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:
Joe America says
What a fascinating bit of discussion, of which I drew off two main lessons:
Trying too hard to be specific when the original meaning was general is a mistake. I would add that whacking at trees and missing the forest is common practice throughout the Philippines, and the Supreme Court is perhaps culturally correct and legalistically wrong.
The Constitution was not written for lawyers or even judges. It was written for the people, and what the people think about it matters.
And sliding a bit off-topic, I herein recite my tweet blog of the day:
TWEET BLOG
The top socio/political blog in the Philippines remains that of Raissa Robles. She was away for a time but is now back with topical, informative, intelligent articles and smart, respectful discussions from the diverse and well-educated CPMers.
The absolute worst blog, out of Australia, remains Get Real Post, a smarmy, slimy, negative, dark-souled torrent of carping, negativity and preening from malcontents of no dignity or grace whatsoever.
This blog (JoeAm’s “Society of Honor”) is rising. For that I thank all who read, and especially those who put forward ideas in the discussion threads. It remains a most honorable society.
raissa says
Thanks, Joe.
I am pretty sure we will clash again some day.
But today we seem to be on the same side.
C’est la vie.
Joe America says
Clashing is the energy emitted by brains receiving new knowledge that confronts the old. :)
raissa says
:)
MC says
Indeed, a thesis has its own anti-thesis and the resultant is always a synthesis. Parang dialectical materialism, ah.
Mel Sta. Maria says
eruditus
Alan says
Joe’s on-the-money quotes:
1. “the Supreme Court is perhaps culturally correct and legalistically wrong”
2. “The Constitution was not written for lawyers or even judges. It was written for the people, and what the people think about it matters.”
Stand by to be pecked to death by “objection”-shouting legal chickens, er, parrots, er eagles out to defend their investment in their law degrees.
Joe America says
“buzzards” . . . ahahaha, it reminds me of a drive I took through the wastelands of Baja, Mexico a goodly number of years ago, passing a large mesquite tree with about 15 black buzzards hulking there, shoulders up, heads down, beady eyes glaring at me, looking a lot like . . . like . . . attorneys . . . . .
Joe America says
it’s a joke, baycas, et al, a joke . . .
baycas says
Hahaha…
I’m not a lawyer…incidentally. Though I dabble in Constitutional Law. That’s why I got resurrected from a blogging hiatus when a Constitutional issue became hot topic.
:)
Would you believe I crossed swords with @jaxius in the distant past regarding “presumption of innocence”?
Joe America says
You had me fooled. . . . hmmmm . . . So maybe you are a politician . . .
vander anievas says
@baycas,
i don’t believe you sir baycas.
you are our supreme court here in cpm.
hahaha. joke. peace po tayo.
i don’t hate lawyers as i heard amboys do…
peace joeam!!
baycas says
@vander,
I’m sorry to all those I inadvertently misled.
I. Am. Not. A. Lawyer.
I just want to protect the Cory Constitution in matters where confusion arises and specially when vested interests attempt to circumvent the letter and spirit of the Law.
In my own way I try to let people understand the Constitutional provisions.
@JoeAm,
I’m also not a politician.
I’m just an ordinary citizen trying to help people by alleviating their miseries.
leona says
[email protected] …[email protected] . . . joke eh? In the land of USA, it’s no joke Joe! Long time ago, buzzard-lawyers were hated there…imagine drafting a 500 – pages for a simple contract of LEASE!
…the buzzards were paid $1.00/page!
. . . Bill [not Clinton] Shakespeare said ‘Kill all the buzzards!” ha ha ha
. . . Marcos said ‘EXPORT ALL LAWYERS!’ …he was! hahaha
…now Joe you’re here in this country…haven’t you heard people in the province say “LAWYER!’ …liar yun.
baycas says
LOL.
Joe America says
“LAWYER: one skilled in the circumvention of the law” Ambrose Bierce
vander anievas says
@leona,
somewhere in india, lawyer is spoken Liar(i heard from a Goan).
Alan says
Like that character from Toy Story? Buzz Lawyer? Wait, did I get that right?
chit navarro says
In addition to my earlier comment:
Should we not now pressure our Supreme Court, as a result of these issues on DAP, to declare the Administrative Code null and void since the provisions therein were totally lifted from PD1177 of Marcos?
If the SC can not do it, then let us pressure our Congressmen or Senators to come up with a bill to nullify this Code and clip the “awesome” powers of a President.
After all, there have been bills in the past relating to this issue but none that ever became a law.
letlet says
The reason why the bills were not enacted into laws by the congressmen and senators is that they are protecting # 1, themselves and their pockets. And now JDF is being protected by the SC Justices through SCEA.
When is the SC going to fulfill it’s main duties without first thinking of #1.
Victin Luz says
@maam [email protected]… A Law cannot amend the Consitution….and it was already or expressly provided in our Consitution that such saving’s should be the saving’s from The RESPECTIVE DEPARTMENTs and can only be re apprpropriated to the Department where the savings came from…….
yvonne says
@ Victin Luz
Chit’s suggestion is for the Supreme Court to declare the Administrative Code unconstitutional. But since the SC cannot do that on their own without someone filing a case before the court, she is also suggesting that perhaps Congress can pass a law to formally nullify the AC.
Nowhere is Chit suggesting for Congress to pass a law amending the Constitution – on the contrary, sinasabi niya na dapat ibasura na yung AC.
Paki-basa uli yung sinabi nya, baka nagkamali ako sa pag-intindi.
raissa says
amend Admin Code
chit navarro says
@Yvonne
maraming salamat. thank you for putting my thoughts into words. I could not have said it anbetter.
God bless!
rey adones says
Raissa,
Can I be enlightened by our Constitutional Experts regarding “Order of Precedence” that in the event of any discrepancy, ambiguity or divergence.
In doing so we will be properly guided of our interpretation/speculations/opinions…
As I was reading different opinions in which everybody is entitled to express in yet I could not find a more defined answer.
chit navarro says
When an independent journo from the trenches who is a non-lawyer but lived with a lawyer-dean father and a persnickety husband journalist dissects an issue made so complex and complicated by men in robes and media practitioners out for a “living-in-style”, the issue becomes VERY SIMPLE AND EASILY UNDERSTOOD by people of simple minds and simple language, like I am and majority of the Filipinos who abhor legalese.
Raissa simplified the issue of DAP into the following:
1. The SC justices declared 4 acts of the DAP as unconstitutional. Raissa analyzed their opinions, whether concurring or dissenting, and stated that this may not be so if other provisions of the Administrative Code, which was also cited by the SC justices in their opinions, have been taken into account. President Aquino, in his speech defending the DAP issue, likewise cited the same Administrative Code. And a motion for reconsideration is in the process.
2. The SC decision did not categorically state what punishment should be given to the President and the Budget Secretary but threw in the words of “good faith”, “inoperative fact”, “savings”, “cross-border transfers”, etc. Now, the leftists and the lawyers and the group who filed these cases questioning DAP in the SC all came out shouting “IMPEACH! IMPEACH! RESIGN” JAIL ABAD”:, etc. Almost everyone was saying that what the President dis is in violation of the constitution and should be impeached; the end does not justify the means; cross-border transfer of savings is not allowed, there is a word RESPECTIVE, etc.
3. Now, here comes Raissa with an explanation of savings from a lawyer – Dean (dean ulit ha) who speaks law in simple language, easily understood by the common tao:
“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.”
Further, he said:
” Should we not interpret ‘savings’ in the simplest way possible to be able to readily and immediately respond to the needs of the country?”
Ayan, napaka simpleng situation on DAP. The President came up with a program funded from savings, in his own understanding and definition, to uplift the economic situation of our country. SIMPLE, DI BA?
And don’t we often read opinions categorizing the President as having a simple mind, not being able to grasp and understand complex issues and basing his decisions / action on his sub-cabinet who also have simple minds- so probably that is the reason why the President acted the way he acted because he understands the mind of the simple filipino – just want to make the Filipino life better, never mind if he did cross-border transfers, huwag lang transfer sa kanyang sariling bulsa.
Let us NOT forget that all these issues on PDAF, DAP, JDF and other ‘F’s’ came into our consciousness via the simple act of kindness to the family of Ben Hur Luy by a simple lawyer from Cagayan, Atty. Levito Baligod. The greatest irony in the life probably of JPE – that a simple man from his own province would bring him to his second date of impoundment.
Thank you RAISSA for your simple analyses of an issue made so complicated and so complex by people fond of legalese.
Tonyo says
Amen… I totally agree with you.
yvonne says
@ Ang simpleng bagay kase nagiging complicated dahil sa mga misinformation at disinformation na ikinalat ng mga taong may kanya-kanyang personal na agenda.
Sangayon ako sa iyong mungkahi na ibasura na ang mga batas na nag-ugat sa mga presidential decrees ni Marcos dahil ang mga eto ang kinakasangkapan ng mga gahamang pulitiko upang magpayaman na siyang sanhi ng patuloy na paghihirap ng mamamayang Filipino.
MARCOS, MARCOS PA RIN! – kumakalat sa social media
MARCOS, MARCOS PA RIN! – kumakalat sa mga web site
Sa ganang akin, Marcos, Marcos pa rin ang dahilan ng patuloy na paghihirap ng sambayang Filipino dahil sa kanyang mga iniwang panuntunan.
francisco servillon says
[email protected]/SamasiTakaramingndangOneMartialLawkoTayoEnforcer/KulongDin : Sa napakaraming ‘id’iyot’ nating 52Milyong , na walang ka’alam’alam na WINASAK @ GINAWANG BASURA at BASURAHAN ANG ATING ‘WalangHalagangPiso=EKONOMIYA sampu ng KabuhayanNg 100MilyongPilipitnos, sama kaming mga OFWs at EXPAT, (tulad ko). Salamat sa ‘yo!
MC says
Nagiisip ka ba? Kinopya nga nila ang PD1177 na ginawa ni Mr. Marcos. Dahil sa katamaran at kabobohan, di na nag isip o walang isip at nangopya na lang. Ewan ko kung meron kaso na legislative plagiarism, hehehe. Di ba nga nagamit ni DAP King Simyon ang AC kaya nagkaron ng paglipat ng pera at nabigyan ng ayuda ang iba’t ibang ahensya ng pamahalaan? So dahil sa utak ni Mr. Marcos, marami pa rin ang nakikinabang.
Parekoy says
Pulutan namin ay DAP
Heto ang napulot ko sa tagayan namin kagabi. Usapang lasing kaya bahal na kayo kung may kredibilidad ang kwentong ito.
May mga nagtatanong kung yun bang decision ng SC tungkol sa DAP ay may halong pulitika, resbak sa mga previous attempts na i-review ang JDF, suddenly acquired long lost independence from the executive and wisdom, or a mixture of those.
Let us review the list of justices and who appointed them.
Pnoy appointed justices:
1. Ma. Lourdes Sereno (Chief Justice)
2. Bienvenido Reyes
3. Estela Perlas-Bernabe
4. Marvic Leonen
Gloria appointed justices:
5. Mariano Del Castillo
6. Antonio Carpio
7. Teresita Leonardo-De Castro
8. Diosdado Peralta
9. Arturo Brion
10. Roberto Abad (Retiring in August 2014)
11. Presbitero Velasco, Jr.
12. Jose Mendoza
13. Jose Perez
14. Martin Villarama, Jr.
15. Lucas Bersamin
Noong maupo si Pnoy, yung Supreme court ay talaga namang kay Ate Glo, daming flip-flopping para ma accommodate si Ate Glo at kanyang mga alipores, at siguro naman kung ikaw si Pnoy ay alam mo na pag yung SC ay kay Gloria eh tagilid ka sa mga reporma mo at pwedeng madiskaril ang anumang plano mo. Si CJ Corona ay talagang diehard na tauhan ni Ate Glo, so sa perpective ni PNoy inihalal sya ng madlang Pilipino para sa pagbabago ngunit mahirap and gumawa ng tuwid na daan kung yung SC ay hindi balance to say the list. Kailangan ang reporma rin sa SC, so kinakalkal nila noon ang JDF Fund para defensive din yung mga justices, target ay si CJ Corona dahil sa mga evidensyang hawak ng Pnoy admin sa kanya, madali ang pagpapatalsik sa ill-gotten/hidden wealth na hindi magtugma sa income ni Corona.
So under siege din noon ang SC, pero yung mga tulad nila Carpio na may inherent independence at banas din sa kalakaran sa SC eh welcome yung impeachment kay Corona, considering din na sya ang favorite na pumalit as Chief Justice, dahil among his peers talagang sya ang pinaka-kwalipikado. Yung ibang justices eh palamig muna dahil baka maisama sa listahan ng iimbestigahan at pwedeng ma-impeach.
During Corona’s trial, yung SC employees talagang backed up nila si Corona, kasi sa tingin nila hindi lang si Corona ang inaatake kund ang mismong independence nila sa JDF fund at ang SC ay kapantay ng Executive at Legislative, yun bang kasabihan na “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” So larga sila Tupas at ang gripping na nationalized TV Trial ni Corona. Eh ang mga Senador ay divided ang position at syempre political exercise din ang impeachment, so tagilid din na ma-abswelto si Corona, kaya enter ang lobbying, kaya pinick-up pa ni Mar si Bong para kausapin ni Pnoy during Corona trial. Si Atty. Roy eh naglakas loob na ibulgar ang nakuha nyang impormasyon tungkol sa incentives kapag na impeached si Corona, kaya nag-alala sya dahil yung mga inaasahan nila na kampi kay Corona ay pwedeng bumaligtad, kumbaga baka ma 1-2-3 yung kampo Corona. Kung hihimayin ng publiko talaga naman swak na swak na guilty si Corona, pero yung ating verdict eh pwedeng bastusin ng mga Senador na maka-Corona kaya kailangan may incentive, kasi mahirap ituwid ang daan pag andon si Corona sa SC at saka baka ma-ebolden pa lalo ang ibang Assoc Justices na kumontra sa Admin ni Pnoy so tuloy. Yung release ng DAP para sa mga Senador eh mukhang 2 gives ba, released pero hindi pa released hanggang wala pa yung appointed project nila, na yung usual suspects eh binigay na naman kay Napoles para malaki ang cut, So history na, convicted si Corona, which is even without any incentive, dapat naman talaga dahil sa hindi nya ma-explain kung saan galing yun mga pera nya, dolyares man o peso. Syempre tuwa nama yung mga epal na pulitiko, mabango na sa publiko may release pang pondo galing sa DAP.
Yung Dap ay ginawa para may mechanism na ma-released yung impounded na savings. Multi-purpose yun, may mga item (meaning klarado yung projects or funding at madaling ma trace) at meron namang lump sum na pweding maging questionable dahil pweding laruin ng mga recepients na mga pulitiko, so para rin syang PDAF pero mas tago dahil buried sa lump sum items.
–
Yung kabuuang DAP ay 140.8 Bilyon. Yung parte ng Senado mga 1.1 Bilyon
–
–
Heto ang breakdown per Inquirer:
–
Drilon (Mukhang Porky)– 100 milyon
Escudero (Epal din) -99 Milyon
Enrile (Tanda, plunderer and philanderer)– 92milyon
Manny Vllar (kala ko Bilyonaryo?) – 50 Milyon
Bong Revilla (Pogi na mapera pa) – 50 Milyon
Loren Legarda (May asim pa sabi ni Angara)– 50 Milyon
Edgardo Angara(type ni Loren)-50 Milyon
Lito Lapid (naka-konek sa masa noong impeachment ni Corona) -50 Milyon
Jinggoy Estrada (Sexy-nakiusap sa palasyo na ibabalik yung mga PDAF at DAP bast hwag lang kasuhan basta )– 50 Milyon
Alan Peter Cayetano (Akala ko ba malinis to?) – 50 Milyon
Pia Cayetano (hindi pweden si kapatid lang dapat pantay-pantay) -50 Milyon
Trillianes (nagbunga rin yung pag coup laban kay Gloria)-50 Milyon
Relph Recto (hindi sya Noranian) -50 Milyon
Vicente Sotto (Copya din ) -50 milyon
Serge Osmena (Mentor ni Poe) – 50 milyon
Gringo Honasan (high paid sekyu ni Tanda) -50 Milyon
Joker Arroyo (hindi sya nakakatawa- masungit pa) -47 milyon
Koko Pimentel (Hindi gay?)- 45.5 Milyon
TG Guingona (J’accuser) -44 milyon
Francis Pangilinan (President Shawie Fan Club)- 30- Milyon
–
–
Pumutok ang balita tungkol sa DAP. May nag challenge sa SC sa constitutionality at partially unconstitutional ang DAP sabi ng SC.
Sabi ng iba, may good intention naman daw yung DAP, sabi naman ng iba fundraising para a election yan at ginamit na pangsuhol sa mga Senador.
Sabi ng iba may bad faith daw ang SC sa decision, sabi naman ng iba bakit unanimous? Anong ginawa nila Sereno, Leonen, Reyes at Bernabe?
Mahirap i-measure yung intent, ke pa kay Pnoy o sa mga Justices.
Let us compare yung Corona Verdict at DAP Decision. Corona was found guilty pero may kahalong controbersya dahil sa DAP, meaning legal ang pagkatanggal pero may halong bad faith dahil sa DAP funds ng mga Senador. Yung DAP decision naman, legal na unconstitutional, pero pwede rin namang may kahalong payback dahil sa pagkalkal sa JDF fund at iba pang mixed loyalties ng mga Justices.
So tingin ng mga kainuman ko, dapat daw i-set aside ang mga intent at mag concentrate lang sa legalities and merit of the cases.
So si Corona even without DAP incentive eh talagang guilty, similar sa decision ng SC sa DAP na unconstitutional with the principle that when laws are in conflict with the constitution, the constitution should prevail!
–
Ngongo na kami kaya tulog muna…
–
Parekoy
07/19/2014
baycas says
Tamang tama ang tama.
francisco servillon says
Parekoy: Pre ko, napaka ‘malaman @ masustansyang funliwanag’ ang sa iyo, bukod sa ‘dating fun’matalino!! Marami, higit milyon, pasasalamat dito,.. para sa ating di makaintindeng, dahil medaling mabileng, 52 Milyong ‘boughtantes’ !!..Tyvm, at pina’aalam ko sanang pinamamahagi ko ang mga sinusulat mo dito para mga ibang ka grupo ko sa ‘FB-Internet’ ..!! Mabuhay ka sa iyong ‘contribusyon para sa amin dito!!
Parekoy says
@kiko or @francis,
My pleasure! Repost to the max!
I like you coined the term “funmatalino”, never thought of it!
Boughtantes- like! – mukhang angat sa mga ‘bobotantes!’
Cheers dre!
Sa mga kaibigang kong bisaya- Chairs Bay!
letlet says
In terms of purpose and function it seems we have an inefficient and ineffective constitution. It doesn’t protect the lives and liberties of the general public. Some presidential decrees even violates the rights of some to provide gains to others. SC should be the first fort of call to remedy these problems.
baycas says
Mali lang interpretasyon ni PNoy dahil sa pagkukulang ni Abad. Pinanindignan na lang nila ang kanilang kamalian at ayaw umamin.
Nagbigay laya ang Cory Constitution na gumawa ng constitutional na kahulugan ng “savings.” Through the years na katig niya ang Kongreso ay hindi gumawa ng magandang kahulugan ng “savings” para ilapat sa GAA.
Baka kasi LULUSOT ang SHORTCUT.
“yet his lawyers never argued that the president, not Congress, should write the rules on declaring savings”
Yep, why didn’t PNoy’s lawyers do that…or better…
Bakit hindi na lang nakipagtulungan sa katig niyang Kongreso na pagandahin ang kahulugan ng “savings” na ilalagay sa GAA?
Baka kasi LULUSOT ang SHORTCUT. Eh natiklo sila!
Ngayon supplemental budget pa rin ang bagsak. Sayang ang panahon.
Di pa pinag-uusapan ang potensyal na sayang na pera…
baycas says
“Pinanindigan”
viewko says
oo nga po.
yun pong purpose ng constitution e tila nasa preamble niya. dapat lang na ang paginterpret e ayon dun. kaya nga dapat siguro magintroduce ng amendment tungkol sa definition ng savings. 1st amendment: that the definition of ‘savings’ is…etc, etc., which is according to how the filipinos understand it, and not at all according to how sc justices enbank chooses to define it. heh, heh
carlos a. says
Ms. Raissa,
Let me just expressed my point of view on questions that requires only common sense (if wisdom is self-exaggeration) as I don’t want to touch concerning specific laws as I might not be able to back it with proper interpretation.
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?
DOES THE SC JUSTICES HAVE TO ALWAYS ANSWER THE QUESTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY OF EVERY ISSUES BASE ON THE INTENT OF OUR FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION. I DON’T KNOW AND I CANNOT ENUMERATE ONE BY ONE THE INTENTION OF THOSE FRAMERS FOR EACH SECTION OF EVERY ARTICLE BUT ONE THING FOR SURE IT IS TO SET A GUIDELINES ON HOW OUR GOVERNMENT SHOULD STANDS AND EVOLVES ACCORDING TO THE MOST DEMOCRATIC, LOGICAL, HUMANE AND JUST PRINCIPLES.
ONE OF THIS JUST PRINCIPLES IS THAT THE 3 BRANCHES OF OUR GOVERNMENT IS CO-EQUAL AND ONE OF THE REASONS OF THEIR EXISTENCE IS FOR CHECK AND BALANCE. NOW THAT THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN “CHECKED” BY THE SC BASED ON HOW THEY SHOULD INTERPRET AND APPLY THE LAW, SOME HAS ARRIVED WITH AUDACITY TO QUESTION THE UNANIMOUS DECISION OF THE SC BASED ON THE INTENTION OF THE FRAMERS. I THINK IT IS ILLOGICAL AND UNWISE THAT ON EVERY ISSUE OF CONSTITUTIONALITY THE SC WILL DECIDE IT BASE ON KNOWING WHAT THE FRAMERS’ INTENT(ION). DOES THE FRAMERS WAS ABLE TO ANTICIPATE ALL POSSIBLE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE (CRISIS) THAT MAY ARISE WHILE FRAMING THE 1987 CONSTITUTION FOR US TO CHECK THEIR INTENT IN DECIDING EVERY CASE? I DON’T THINK SO.
How are you sure the definition of ‘savings’ we now ask the President to follow is what the framers wanted it to be?
WHY SHOULD HE BE, WHEN THE FRAMERS ITSELF DID NOT DEFINE “SAVINGS” IN THE CONSTITUTION IN THE FIRST PLACE (BEAR WITH ME FOR BEING LITERAL)? INTELLIGENTLY, HE SHOULD FOLLOW WHAT HE THINK IS LAWFULLY GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY. AND HE DID, BUT THE SC DECIDED THAT HIS BASIS AND UNDERSTANDING OF LAWS IS WRONG. THUS, DECLARING DAP UNCONSTITUTIONAL. WE SHOULD LIVE WITH IT AND LETS MOVE ON OR LET THE COURSE OF LAW PREVAILS. IMPEACHMENT? MAYBE? IT’S A POLITICAL PROCESS, THOUGH AND HE WILL GET AWAY WITH IT BECAUSE MAYBE THE FRAMERS INTENT THAT ANY IMPEACHMENT IS AS DEMOCRATIC AS POSSIBLE-A NUMBERS GAME. CULPABLE VIOLATION OF PUBLIC TRUST, THAT’S THE CLOSEST WE CAN GET. IS THERE ANY, THOUGH?
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.”
NO.
BUT WE SHOULD NOT FORGET THE PREAMBLE OF OUR CONSTITUTION. AS A WHOLE, MAYBE THAT IS THE INTENT OF THE FRAMERS WHICH PEOPLE ALSO RATIFIED:
We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of the Almighty God, in order to build a just and humane society, and establish a Government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the common good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our posterity, the blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace, do ordain and promulgate this Constitution
AMIDST DAP AND PDAF CONTROVERSY, IT IS THE BEST WAY “to promote the common good”. AQUINO FOR SURE IS NOT A CORRUPT PRESIDENT BUT DECLARING DAP CONSTITUTIONAL WILL BE A PRECEDENT. DAP AND WHATEVER WOULD BE THE FUTURE TERMS CAN BE ABUSED OR BE SOURCE OF CORRUPTION. THE SC IS JUST “promoting the common good” – (ang makakabuti para sa lahat). BUT OF COURSE JUDGEMENT SHOULD NOT BE BASED ON PRESUMPTION OF WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE. THAT IS WHY I FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT THE DECLARATION OF DAP AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL MUST BE UPHELD OR REVERSED BY THE NEXT SEATING JUSTICES.
Tnx!
baycas says
1/4
The framers of the Constitution were saving on “savings” that “savings” occurred only once in the entire Constitution and that is in Sec. 25(5) of Art. VI:
Why “savings” was saved in actual usage in the Constitution is of no matter at first. But the above-quoted provision is the lone provision that says that “savings” can be transferred or realigned in the form of augmentation to-and-from any appropriated item to other appropriated items in the respective offices.
Hence, the first and foremost enabling law for the use of savings is the general appropriations law where savings may be derived with exact determination (Total Appropriated Money minus Used or Unused Money = Savings). All branches of government and all Constitutional Commissions are affected by this law.
baycas says
2/4
To go to the next concern, perhaps “savings” was saved in usage in the Constitution in order to simplify its use, as stated in the provision called “Use of Savings” in the General Appropriations Act (GAA).
Examples of these “Use of Savings” item as generally provided in the GAA are specified in the DAP “Constitutional and Legal Bases” prepared by DBM on October 4, 2013:
2011
baycas says
3/4
2012
And 2013
The 2011-2013 GAA provisions on the use of savings are one and the same. It is worthy of note that the “Use of Savings” only parroted the word “RESPECTIVE” from the Constitution. The GAA is dependent on the Constitution. Thus, any CROSS-BORDER transfers or realignments of funds are AT ONCE illegal and unconstitutional.
baycas says
4/4
Regardless of the eventual ‘complicated’ and probably contentious definition of “savings,” the Administrative Code may, of course, enumerate all possible purposes or scenarios on the use of savings (Sections 39 and 49) and even on the possible creation of savings (Section 38). Those were tackled lengthily in the blog post preceding this one.
Suffice it to say that the simplest meaning of “savings” is the one given above: Total Appropriated Money minus Used or Unused Money = Savings. And one needs the GAA for this blank equation to be filled up.
In effect, the Administrative Code cannot stand alone. It is very much dependent on the GAA:
1. To know how to derive the savings (supply your definition here),
2. To know how much the savings will be (variable amount), and
2. To know how to use the savings (there’s only one manner and that is RESPECTIVELY for each office)
baycas says
Correction:
http://raissarobles.com/2014/07/18/law-dean-wonders-whether-the-supreme-court-defined-savings-the-way-filipinos-understood-it-when-they-ratified-the-constitution/comment-page-1/#comment-143673
Total Appropriated Money minus Used Money = Savings
(in Pilipino: “tira” as in “ang natitira” or labi as in “ang nalalabi” or “ng natipid”)
Victin Luz says
USED ….ginamit na… Hindi pwede ang ” FUTURE SAVING’s ” ni hindi mo pa naman ginagamit o nagamit ,,,papaano mo MALALAMAN nga naman na savings na natin kung wala pa naman tayo sa END of FISCAL YEAR? Papaano kung during the suspension of the project or after termination of the project but prior to the end of fiscal year BIGLANG nangailangan ng BUDGET ng PNOY if given an EMERGENCY POWERs to rehabilate the NUCLEAR POWER PLANT ( for example ) but PINAHINTO na ni PNOY ang PROJECT? at ang POOLED savings ay karamihan galing sa proyectong kanyang pinahinto…he he….MATATAWAG MUBANG SAVINGs iyon….. HINDI na DIBA… HINIRAM na PERA o ITINAGONG pera na IYON…. He he @sir baycas tama ka ,, AYAW LANG UMUNAWA ang mga kasamahan natin dito…he he
baycas says
Sa madaling salita…kinupit sa ibang pinaglaanang proyekto na sadyang ipinahinto na hindi naman hayagan ang kadahilanan ng pagpapahinto.
Impoundment. Eh bawal ang impoundment.
baycas says
DAP “Constitutional and Legal Bases” prepared by DBM
October 4, 2013
http://www.dbm.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/DAP/Constituional%20and%20Legal%20Bases%20for%20DAP%20-%20October%204%202013.pdf
baycas says
Jinggoy,
You are hereby suspended…
Because you didn’t know the definition of “respective”…este…”bribe”…”savings.”
Ah, basta…suspended ka sa PDAF kahit nag-whistle blow ka pa ng DAP.
May ‘trading’ kaya sa SandiganBayan? Kahit man lang state witness???
Victin Luz says
@TRUE sir Baycas,,,, JINGGOY , BONG and TATANG ,, magdusa kayo dyan sa mga exclusive na SELDA ninyo…… EVEN if the DAP will be declared as whole to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL or to the EXTENT that IKULUNG si ABAD ,,, NUMEROUS for every majority of us Filipinos ay hindi mapaptawad ang pag nakaw ninyo sa mga PDAF na pera naming taong bayan….Dapat ” Firing Squad ” kayo ala LIM SENG noong panahon ni Marcos ..
baycas says
Mahirap din mag-whistle blow kasi…
Kailangan munang umamin ka ng kasalanan…Di kaya ng powers ni Jinggoy et al na umamin para lang idamay si PNoy thru DAP.
baycas says
Pati pala “augment” nag-iisa rin lang…
moonie says
PNoy should know all about money and savings. he’s an economics graduate.
moonie says
if judges at the supreme court are confused about savings, they ought to read economics book, or talk to economics or business consultant.
baycas says
Abad should learn to copy-paste from the great sottocopier.
Sa pagsho-shortcut nakalimutan na ang Saligang Batas.
baycas says
Maaaring lightweight ang mga abogado…
http://raissarobles.com/2014/07/18/law-dean-wonders-whether-the-supreme-court-defined-savings-the-way-filipinos-understood-it-when-they-ratified-the-constitution/comment-page-1/#comment-143699
baycas says
Where:
“Used” = spent
“Unused” = full amount
chit navarro says
When Raissa analyses a situation, it becomes very simple and understood by the common tao with simple minds like me, no matter how complex and complicated the lawyers and the leftists try to make it out.
Take this DAP – the SC justices rendered a 13-0 decision declaring that certain acts are unconstitutional; threw in the mix the word inoperative fact and good faith but did not categorically state that the President or the Budget Secretary violated the law and hence, should be punished. Very ambiguous. And the leftists and other posturing lawyers shouted “IMPEACH, IMPEACH”….
Now, here comes this independent journalist, daughter of a law dean and wife of another persnickety journalist – She dissected the issues in the simples way:
1. The acts declared unconstitutional MAYBE in accordance with the constitution if some sections of the Administrative Code which was used as a basis of the opinions / decision of some SC justices are considered.
2. She listed the projects funded by DAP and requested CPM to help her analyze the worksheet released by DBM. But a glance or a scan on the DBM website would show that all these projects / DAP initiatives have been posted in their websites all along debunking the notions that the President did the fund juggling “in the dark”.
3. Now, this final installment on the DAP – SAVINGS. Hurrah to this lawyer Sta. Maria who said it in simple terms and language that the word SAVINGS is not even textually found in the Constitution and that the Constitution should be interpreted with a lot of common sense as the common tao can understand and relate to.
Indeed, the Philippines is in a worse shape because we have too many lawyers who make the SIMPLE issues very COMPLEX and COMPLICATED (perhaps to justify the high fess they charge?).
And don’t we often read comments that our President PNoy does not have a brilliant mind and so interprets only these issues based on what his sub-cabinet advises him, who are also bereft of common minds? But at least, the President interprets the laws and implements these to benefit the common tao who comprise the majority of us he considers his BOSS.
And did not all these issues – PDAF, DAP & now the JDF came into our consciousness because of another simple-minded lawyer who took the cause of Ben Hur Luy?
Hooray again to simple-minded Pinoys like I am! Thank God for an honest and well-intentioned, simple-minded President we have. And hossannas to a gutsy lady named RAISSA ROBLES! (malakas ang loob dahil may ALAN siya who has her back all the time!)
raissa says
Thanks, Chit.
I am pretty sure some are gnashing their teeth while reading you.
but I am enjoying it.
macspeed says
With this phrase from Santa Maria: “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 ARE THE MAN….the justices who think otherwise, may please submit your resignation,
Yes Raissa, your thought is hot and sexy, very fluid, I like Rod a lot….keep it up, we are behind you’re noble cause as back-ups…
yvonne says
The Constitution is the fundamental laws of the land. It should provide for order and stability to the State. It should not be amended on the basis of political whim.
However, there are times when amendments are in order. If the U.S. Constitution were not amended, it would still be legal to own and barter slaves, and women would still have no right to vote.
If budgetary programs like PDAF and DAF are against the Constitution, then by all means let us declare all acts similar to PDAF and DAF, particularly the JDF, unconstitutional with no exceptions. For if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck – then, it is a duck!
On the other hand, if those budgetary programs are direly needed, and we only need to plug the loopholes that have been the source of monetary abuse by plunderers, then, by all means, let us plug those hoopholes. If it needs a constitutional amendment to do that, so be it!
All these problems about PDAF, DAF, and JDF, have their roots on Marcos presidential decrees. Decades after the dictator was overthrown, the country is still suffering from the results of his actions.
And some people shout “Marcos pa rin!”
Excuse me!
Parang may pagkakatulad ang kukulisap at bobotante.
and
Ofelia says
Yes, what do we, simple folks, care about being unconstitutional? What we want are immediate answers to our needs.
raissa says
You brought up a relevant point which I will be tackling in my next piece.
justwandering says
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.”
the SC seems to keep forgetting this..
Victin Luz says
Ha ha ha …MALI …it should be consistent with how the MAJORITY ( wag kalimutan ang MAJORITY ) of the FILIPINO people who ratified it ubderstood it to be…….
PLEASE ” Dean Sta. Maria and others….. We should not FORGET the our system of Government is a democratic/republican form ….RULE of the MAJORITY governs us…( for the people , by the people and of the people )….the Constitution can not be ratified if majority of the Filipinos voted NO …With that small number of interviewees who doesnt mind the meaning of SAVINGs on the GAA ,,,, ,,,,Why not come to our Barangay or any other places now in the Philipppines and conduct and interview about how or what is the meaning of savings to them? Majority will tell you ,, iyan din ang pagkaunawa namin sa savings kung ano ang sinabi ng batas at hudikatora…..
Kakaunti lang ang o minority lang naman ang kinausap ninyo at inilathala dito kasi…Mag ikot sana si PNOY at si ABAD o ang ating mga Kaalyado at Kasama kay PNOY , kung ano talaga ang pananaw ng taong bayan sa Ginawa ni PNOY sa pagiging MAKULET NYA na tama ang ginawa nya sa DAP SAVINGs ng Gobyerno… Numerous of every majority Filiponos will say NO to what PNOY did to our savings..
When GLORYA and PNOY was elected by the Filipino people to be our President , their VOICES , rather our VOICES was reposed to THEM and gave THEM the power to RULE US in accordance with the same Constitution that was ratified by the Filipino People……Pnoy and also Glorya THRU THEM ,used the voice/power of the Filipino people in SELECTING our JUSTICEs of the Supreme Court , and our Democratic form said they will be the Final Arbiter of the TRUE MEANING or INTERPRETATION of the Constitution… SO HE has to magnananimously accept HIS DEFEAT and accept the MEANING of SAVINGs as defined by the Supreme Court because it was also the VOICE of the Filipino people thru HIM and THRU the Justices…
yvonne says
@ Victin Luz,
This is no longer about Abad, it is about Dean Sta. Maria, so I’ll feel free to comment again.
I will not say you are wrong. I’ll just say that we have differences in opinions. For all I know you may be right, and I’m wrong – that would be for other people to decide.
You are taking issue with the statement “must be consistent with how the people who ratified it understood it to be.”
Well, the people who ratified the Constitution are the majority of the people – it cannot be ratified by the minority. So a statement that would say “must be consistent with the majority of the people who ratified it ” would be redundant, taken from the context of what the writer was trying to convey.
In a public discourse, we can all raise our objections to a supposition without being objectionable.
Victin Luz says
So i said mali ang pananaw ni Sta. Maria kasi , like you and the others , kakaunti lang ang na interview nila compared to those who will SAY OTHERWISE to those people who were interviewed…
Those interviewed wer not DUMB @yvonne …iyon ang pagakaunawa nila but the way the TOPIC was PICTURED here , they comprises or representing the MAJORITY of an ordinary Filipino’s living sa tabi tabi ,, which was NOT…….BALANCE JOURNALISM…[email protected] for we are in a democratic form of goernment…
Victin Luz says
@yvonne …ganito ha,,, straight to the point tayo….ALANG KARAPATAN na magsabi ang mga interviewees na hindi nila naintindihan o wala silang pakialam sa meaning ng savings DAHIL noong IBINOTO nila si PNOY bilang Presidente natin at ang ating mga Congressman at Senators ,at ang pag ratify nila sa ating saligang batas ay isinuko natin sa kanila ang panguunawa o pag aaral kung ano ang kahulugan ng SAVINGs sa pamamagitan sa Pagpili nila kung sinu ngayon ang nakaupo sa Hudikatora… DUMAAN sa Judicial and Bar Council ang appointmnrt ng mga Justices ,,, pinirmahan naman ni PNOY ang kanikanilang appointment….o…. papaano mu ngayong sabihing “”” a HIGH SCHOOL OPINION is as valid as the OPINION of the Justices….. NGEK….. ganoon pala di SISIHIN ninyo ang mga magulang ninyo na BUMUTO kay PNOY na sya naman ang pumili kay JUSTICE BIAS na irinikomeda ni TONGRESSMAN at si SINAGAGOR na myembro ng Judicial and Bar council na IBINOTO din nila na ang IBA pang myembro doon ay THRU PNOY im” FLU” encia na nasa 40 degress centegrade pa ang lagnat myembro na din sa Bar Council na iyan…. susmarya naman STA. MARIA….. Lalo lang nalubug si PNOY sa mga ginagawa natin he he..
Victin Luz says
BOSS tayo ni PNOY sabi nya sa atin…..ang naglukluk sa kanya bilang Presidente natin ay TAYO , ang boses ng karmihan o mas marami pa sa kadamihan NA IPINAHIRAM/NAGPAHIRAM ng kanilang kapangyarihan para sa pamumuno nila sa atin at ginamit nga ni PNOY at ni GLORYA ang PAGPILI kung sinu sinu ngayon ang nakaupo sa hudikatora natin na ang HUDIKATORANG namang ito ay doon NAISALIN ang BOSES natin para sila naman ang huling mag aral at magsabi kung ano talaga ang tunay na kahulugan sa mga nakalaad sa ating CONSTITUTION na ang Constitution na ito ay BOSES din ng KARAMIHAN sa atin ang sumang ayon nito…..
Kung paniniwalaan natin ang sinabi ni Sta. Maria , ay paalisin muna ng taga CONGRESSO ang mga SC JUSTICEs sa tamang pamamaraan ( HUAWG mag short cut ) na GAMIT ang BOSES natin dahil tayo naman ang naglukluk din sa kanila as Congressmen and Senators . IMPEACH at GUILTY ang hatol nila para sa ganoon GAMITIN na naman ni PNOY ang BOSES natin na ibinahagi sa kanya noong ibinoto natin bilang Pangulo ng ating Bansa sa Pagpili ng KAPALIT nila . Tapos ilahad nya muli ang problema sa mga bagong myembro ng HUDIKATORA at tanungin muli kung tama nga ang KAHULUGAN ng SAVINGs na ihinatul iyong mga pinalitan nilang JUDTICES,,,, PERO habang sila pa ang JUSTICEs of SC,, dahil ang boses nila ay galing din sa atin na isinalin ni PNOY at Constitution sa kanila ay DAPAT lang na sumunud tayo , lalong lalo na sila PNOY at si ABAD sa decision ng Supreme Court at tanggapin ng MALUWAG sa kanilang kalooban…
vernon says
Well written piece, Raissa. As always.
A well drafted constitution stands the test of time. Most European constitutions are like that and ours doesn’t seem that much different. Basic and fundamental. It’s only when you throw in lawyers that everything gets messed up.
What to do with lawyers? Well, don’t get some of us started.
Rod Stewart, play on.
More power and have a nice weekend ahead.
vernon
macspeed says
he he he “Lawyers in Love”…by Jackson Brown, probably why everything gets messed up he he he
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBHoMvq_tmY
macspeed says
very old song, already archived by u-tube he he he nilagay na sa Baul, luma na kasi…
Ka Enchong says
Savings ‘yan, hehehe.
Halos lahat ng mga Pinoy na sumusubaybay sa mga kaganapang nauukol sa usaping DAP ay nakapagpasya na kung alin sa mga nag-uumpugang sangay ng pamahalaan ang kanilang papanigan.
Sa ganang akin, higit na madaling maunawaan ang panig at paliwanag ni PNoy. Dala marahil ito ng aking kakulangang unawain ang batas sa paraang pinag-aaralan ng mga abogado.
Sa kakapirasong kakayahan kong umunawa ng anumang paliwanag na inilatag sa wikang Ingles na tinapatan pa ng hindi rin naman sapat na kaalaman sa pamamaraan ng lohika, sapat na sa aking ipagkatiwala ko ang pamamahala ng mga gugulin sa Pangulong walang alinlangang iniluklok ng nakararaming Pilipino.
Sa usaping ito, naniniwala akong tungkulin ng bawat isa sa atin ang patuloy na pagtangkilik at pagtataguyod sa anumang kapasyahan ng ating mga halal na pinuno.
May mga usapin din namang kinasangkutan ang ating pamahalaan na sa sarili kong pananaw ay nangangailangan ng pagpuna. Sa mga ganoong pagkakataon, tungkulin pa rin ng bawat isa na ipaabot sa kinauukulan ang ating pagtutol – sa pamamaraang naaayon sa kalakaran ng kabihasnan. Dinggin man o hindi ang ating pagtutol, sa wakas ay tungkulin pa rin natin ang pagtangkilik at pagtataguyod sa anumang pasya ng ating pamahalaan.
Sa masalimuot na pagpapalitan ng kurukuro sa usaping DAP, dapat marahil nating isaalang alang na ang batas ay nilikha para sa tao – hindi nilikha ang tao para sa batas. Kung alin sa mga pagpapakahulugan sa batas ang magbibigay ng higit na biyaya sa sambayanan, doon ako nakapanig. Batay sa mga nabasa at narinig ko dito sa pitak na ito, at sa iba pang mga pitak na tumatalakay sa nasabing usapin, tila higit na mabibiyayaan ang sambayanan sa pagpapatuloy ng mga palatuntunang ginugugulan ng DAP alinsunod sa kahulugang inilahad ni PNoy.
Finally, I would like to express my admiration to Ms. Robles and everybody behind this website, including those who post their thoughts here – finally, I found a space where contrary opinions are respected, and ad hominem attacks are not tolerated. Finally, I found a Filipino political space where I do not see the words panot, abnoy, yellowtards and the likes.
baycas says
Salamat.
Kailangan may salungat
Diskurso’y aangat.
Wag lang sibuyas ang balat
Sa panunuligsa’t banat.
Ka Enchong says
Sa balitaktakan ng mga pananaw,
Kat’wiran, kat’wiran – hayaang humiyaw.
Magkasundo’t dili’y pakaingatan lang
Ang ‘di malamatang pagkakaibigan.
Walang anuman, Baycas!
baycas says
Nakatataba ka ng puso, @Ka Enchong.
Nawa’y lahat tayo’y magtulong-tulong…
leona says
“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.” According to the dean Atty. Melencio Sta. Maria, FEU Law School.
Sta. MARIA! When the 1987 Constitution was ratified by the FILIPINO PEOPLE there was no GAAs that were to be SATISFIED! It was an INOPERATIVE FACT!
‘Savings’ – Ask the people at large again: Ano ang ‘iniimpok na PERA?’ Ang ‘inipon na PERA?’ Ang ‘tinipid na PERA?’
They will give you and everybody including the SC the common answer! Inipon, tinipid, na iipon or na ipon na PERA.
So, how could the SC says ‘savings’ have to be according to the GAAs?
It was SAVINGS in the big and small BAOL, PIGGY BANKS, TIN CANS, PLASTIC CONTAINERS, OLD WALLETS, LEAVES/PAGES OF THE BOOKS, name it where we LOVE TO KEEP IT!
Inipon na PERA! Natipid na PERA! Not ‘money’ as ‘saved’ according to the GAAs!
Very good Raissa! Let us hope the SC decision will be a realistic to the common simple understanding of what is ‘a savings’ in the Constitution. What the ordinary people who ratified that law understood it to be to them.
raissa says
:)
leona says
Again, it is a sad ‘money’ when acc to the SC interpretation –
“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! ”
Wait lang…as hindi pa ‘savings yan’ PERA until Dec. 31st before the President can use the money…while that woman interviewed by Doris Bigornia said –
“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.”
Ali… eh Ate ang ‘savings’ ay pam BUROL na lang yan…Ano yan? For Funeraria Paz or Arlington sa Araneta Avenue …yun savings sinabi mo! Ganoon kasi sa GAA…Ano yon GAA? Ibig sabihin ay
Ganito Antay Antay…hanggang namatay!
hahaha
macspeed says
Ay sus Sta Maria….unsa na nga ineng mga Supreme Court Justicis, ay mabote pa kining lashing alam gid kung saan kuha salapi pambile gin toma, duon sa alkansya ni Inday nya…he he he