Sa cabinet meeting noong Biyernes, inanunsyo ni Aquino na hindi niya tatanggapin ang resignation na inihain ni Budget Secretary Butch Abad kahit sinimplang sila ng malakas (13-0, unanimous, walang nag-disagree) ng Supreme Court sa hindi naayon sa Constitution na Disbursement Acceleration Fund o DAP.
Sabi ni Aquino:“I have decided not to accept his resignation. To accept his resignation is to assign to him a wrong and I cannot accept the notion that doing right by our people is wrong. (Nagdesisyun akong hindi tanggapin ang resignation niya. Kung tanggapin ko ang resignation niya, ibig sabihin noon, may ginawa siyang mali. Hindi ko matanggap ang sinasabi na ang paggawa ng tama para sa taumbayan ay mali.)”
Siyempre palakpak ang miyembro ng gabinete niya . Maliban kay Bise-Presidente Jejomar Binay na miyembro ng cabinet bilang chairman of the Housing Urban Development Coordinating Council.
Ito naman kasing Supreme Court sinabi na labag daw sa Constitution ang ginawa ni Aquino at ni Abad na hinokus-pokus ang budget. Ang pera para sa mga proyekto na inapbrubahan ng Kongreso ay kinuha at ginamit sa ibang proyekto. Mali yun sabi ng Supreme Court.
Ang malaking parte ng bilyun-bilyun pesos nakuha sa pag hokus-pokus ng budget na yun ay napunta sa mga senador at kongresman para sa kanilang kooperasyun sa pagpatalsik kay dating Chief Justice Renato Corona. Suhol, sa simpleng salita.
Sa doktrina na pinalabas ni Aquino noong Biyernes, basta maganda ang intensyun mo at ginagawa mo ay para sa taumbayan, walang ilegal doon. Anong sinasabing labag sa Constitution? Wala yun. Siya ang presidente at siya ang magsasabi kung ano ang tama.
May reklamo kayo?
Bago kayo sumagot, alalahanin nyo popular siya ayon sa mga survey ng Social Weather Station at Pulse Asia.
Kaya palakpak na lang tayo.
Kaya lang bakit Malacañang lang ang palakpakan?
Palakpakan na rin natin ang New People’s Army sa kanilang pagpatay ng mga sundalo at mga taong nasa paniwala nila ay nagpapahirap sa taumbayan dahil ang kanilang adhikain ay mapalaya ang sambayanang Pilipino sa mapang-api na mga nasa kapangyarihan.
At yung mga bumabatikos kay Ferdinand at Imelda Marcos, magbasa kayo ng kasaysayan. Kaya idineklara ni Marcos ang martial law para maligtas ang bansa sa kumonismo.
At di ba ang mga pinatayo ni Imelda Marcos na mga gusali –Cultural Center, Coconut Palace, PICC (sayang nga ang Film Center gumuho,nalibing tuloy ang mga constructor workers doon) at iba pa ay para yun sa mamamayang Pilipino. Wala siyang masamang intensyun. Ang gusto lang naman niya ay ang “The True, the Good and the Beautiful” di ba?
At palakpakan natin ang mga nagsa-salvage ng mga sukpek kuno sa illegal drugs o bank robbery. Ang pakay daw nila ay peace and order. Wala silang paki-alam kung labag sa batas ang pagpatay ng tao na hindi dinadala sa hustisya.
Ayun sa doktrina ng Tuwid na daan ni Pangulong Aquino, tama yan.
May reklamo?
Kelangan ni Pnoy si Abad lalo ngayon bilang tagasalo/buffer, di pwede syang pakawalan.
“Ayun sa doktrina ni PNoy, basta maganda ang intensyun, walang batas-batas.” What is he in power for?
Ang ‘good intention’ ay pantakip sa kawalang-alam sa batas at pakikinig kay Abad. Nadale tuloy si kuya Noy!
“Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.” – Albert Einstein
Maybe it is beyond belief, but it is not only Pnoy’s Doctrine to over ride the Court rulings or even ignore it..but here it is…it is even one of the very important although at the same time very Controversial provision of our Charter..the Notwithstanding Clause…the Supremacy of the People and its Elected Representatives…and I will post part of it here…
Text
The section states:
Section 33. The Notwithstanding Clause..
(1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15.
(2) An Act or a provision of an Act in respect of which a declaration made under this section is in effect shall have such operation as it would have but for the provision of this Charter referred to in the declaration.
(3) A declaration made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect five years after it comes into force or on such earlier date as may be specified in the declaration.
(4) Parliament or the legislature of a province may re-enact a declaration made under subsection (1).
(5) Subsection (3) applies in respect of a re-enactment made under subsection (4).
Function
The federal Parliament, a provincial legislature, or a territorial legislature may declare that one of its laws or part of a law applies temporarily (“notwithstanding”) countermanding sections of the Charter, thereby nullifying any judicial review by overriding the Charter protections for a limited period of time. This is done by including a section in the law clearly specifying which rights have been overridden. A simple majority vote in any of Canada’s fourteen jurisdictions may suspend the core rights of the Charter. The rights to be overridden, however, must be either a fundamental right (e.g., section 2 freedom of expression, religion, association, etc.), a legal right (e.g., liberty, search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment, etc.), or a section 15 equality right.
Other rights such as section 6 mobility rights, democratic rights, and language rights are inalienable.
Such a declaration lapses after five years or a lesser time specified in the clause, although the legislature may re-enact the clause indefinitely.
The rationale behind having a five-year expiry date is that it is also the maximum amount of time that the Parliament or legislature may sit before an election must be called.
Therefore, if the people wish for the law to be repealed they have the right to elect representatives that will carry out the wish of the electorate. (The provisions of the Charter that deal with elections and democratic representation are not among those that can be overridden with the notwithstanding clause.
The Notwithstanding Clause reflects the hybrid character of Canadian political institutions. In effect it protects the British tradition of parliamentary supremacy under the American-style system of written constitutional rights and strong courts introduced in 1982.
Former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien also described it as a tool that could guard against a Supreme Court ruling legalizing hate speech and child pornography as freedom of expression.
So in my Post if any Legislature believes that the Objectives of the Law or part of the law far outweight Constitutional infringement and or Violation, it can invoke the Notwithstanding Clause and let the law operates for the Period of 5 years of less but can reenact the law indefinitely…
The rational behind this Clause, is that the Voters can kick out the Representatives, including the PM that legislate abusive laws, but nobody can do anything for some very bad SC decision…(Justices can only be removed for bad behaviour and bad decision is not considered bad behaviour..
So if Pnoy for example is abusive of his power, kick his party and all his cronies the next election..but what can you do about the Abusive SC whose decision is very bad if there is no “notwithstanding Clause”..grin and bear with it?
Ayon kay Marichu Lambino mahirap pa patunayan ang suhol…
Technical malversation na lang…
http://marichulambino.com/2013/10/01/disbursement-acceleration-program-dap-constitutional-law-issues-realignment-versus-technical-malversation/
So the public may know…
“…It is the commission of an act as defined by the law, and not the character or effect thereof that determines whether or not the provision has been violated. Hence, malice or criminal intent is completely irrelevant.”
http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2012/12/12/november-2012-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-criminal-law-and-procedure/
Mang Bernie strikes again…
cross-bor·der
adjective
adjective used in this phrase: ‘cross-border’ transfer of funds through DAP
May artikulo sa PDI itong DAP last 2011. Bakit walang nagreklamo nuon.
http://business.inquirer.net/24335/aquino-economic-stimulus-package-to-focus-on-infrastructure-poverty-alleviation
I think the clapping was not for breaking the law, but for a boss’s commitment to his staff, for the belief that we are all working earnestly and diligently trying to build a stable, growing, more professional Philippines, and, in the best military tradition, we ought not leave a man behind.
I also think there is a bit of the father in Mr. Aquino. The father came back to the Philippines to face Marcos, the son will deal with the Supreme Court decision face forward, head up, because he knows he is doing his best, doing what is right by the people who put him in office. I suspect he’d even go to jail rather than bend on his belief as to what is right and good.
There is a lot to admire in that stance. I’d clap for a boss who defended me like that.
ang batas ay nilikha hindi upang ipagsanggalang ang kapakanan ng nakararaming mahihinang karaniwang mamamayan KUNDI para sirain at baluktutin ng masasalaping nasa kapangyarihan!
tama na, noynoy! buking ka na!
hindi ang taong bayan ang tunay na boss mo KUNDI ang mga nakapaligid sa iyong katulad mo ay isinilang na may pilak na kutsara sa bibig at lumaking nahihiga sa salapi!
The “applause” for the President could be the Start of the Establishing of a Strong Party system that is most Desirable in a functioning democracy, instead of Govt. that lacks the dividing principles and ideas and ideal of a Strong Party…
These will encourage the Citizens to identify themselves along PARTY LINES and will be the check and balance of their own parties and will lead to Further reform in Electoral process and Governance…
Like I always believe, progress can not just be achieved in one Big swoop…it needs gradual and sustained efforts from all PARTIES, be they of different ideals and principles but with one common Goal, the Love and Loyalty to the Motherland and that will make the motherland a Blessed Land.
I still believe in Pnoy’s Crusade and until I am convinced with evidence that he is otherwise, my belief in him will stand.
“Ang malaking parte ng bilyun-bilyun pesos nakuha sa pag hokus-pokus ng budget na yun ay napunta sa mga senador at kongresman para sa kanilang kooperasyun sa pagpatalsik kay dating Chief Justice Renato Corona. Suhol, sa simpleng salita.”
May pruweba ba ang alegasyon na ito? Ang “unconstitutionality” ba ay synonymous sa krimen as in plunder and/or malversation ng public funds?
The last time, ang Korte Suprema ay okay sa countryside development program, sa pangkasalukuyan ito ay ” unconstitutional “. Ang tumbok dito ay bakit ang tropa ng mga huwes ay nagkaroon ng ibang interpretasyon sa batas na napag desisyon na? Ano ang pagkakaiba sa Pamahalaang Aquino na nagkaroon ng ibang interpretasyon sa batas governing these monetary allocations?
At di ba dapat bigyan ng kredito ang Pamahalaang Aquino na mismong mga huwes na kanyang niluklok sa Korte Suprema ay may mga sariling paninindigan at di nakatale sa Palasyo?
Dapat ngang ikagalak ang mga pagbabago, ang demokrasya ay umiiral sa panahong ito.
so ano bang masama sa ginawa ng tatlong nililitis na kaso nila revilla estrada at enrile kung ang intensyon naman nito ay para sa mabuti… ang pinagkaiba nga lang malaking halaga ang sa malakanyang at barya lamang ang sa mga senador at kongresman … all must be fair in judgement as what Pnoy said!
I would like to see the liquidation of the DAP first. If COA says all the amount went to worthwhile projects, I won’t throw a stone. But if the money given to these lawmakers are not liquidated and had gone thru the same route that the three accused senators had, Pinoy and his lawmakers deserve to join Enrile, Revilla and Estrada in jail because they are of the same feather.