenue target.”
“If we are to follow the Honorable Court’s interpretation, this would
effectively deprive millions of Filipinos access to funds for reconstruction and
rehabilitation,” the Executive warned. # ”
That the gist of the MR of Pres. Aquino to the SC.
leona says
Link http://philnews.com/headlines/2014/headline_news_0719aa.htm
Kalahari says
The first part of the MR obviously came from a respectable lawyer but the portion where the petitioner threw brickbats at the SC’s alleged similar infringement of budget process reminds me of the familiar PNoy style whenever he is crossed.
As I understand an MR, it’s a pleading for reconsideration of an adverse ruling by citing legal arguments designed to convince the High Court of its merits – not a disclosure of past alleged violation by the SC, as if threatening exposure and humiliation if the petition is denied.
leona says
…respondents on the MR did remind the Court of same acts of cross-bordering as the MR bluntly revealed!
I guess a couple of the 13 will make a reversal of their opns. 8 will be needed.
King Liam says
Kung ako tatanungin, the disclosure is more like an attempt to ask the court to be consistent. If I were Pnoy I will use the same line of argument that is provided what was disclosed is practically the same animal as what is being debated on (or for this case the unconstitutional parts of DAP). If SC does not change position, then such animal should then also be subjected to the same conditions as set by the ruling. When this happens it will be better for all of us eventually as both Executive and Judiciary have to be forced to improve the budgeting process.
jorge bernas says
@ leona,
Thanks leona sa napakaganda mong paliwanag at tama nga naman si Pnoy kong humiling ito nang Motion for Reconsideration (M.R.) sa korte suprema dahil napakalaking tulong ang DAP sa ating mga Mamamayan, sa ating Bansa at sa ating economiya at maging ang korte suprema ay inaamin ang magandang kinalabasan nang programa sa DAP.
At maging ang korte suprema at ginamit din din ang pamamaraang ito noon at nitong huli ay binawi lang Bakit? Ayaw ba nila mapahiya ulit gayon napahiya na sila? Parang gusto nilang ipakita na Mali si Pnoy at sila lang ang TAMA gayong pareho nila ginawa? Huwag sanang hadlangan nang korte suprema ang kabutihang dulot nang DAP? Kung ginawa ninyo ito bakit ayaw ninyong gawin ni Pnoy gayon malaki ang maitutulong nito? isip isip din kayo pag may time. wala nga kayong naipakulong na mga mandarambong na lantarang nagnanakaw sa kaban nang Bayan noon at panay baliktad nang hatol aywan kong Bakit?
Sana gumawa nang Tamang Hatol ayon sa kaunlaran,kagandahan at kagustuhan nang Nakakarami …….. God Bless PILIPINAS….
leona says
…you’re welcome jorge@ Let’s hope SC justices see some brighter lights…out of the 13 an EIGHT reverses direction. Not impossible.
junt says
it doesn’t matter much to me whether it is constitutional or not…what matters to me is the accounting of DAP. at the end of the day, if DAP was indeed used in implementing projects intended for the general good and that nothing has been siphoned by some corrupt officials, then I have no problem with that. otherwise, it is a whole different story.
heartaidmd says
I re-posted your post on my FB wall… with proper citation, of course, of where I sourced it :)… thanks!
raissa says
You’re welcome.
heartaidmd says
hi, everybody… I am a cardiologist by training but I have been following Raissa’s blog for a long time… I was also part of the core team who facilitated the Cebu leg of the Million People March so that would mean I’m very interested in the pork barrel issue… after the initial mass protest action, our group formed a rainbow coalition with others including church groups, other professionals, businessmen, rightists, and leftists… sad to say, most of the businessmen and professionals including me STRONGLY disagree with the stand of the extreme leftists regarding DAP… as my CEO friends said, they do understand what Pnoy and Abad were trying to do and did… in fact, some of these businessman friends were in a meeting with Sec. Abad when he was discussing the economic stimulus plans of the gov’t… I am not a lawyer but, being a doctor, I have the patience needed to read the 92-page SC decision and the AC… while I am all for upgolding the rule of law, I am also a mother of two who has to deal with a househod budget… I fully agree with the essence of what the interviewees quoted here said… I am a Cebuano but I will quote a Tagalog saying- “Aanhin pa ang damo kung patay na ang kabayo?”… I hope I got that right…
btw, I voted and campaigned for Pnoy… I may not agree with some of his words and actions but I firmly believe that he is still our greatest change of chipping away at our culture of corruption
and, Raissa, thanks for having a blog that goes right to the heart of national issues without bias and very intelligently…
to the CPMers, thanks for the stimulating discussion… although, sometimes the legalese flow over my head and I have to read some more in order to understand what some of you are trying to say, I DO GET YOU :)… and, as one if the commenters in this thread said, it ‘s very heartening to find a discussion where ‘Abnoy’ and ‘Noytard’ are not mentioned… for the record, I posted in my FB wall that the next time I see somebody call a Pnoy supporter ‘Noytard’, I’m going to publicly call out the offender and ask him/her to present documented evidence of his/her IQ level :)
raissa says
Thank you for commenting.
All I want to do is to ignite discussions on important issues :)
duquemarino says
@raissa, and you not only ignite, the policy makers and even the interpreters of the law are ignited.
I’m sure the SC is taking a second look on their decision. They are also human after all.
leona says
heartaidmd@…you are right and thanks for the medical efforts.
…here, I believe we refrain or never call anybody such ‘terms’..reason: we feel ourselves more guilty about it.
…when we encounter here someone like that, we go away; ignore; no comment. The moderator will deal with it.
moonie says
tama si leona. dito sa blog ni raissa, paminsan-minsan ay may mga ‘undesirables’. we deal with them by giving them the cold shoulders and not indulging their whims. we often let them die of neglect. we give no comments to their entries .give them no attention too. they end up being isolated, then they get bored and go away. I’m aware we can be passive-aggressive at times.
Maxie says
@heartaidmd Like you, Tagalog is not my first language. Listening to PNoy’s speech last Monday was truly challenging. As iit s, the subject matter is already mentally weighty (for non-lawyers like me) it didn’t help that he spoke rather rapidly. If Doris Bigornia asked me for my initial reaction, I would also say wala ako naintindihan. I am so glad that Raissa Robles chews it down for me even if I have to read it a few times.
raissa says
Hmm. Ako parang ibon na nagpapakain ng mga bibi? Hmmm.
heartaidmd says
@Maxie,
actually, I understand Tagalog quite well… I had my post-grad intership in the Army General Hospital inside what is now Bonifacio Global City and my fellowship in Aadult Cardiology at the St. Luke’s Heart Institute in Quezon City… but, just like any other Bisaya, I am not ‘at home’ speaking Tagalog :)… I understood what Pnoy said very well, its just the savings part of all this that I have difficulty grasping… at least, the legal side of it… for me, if there extra money, then I will spend it on things that are essential rather than just leaving it where it is… all the more if those savings aren’t earning significant interest…
this latest article by Raissa helps me understand the legal definition of ‘savings’ as it pertains to our national treasury but, still, I cannot fully understand the limitations of how these savings can be utilized… I just hope that these issues will be clarified…
I will share to all of you the English translation of what a streetchild who walked beside me during our anti-pork barrel march said (this incident was on the front page of our local edition of the Philippine Daily Inquirer)… this child was about 12-14 y.o, walking barefoot in asphalt and I asked him if he will march with us all the way to Plaza Independencia where the rally was to be held… he said that he can’t cos the guards will stop him from going inside because of the fear of people that he will steal and then he told me “to rally well so that people at the top won’t steal and they, at the bottom, won’t have to steal also because they will get what’s meant for them”…
so, that streetchild (and what he said) is one of the reasons why I take the time to read the PDAF and DAP decisions, all the literature related to both including this very informative blog of Raissa with all its comments…
moonie says
maxie, my teacher in sociology once said that to eat an elephant you have to take one bite at a time. eat it in one go and you’ll end up choking. I think PNoy’s speech is not to be taken in one go, but studied in detail preferably with copies where you can highlight and write notations on the edges. PNoy himself must have taken time, maybe hours, also done research to formulate his speech. revising, editing and editing again until finally, he comes up with The Version. and for me to say right away na naintindihan ko ang lahat is very presumptive.
had doris bigornia asked me, I would have told her to give me a copy of the speech and after reading and mulling it, then I will let her know what I think. sometimes, we dont have to react. but we can respond in an orderly manner. cheers.
Ka Enchong says
Dili kinahanglan sa pagpakita pamatuod sa IQ. Usa ka migamit sa termino nga Noytard ug Abnoy, ang iyang IQ na napamatud.
Kidding aside, civilized discussions of issues dictate that they must be limited to issues, not personalities, and opinions must be grounded on facts that are, well, evaluated.
Bakit higit na pinaniwalaan ng sambayanan ang paghahambing ni Jinggoy sa DAP at PDAF? At bakit, kinakatigan ng nakararami (?) ang Korte Suprema sa paliwanag nito hinggil sa usaping PDAF? Sa tingin ko, ang dahilan dito ang siya ring dahilan kung bakit ang mga sabong may glutathione ay madaling ilako – madaling mahumaling ang sambayanan sa mga bagay na mahirap maunawaan.
Sa bandang huli, mananaig pa rin ang kasabihang:
To those who believe, no proof is necessary. To those who don’t, no proof is enough.
Alan says
Randy David:
“When P-Noy’s team assumed the reins of government in 2010, it saw how the budget had been thoroughly abused by the past administration. Several times during the Arroyo administration, a new general appropriations bill could not be passed, thus necessitating a reenactment of the previous year’s budget. This repeated failure to pass an appropriations measure effectively placed enormous amounts of public money in the hands of a transactional president who was perennially fighting for political survival.”
And then there’s this:
“On top of this, Abad saw that almost every agency of government was setting aside savings for bonuses rather than spending these for projects and services. He devised a plan to remove the funds from the hands of nonperforming offices and put these at the disposal of offices that could efficiently use them. Thus was the DAP born. ”
http://opinion.inquirer.net/76615/are-we-facing-a-constitutional-crisis
Parekoy says
@Alan
Kaya hindi mailaglag ni PNoy si Abad, sya ang architecto ng budget reform. Nabanggit ko dati noon pang umupo sila PNoy, na yung grip ng mga Abad sa pera ng bayan ay record breaking:
1. Asawa ni Abad- Vice Chairman Appropriations Committee sa congresso
2. Anak – Chief of Staff ni Purisima- Finance
3. Anak- Presidential Management Staff ni PNoy
4. Marami pang relatives sa gobyerno na nakapwesto.
Double edge yan. Plus – adali mag implement ng budget saka mag release, minus pwedeng maabuso ng isang pamilya at magtakipan kung may anomalya.
Pero sabi nga ng mga reliable contacts, naghigpit talaga sila PNoy sa pera at gutom yung mga dati eh bundat sa panahon ni Gloria, so yung resulta seems in the affirmative, kaya maraming savings. May mga relatives akong nasa gobyerno na na feel nila ang tagtuyo sa pera at projects dahil nililinis nila PNoy yong mga questionable ng mega projects na approved during Gloria’s time, so it was/is working yong reforms.
Yung sa DAP items na ibinigay sa mga Senador, yun ang error, kasi hindi naman nila Abad na factor na makakalkal dahil wala pang away sila Napoles at cousin Luy. So yun ang nagcomplicate sa kaso ng DAP.
Si Jinggoy hindi sana pipiyok dahil alam nya mas madidiin sya dahil recipient sya at ibinigay na naman nya ka Napoles, pero naipit na sya so sama sama na nyang inilaglag ang lahat. Banas kay Jinggoy lahat ng Senador kakampi at sa kabila dahil may “omerta” sila pagdating sa mga pork dahil karamihan sa kanila ay nakikinabang.
So yes, yung creativity ni Abad ay masasabing pinupush yung limit ng GAA dahil pag walang naghain ng reklamo/kaso tuloy lang yung DAP, at laking confident nila Abad sa supporta ng mga Pilipino kay PNoy na halos infallible, pero dahil sa Murphy’s Law, yung DAP ay mukhang naging outlaw(sic)!
So, as most avid supportes of PNoy say, be more creative next time, nasalikod mo naman kami…
jorge bernas says
@ alan,
Tama ka sa sinabi mo Alan, When sec. Abad saw that almost every Agencies of Government were setting aside saving for Bonuses etc.etc.etc. rather than spending on projects and services that neede most and He changes/devised a plan to remove the fund from the non-performing offices and put these to the disposal of offices that could efficiently delivers and those were a bright ideas from DAP.. Maagang nasolusyunan ang problema sa tamang halaga dahil kong maghintay pa nang panahon ay dagdag gastos saka “Aanhin pa ang damo kong patay na ang kabayo” Amen…
yvonne says
If we think our budget definition of “savings” were that complicated, think again.
The U.S. government budget concepts define “savings” as referring to legislation or administrative actions
that decrease outlays or increase receipts.
So if a certain legislation or administrative action results in increased receipts, then savings is realized.
OMG!
yvonne says
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/concepts.pdf
andrew lim says
Dean Tony La Vina’s column Jul 19, 2014:
http://manilastandardtoday.com/2014/07/19/misunderstanding-the-dap-decision/
andrew lim says
Winnie Monsod’s column Jul 19, 2014, Inquirer:
http://opinion.inquirer.net/76680/scs-dap-decision-and-phs-budget-process
Excerpts:
“The question is: How do we locate the recent Supreme Court decision regarding the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) within this framework? Answer: The decision in effect strives to balance the scales between executive and legislative powers through restrictions on the executive. Thus, it tries to address the first finding mentioned above, but in so doing, it has also exacerbated the problem described in the second finding by making the budget even more inflexible. In other words, the decision is a double-edged sword.
The DAP was an attempt to make the budget process more flexible, allowing for innovation in the delivery of public services. How? By taking away (temporarily) the unobligated appropriations of the government executive agencies, and putting them to use in faster moving programs and projects of other government agencies. Why temporarily? Because if the slow-moving agencies performed better, they would presumably get it back one way or another.
I think this was an excellent way of making sure that the people’s money was not allowed to lie idle, and slow down the development objectives of the country. But, the Court did not allow this. Or, to be more specific, it said that this flexibility was not allowed by the GAA provisions themselves. The DBM’s position is that this flexibility is allowed under the RAC.
In trying to tie the hands of a too-powerful executive (not only President Aquino), the high court may have overreached itself when it pronounced that all items in the DAP had no appropriations cover (that absolute). This, after the DBM had submitted the list of projects undertaken by DAP and pointed out where they fell under the GAA. In other words, the Court thought it knew better than the practitioners in the budgeting field, and in effect said the DBM was lying. Since when did Supreme Court justices become budget experts?
In effect, the Court said that the executive was not only spending money that it should not have spent (the definition of savings), but spending it on projects that were not allowed (no appropriations cover). Do you wonder why P-Noy was upset.
Are the Supreme Court and the Office of the President (OP) headed for an inevitable cowboy type “High Noon?” No. Actually, all I think the OP has to do is to redefine “savings” and enact this into law. And that the Supreme Court use “presumption of regularity” rather than presume guilt on the part of the executive, until its officials can prove themselves innocent. Tsk.
One final word on the DAP. The reason it is in bad odor in some quarters is that the people have been led to believe that this fund is the President’s pork barrel. If you will recall, when the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) was under attack, the defense of the legislators was that the DAP was an even larger pork barrel. And the perception seems to have stuck. Unfortunately for the country.”
Parekoy says
@andrew
A) “Actually, all I think the OP has to do is to redefine “savings” and enact this into law.”
I have the same prescription I mentioned in the other topic, so agree with Mare.
Per Mareng Winnie, as it currently stands, then you can’t fault the SC interpreting savings as they see fit since OP’s interpretation is vague.
B) DAP is not equal to PDAF, defensible sana yan kung hindi nag allocate ng pork sa Senado thru DAP. Please see #18.
So, again, kailangan plantsado, gawing law.
Parekoy says
Erratum,
#12 instead of #18.
baycas says
Tumpak.
Nagbigay ng laya ang Cory Constitution…siyempre ayon sa hinihingi ng time o pagkakataon…
Ayan pagkakakuha ko kay G. Oscar Franklin Tan.
Rene-Ipil says
Yes, a simple housewife told me her understanding of savings. I think the first and last time she read the constitution was in the 70s during her college years. I posted her definition of savings in comment no. 110 of “The president’s dead mom . . .”
Marco@110
Yesterday, I asked my wife. If you set aside 2k for a bag but changed your mind in the last minute and decided to buy a pair of shoes next month, do you call the 2k you did not spend as savings to be spent later for your shoes? She answered yes and explained that she was saving the money for her future project of buying shoes. That’s how a housewife define savings.
baycas says
Dean Sta. Maria in…
http://www.interaksyon.com/article/91293/mel-sta-maria-understanding-the-presidents-response-to-the-scs-dap-ruling
baycas says
Oscar Franklin Tan in…
http://opinion.inquirer.net/76582/bluster-as-dap-legal-defense
tristanism says
I agree with that quote.
Kaya lang sobra naman kasi ang impormasyon na nakalabas. The malice out there is not healthy. Mukang konting push lang e kaya nang baligtarin ng mga pulitiko ang nangyayari. It’s just sad. I don’t mind that people are against DAP or siding with the SC or being critics, kaya lang ang alam lang ng karamihan ay masama ang DAP nothing else. Walang sustansya ang opinyon ng kasama ko sa FB, kasabayan ko sa barberya at sa mga naglalaro ng pool sa harap ng gate namin. That is the sad thing. Andali ngang imanipula ng mga tao. People respond to ‘bad news’ faster.
baycas says
Agree.
Daves says
Sad truth.
MC says
Dapat naman kasi, ang speech ni DAP King Simyon should have been in the following tenor:
KAYO NAMAN, GUMAGAWA LANG AKO NG DISKARTE KUNG PAANO MAGAGAMIT ANG MGA NATUTULOG NA PERA PARA SA ATING MGA KABABAYAN. KUNG HINDI PWEDE YUN GINAWA KO EH DI ITITIGIL KO NA AT ITINIGIL KO NA NGA YAN. KAYA PAGBIGYAN NYO NA LANG AKO. NAGKAMALI AKO SO I AM SORRY. SA TINGIN KO, HAHANAP NA LANG ULI AKO NG PARAAN PARA MAKA DISKARTE O MAKA TSANI NG PERA. BINATAY KO LANG NAMAN ANG GINAWA KO SA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE. HINDI NAMAN AKO ABUGADO PERO SA PAG EXPLAIN SA AKIN NI BUTCH AY PWEDE DAW MAGAMIT ITONG SECTION 49 NG CODE. PERO KUN SASABIHIN NG SC NA HINDI PWEDE AY SINO BA NAMAN AKO PARA SUMUWAY SA KANILA AT SUMUWAY SA SALIGANG BATAS. SIGURO, BABAWASAN NA LANG NATIN ANG MGA IBINIBIGAY SA MGA CONGRESSMEN DAHIL HINDI NAMAN SILA NAHALAL PARA GUMAWA NG PROYEKTO AT IBIBIGAY NA LANG ITO DIRETSO SA MGA AHENSYA NG PAMAHALAAN.
KAYA KAYONG MGA BOSS KO, SUMULAT KAYO, MAG EMAIL, VIBER, SKYPE OR WECHAT SA AKIN AT IDAING NYO ANG MGA DAPAT NATING PAGUKULAN AT SAMA SAMA TAYONG MAG USISA SA BUDGET UPANG MALAMAN KUN SAAN DAPAT MAGLAGAY PA NG PONDO. SABIHIN NYO SA AKIN KUNG SAAN DAPAT ILAGAY ANG PERA NG MALAMPAYA OR NG IRA OR KUN ANO MAN KITA NG ATING PAMAHALAAN.
If he was more humble, the forgiving heart of the Filipino may have been more compassionate and could have just taken the episode as an expensive tuition fee in governance.
raissa says
hi MC mas madaling basahin ang comment ko kung hindi all caps.
Cha says
Hi Baycas ( and Victin na rin),
I think you’ve both covered really quite well all the legal bases for your position which I understand to be the following: (please do correct me though if I am wrong)
1. DAP is unconstitutional.
2. Abad should be held accountable for deliberately misleading the President on the legal basis for DAP.
3. The President should accept that DAP is a mistake and apologise to the Filipino people for this monumental lapse in judgment and deviation from daang matuwid.
At this point, it is obvious that the President is on the other side of this argument, thus the decision to file the MR. Whether he is right or wrong for doing so, isn’t the MR but a legal process that is part of the justice system that you are both arguing from? As we often hear about the freedom of speech, one may not necessarily agree with what another says but if need be, one may at the very least acknowledge the other’s right to say so. In this case, is it not totally acceptable to allow the President to avail of this opportunity to seek a second audience with the SC, which by law he is entitled to? (Nagtatanong lang po.)
What he then does after the SC rules on the MR is another matter. If he defies the ruling and resorts to measures outside of the legal system to get his way, then I and one would think not a few more will be with you in denouncing such actions.
yvonne says
@Cha
Well said Cha. You articulated it very well.
I, for one, support Pnoy and will continue to support him until I find a substantive reason not to. And that would include what Pnoy does, or not do, after the SC decides on the MR.
But I think Malacanang already said that they will abide by the SC’s decision on the MR.
baycas says
@Cha,
You’re spot on. As I said to Ka Enchong downstairs…
Dapat may salungat
Diskurso’y aangat.
:-)
Victin Luz says
Please correct my stand : it was only the procedure on how the saving’s was pooled and disbursed… and likewise the correction of the meaning of saving’s by the Justices which maked sense to us non lawyers to be unconstitutional . All the rest , even the intention and accomplishment of PNOY in using the DAP was executed in GOOD FAITH but not for ABAD who falsified the Constitution by ommiting/falsifying in his MEMO to PNOY the word ” RESPECTIVE OFFICES ” in soliciting the latters approval…
We still believe that to date only PNOY can do miracles in our cointry/economy because on his heart and mind NANDODOON PARIN ang INTIGRITY coupled with HONESTY he had inherited from CORY…
Victin Luz says
Dapat mga hindi na BROADCASTED ni TUPAS ang bill limiting Juducial Funds or whatever Bill detrimental to the Juduciary Department….. Tahimik na lang sana sila ,, tayo tahimik tutal wala namang pweding gumawa ng batas pang national kundi sina TUPAS… Ang ingay nila… halata tuloy na pICKING a fight tayo , di lalong lumubug sa survey ang ating si PNOY…..
There are many ways to get a whole number of one ( 1) … By addition 1 + 0 = 1 , By subtraction 2 – 1 = 1 , by multiplication 1 x 1 = 1 , by division and integration and also differentiation BUT THE END RESULT must always = 1….
The same with the desired results on DAP ,,, it can be attained by other procedures by not criss-crossing our Constitution and the worst part of ABAD’s implementaion was the desired result that must have enhance our economy , Billions of pesos went to NAPOLES BOGUS NGO…..and to others projects daw which the legislators designated to be a priority prpjects. ANO NGA NAMAN ang OTHERs na iyan mang BERNIE? Billion pesos ang pinag uusapan ninyong i account , ngayon magbibigay ng full accounting ay ” AND OTHER ” saan nga naman ang TRANSPARENCY ? ay ABAD ISINUBU si PNOY….UMUWI KANA SA BATANES at BANTAYAN MUNALANG ang nga INTSIK na nagpopoaching doon…baka magharakiri na naman ang Coast Guard ay pagbababarilin na naman nila ang mga masakute nila mga intsek doon.
vander anievas says
hindi pa ako desidido sa dapat na kahinatnan ni abad.
hindi ko pa nakikita ang matinding kamalian sa aksyon niya, kung meron nga ba.
aaminin ko, being a non-lawyer ay below average ako pag ang usapan na ay ang batas.
at baka ang puso ko ay nakakiling pa rin kay pnoy kaya hindi pa ma-proseso ng isip ko ang mga taong dapat ilayo kay pnoy.
oo, tama namang alisin ang nagbibgay-kahihiyan sa kanyang performance.
ang ikinababahala ko lang kasi ay kung aalisin ang mga pinagkakatiwalaan ni pnoy aymaaaring siya ay maging isa na lang malamyang pinuno.
na kung wala na siyang sentinels namakakatulong sa pamamahala ng bansa ay baka siya man ay mapagsalikupan na ng kanyang mga detractors at magising na lang tayo isang umaga na napatalsik na siya sa pwesto.
pag nangyari iyon, tiyak na isa iyong national disaster…
at kung sakalai man, sino ang pwedeng ipalit pag si abad ay nag-resign?
tristanism says
Ang sa akin naman, the creation of DAP is not a deviation from the Daang Matuwid. I don’t think so. Daang matuwid is also about good intentions for the common good as it is about being lawful.
Now, kung i-uphold ng SC ang desisyon nito at ipinigpilitan pa din ng presidente ang interpretasyon ng executive, that would be problematic.
Also, people have pointed out (people far more intelligent than I am) that the SC decision is not completely without color. The president has mentioned this in his speech. There was prejudgment in the tone of the decision. I would wish people would clarify this for CPMers.
As per the SC decision:
“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 people.
Sure, the SC has the last say on the interpretation of laws but it does not mean they are above politics. They can never be above the law, I suppose. Sila nagdedetermina kung ano ang batas e. :)
tristanism says
I meant to add: the SC assumed bad faith on DAP and asked the implementors to prove them otherwise.
leona says
‘President Aquino has to take it on the chin’ …aha!…thanks for that ‘tap’…was he tapped on the chin? He was like punched or slapped on his chin!
The proof? Those TWO (paragraphs) immediately before the DISPOSITIVE part of the Decision intimating bad faith on him and his assistants, etc. will not excuse them from the doctrine of Operative Fact. An unnecessary premature insinuation of malicious and evil act and practice on the DAP program.
REMOVING those bad TWO PARAGRAPHS will help to ease the tension. Discretion and not indiscretion.
He is just like any of us, with human emotions. Anyway, Pres. Aquino’s has made moves not to deter himself from moving forward by filing the Motion for Reconsideration before the COURT.
baycas says
Yan ang…ano na nga ba yung after shave cologne na upon application…
leona says
…tap left then tap right…then clap ’em high! Sana ganon.
…eh No! It was hard slap right and left…natumba! And saw twinkling stars with full moon!
he he he [ ala macspeed na!]
Joe America says
Raissa, would you please haul comment 143697 out of moderation or spam. I took too long composing it and it got dumped. Thanks. Joe