President Aquino’s belligerent stand against the Supreme Court’s decision declaring his pet initiative, the Disbursement Acceleration Program, unconstitutional was not at all surprising considering his defense of Budget Secretary Florencio Abad, Jr. last Friday.
Reading and listening to his speech was not only appalling. It was disturbing.
It showed the lethal combination of ignorance and arrogance.
The issue is his usurpation of Congress’ power of the purse which is a violation of the Constitution and he talked about parking zones!
The President cited provisions the 1987 Administrative Code as legal basis of DAP. He said, “..we were surprised to find that the Supreme Court decision did not take into account our legal basis for DAP. How can they say that our spending methods are unconstitutional when they did not look into our basis? Even until now, Section 39 of the Administrative Code is in effect, along with its other sections.”
What he was referring to was Book VI, Chapter 5, Section 39 of the 1987 Administrative Code of the Philippines which states, “Except as otherwise provided in the General Appropriations Act, any savings in the regular appropriations authorized in the General Appropriations Act for programs and projects of any department, office or agency, may, with the approval of the President, be used to cover a deficit in any other item of the regular appropriations…”
Did he read the part, “be used to cover a deficit …”. I dare Malacanang to show a certification of deficit from the agencies it gave DAP funding to.
In what is an indication that Malacañang is hard put scrambling for justification for DAP, Aquino cited Sec. 39 of the 1987 Administrative Code while the Solicitor General Francis Jardeleza invoked Sec. 38 in his defense of DAP before the High Court.
Section 38 on suspension of Expenditure of Appropriations states:”Except as otherwise provided in the General Appropriations Act and whenever in his judgment the public interest so requires, the President, upon notice to the head of office concerned, is authorized to suspend or otherwise stop further expenditure of funds allotted for any agency, or any other expenditure authorized in the General Appropriations Act, except for personal services appropriations used for permanent officials and employees.”
The main decision penned by Justice Lucas Bersamin said, “The withdrawal and transfer of unobligated allotments and the pooling of unreleased appropriations were invalid for being bereft of legal support.
Justice Antonio T. Carpio, in his concurring decision, lengthily explained why DAP cannot be legal based on the 1987 Administrative Code issued by President Corazon Aquino, which her son now is clinging to to save his presidency.
Carpio’s explanation: “Section 38, Chapter V, Book VI of the Administrative Code of 1987 allows the President ‘ to suspend or otherwise stop further expenditure ‘ of appropriated funds but this must be for a legitimate purpose, like when there are anomalies in the implementation of a project or in the disbursement of funds.
“Section 38 cannot be read to authorize the President to permanently stop so as to cancel the implementation of a project in the GAA because the President has no power to amend the law, and the GAA is a law.
“ Section 38 cannot also be read to authorize the President to impound the disbursement of funds for projects approved in the GAA because the President has no power to impound funds approved by Congress.
“The President can suspend or stop further expenditure of appropriated funds only after the appropriated funds have become obligated , that is, a contract has been signed for the implementation of the project. The reason for the suspension or stoppage must be legitimate, as when there are anomalies. The President has the Executive power to see to it that the GAA is faithfully implemented, without anomalies. However, despite the order to suspend or stop further expenditure of funds the appropriated funds remain obligated until the contract is rescinded. As long as the appropriated funds are still obligated, the funds cannot constitute savings because ‘savings’ as defined in the GAA, must come from appropriations that are ‘free from any obligation or encumbrance.’
“Section 38 cannot be used by the President to stop permanently the expenditure of unobligated appropriated funds because that would amount to a Presidential power to impound funds appropriated in the GAA.
“The President has no power to impound unobligated funds in the GAA for two reasons: first, the GAA once it becomes law cannot be amended by the President and an impoundment of unobligated funds is an amendment of the GAA since it reverses the will of Congress;second , the Constitution gives the President the power to prevent unsound appropriations by Congress only through his line item veto power, which he can exercise only when the GAA is submitted to him by Congress for approval.
“Once the President approves the GAA or allows it to lapse into law, he himself is bound by it.
“There is no presidential power of impoundment in the Constitution and this Court cannot create one . Any ordinary legislation giving the President the power to impound unobligated appropriations is unconstitutional.
“The power to impound unobligated appropriations in the GAA, coupled with the power to realign such funds to any project, whether existing or not in the GAA, is not only a usurpation of the power of the purse of Congress and a violation of the constitutional separation of powers, but also a substantial re-writing of the 1987 Constitution….
“Section 38 cannot be invoked by the President to create ‘savings’ by ordering the permanent stoppage of disbursement of appropriated funds, whether obligated or not. If the appropriated funds are already obligated,then the stoppage of disbursements of funds does not create any savings because the funds remain obligated until the contract is rescinded. If the appropriated funds are unobligated , such permanent stoppage amounts to an impoundment of appropriated funds which is unconstitutional.
“The authority of the President to suspend or stop the disbursement of appropriated funds under Section 38 can refer only to obligated funds;otherwise, Section 38 will be patently unconstitutional because it will constitute a power by the President to impound appropriated funds…
“Therefore, it is grave error to construe that the DAP is an exercise of the President’s power to impound under Section 38, Chapter VI, Book VI of the Administrative Code of 1987.
“The OSG and DBM do not interpret Section 38 as granting the President the power to impound. The essence of impoundment is not to spend. The essence of DAP is to ‘spend, spend,spend,’ in the words of the Solicitor General.”
Harry Roque, one of the petitioners representing the Concerned Citizens Movement, said, it is elementary: “Administrative Code cannot prevail over the Constitution.”
Is that too much for President Aquino to understand?
Alam siempre ni Pnoy ang sariling ‘DAP’ ng SC. Kaya lang, head on collision ang banat niya which is an over dangerous situation for him. Plus his “mix of ignorance and arrogance” and sobrang tigas-ulo, Pnoy is a disaster in the making.
Magkukulay yellow kaya ulit ang paligid, o meron pa kayang magsusuot ng dilaw?
It’s fun fun fun in Pinas!
It is also very simple, that when advocates like Harry Roque seek to bring down the sitting government we are back to the days of coups and dysfunction. The solution kills the patient.
Masipag.
The headline of this blog really gets my goat. It is an example of the new style of journalism, fostered by the ease of electronic media, to characterize people as personally deficient when we disagree with them. I get it all the time when visiting blogs and arguing for a stable, loyal Philippines. “Yellow zombie, yellow retard, go back to America”. Those things. Going personal does not help. It contributes to the divisive arguments that keep tearing the Philippines apart rather than building EVERYONE.
Working forthrightly on the issues is a way to build everyone, and along with that ought to come respect for people who disagree with us. Maybe it is an opportunity to learn . . . or to teach.
Any competent executive taking over from Gloria Arroyo would do what President Aquino did. Stop corrupt projects and bad investments and, rather than let the economy go flat – he only has six years to work on it – redirect the money to projects that mean something.
If the laws of the land are determined not to allow expedient caretaking of the economy, change the laws of the land. But this endless personalizing of the problem is itself one of the most destructive trends around.
Itong si Joe Americano, balat sibuyas katulad ni Noy. Gusto niya, walang kahit isang pumuna sa kanyang idolo. Wala bang karapatan ang bawa’t isa sa atin na magsabi ng ating nasasaloob tungkol sa ginagawa ng gobierno? Ang gustong kalakaran nitong si Joey ay anti-democratic. Tumahimik na lang daw tayo, because Noynoy knows best. Paalala ko lang sa kanya, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Good intentions lang ang tanging depensa ni Noy. Kung gusto nitong Amerikano na idepensa si Noynoy, dapat talakaying niya ang isyu at ipakita niyang tama ang katuwiran ng kanyang presidente. Pero hindi ito ang kanyang ginagawa, lagi na lang niyang sinasabi na huwag tayong umimik at baka umiyak si Noy. Inuulit ko, anti-democratic ang ganyang istilo.
I like the unprecedented challenge the President is launching against the overpowering Flip Flopping SC whose decisions are here today Flip Flopped tomorrow…if nothing is done, undesirable decisions handed down by the court will have to be swallowed by the Nation and the people who are the Ultimate Sovereign in a democracy…
When the First Minister question and deliberated on the proposed Draft presented to them by the Bright heads assigned to do the thinking the got stuck on the Provision giving the Govt and the Legislature to Overrule the Decision of the Court on the protected Rights( violation of the constitution) if the objectives of the acts are for the Common Good.. “Proportionality” and that law and or Program can operate within the Maximum mandate of which a Govt must call an election (5 years) that of the bosses or the voters do not agree with the Govt disagreement with the Court, the Voters can vote them out of office and bring in the New leaders that will Repeal the act or Law…and if this not possible, who can check the fallibility and the Errors and the mistakes (good faith or Bad) of the SC?
So far soo good every one is behaving as expected that the Notwithstanding Clause not been Invoked in bad Faith and if invoked (twice) it was allowed to lapsed as soon as the objectives were met…
No constitutional crisis at all, in fact the SC and the Parliament help each other when in Doubt…like for example if the parliament not so sure if the legislation or program it is proposing is not in adherence to the charter it will submit Question in reference with the SC for its non binding opinion and if the court suggest it is in violation but the objectives far outweighs the infringement it will Suggest to the Parliament to Invoke Section 33 of the Charter to preclude any Court from judicial review of the act for 5 years or as specified and it can be reenacted indefinitely For example the DAP, the congress or the executive could use the provision and let the law operates..and if it does not met its objectives, kill it..
“Working forthrightly on the issues is a way to build everyone, and along with that ought to come respect for people who disagree with us. Maybe it is an opportunity to learn . . . or to teach.”
I agree.
@Juan DLC #5, I am defending the issue of respect for a duly elected president. If you visit with any CEO of a large, successful corporation, you will find arrogance similar to that displayed by Mr. Aquino. These are confident men and women and they don’t have a lot of patience for people who put roadblocks in the way of progress. The correct measure is not their personality, but are they getting the job done. To argue for the opposite of arrogance is to argue for a passive, ineffective,insecure president who does everything the way the critics want. THAT’S the kind of Philippine leader you want?
As for ignorance, I think anyone who does not wake up and have to deal with all that Mr. Aquino does, then has the gall to label him with that label, is truly ignorant, for being disrespectful of their nation’s highest office, the demands of the job – to care for 95 million people – and all who voted for the President.
Name calling is appropriate in teen chat rooms, not a first line blog that establishes the tenor of Philippine political dialogue.
Ang respeto ay hindi ipinipilit, ito ay inaani mula sa maayos at mabuting pamamalakad. Lalo’t higit na hindi ito makukuha sa pananakot o pambabraso.
Kung gusto mong igalang ka, matuto kang gumalang muna at magpakumbaba kahit ikaw ang pinakamataas na pinuno ng bansa. Hinalal ka ng taong bayan at marapat lamang na paglingkuran sila nang tapat higit sa partidong kinaaniban sapagkat sa sandaling maluklok sa poder at magsimulang manungkulan, ang partido ay dapat nasa isang tabi lamang.
Ang kapakanan ng taong bayan ang pinakamataas na responsibilidad ng isang pinuno at hindi ang pagmamantini ng sinuman sa kanyang gabinete na nagbibigay batik at kahihiyan sa kanyang administrasyon lalo’t higit ay hindi nararapat isabay at gawing pambayad sa utang na loob ang ipagtiwala ang maseselang posisyon dahil ito ang pinag-uugatan ng korapsiyon at pagwawalang bahala sa maayos na pamamahala.
alalaon baga’y: “halina kayo’t ating pagtutulungtulungang balangkasin ang nararapat na hakbangin upang ang alinmang dapat isakatuparan ay samasama at maayos nating magawa nang sa gayon ay maging simula ito ng pagkabuwag ng politkal patronage, ang malaon nang namamayaning kalakaran sa ating bansa na nagpapalugmok sa pagkakaisa at pagkakaunawaan.
“…………….political patronage………..”
“The issue is his usurpation of Congress’ power of the purse which is a violation of the Constitution…”
something similar is happening in the USA.
“SO SUE ME!” is Obama’s taunt.
http://www.hotair.com/headlines/archives/2014/07/06/so-sue-me-obamas-irresponsible-taunt/comment-page-1/
MPRivera #9, I agree with you that political patronage, and the aspects of that within DAP, need follow-up to make sure money went to productive uses rather than as PDAF-style kickbacks. As for cabinet members “stained”, I presume you mean Secretary Abad. If you listen to those who know the Secretary, you will hear that he is highly regarded and deserves a lot of credit for directing the expenditures of money that underlies President Aquino’s PERFORMANCE, recently praised by the head of the World Bank. Abad has not been accused of gaining personally from DAP, I would add.
I think granting respect to people we don’t always agree with requires a big mind and sometimes sacrifice. What I don’t understand is how Filipinos can ignore the World Bank praise, and the Philippine rise on about every economic measure, and focus on personality traits and work always to divide the nation. You’re not proud of the progress of your nation?
Good God, if not, what in the world does it take to make y’all happy and proud to be Fiipino, right now, 2014?
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/620145/world-bank-hails-ph-as-next-asian-miracle
@johnmarzan #12, you are exactly right. It is the bitter, divisive name-calling, partisanship and game-playing (law-suits rather than passing of laws by US House Republicans)that is causing the US to grow more dysfunctional with each passing year. So why would the Philippines want to emulate that, and have political dialogue be spiteful and rich with name calling and a tear-down, crab mentality? It’s like people here can’t stand success – or can’t even see it – and have to do all they can do to undermine it. Truly weird.
respect a president who always displays his arrogant side when asked about the legality of any action he takes behind the back of the people who elected him into office?
are we now under dictatorship or democracy?
are we now under dictatorship or still in democracy?
The essence of Democracy is that any branch of the Government can challenge one another if it believes that the other is not doing its role and or is obstructing the other of doing its own…
Even as the President, the Head of the Government and of the State has limits to his power, there is no Reason that the SC and or the Congress do not have limits to theirs..that the SC is NOT infallible that its decision can not be challenged or even defied…These all could result to a healthy resolutions of dispute and to establish the standard to avoid future crisis. Or left unchallenged every issue is a crisis..
#15 MPRivera Read this article to understand the benefits of arrogance: http://www.interaksyon.com/article/91293/mel-sta-maria-understanding-the-presidents-response-to-the-scs-dap-ruling
as a lawyer,roque, is fast getting insignificant to me. when was the last time he won a court case?
joker arroyo called PNoy evil genius, for a reason. PNoy has shaken democracy from doldrum and made people realize that’s it’s okay to question rulings, not just bow down and be accepting.
solgen jardeleza is one unhappy person and did a lame job of defending PNoy. he did not vigorously defended PNoy. hindi kasi na-shortlist si jardeleza for the job he tried hard to get: a position in the supreme court.
Joe America # 18
Maraming Salamat sa link.
#19 roc, yes, I used to hold Harry Roque in high regard as a principled fighter for people’s interests, but now I think he is just another lawyer (paid legal hack) selling his services to this extreme group or that, and using denigration of others (including President Aquino) as a way to fight for his clients. He did a blog that presumed the president would bribe people to so as not to be impeached. He has lost all credibility with me.
#19, # 21. FYI, as I mendtioned in the article, Harry Roque is one of the petitioners in the DAP case? do you not call it a win? I know more libel cases against the journalists that he won.
Ellen, I don’t know his win loss record. He has been an advocate for many worthwhile causes, but of late he has gone “leftist” beyond “liberal” (the way we Americans define it) and taken up the trapos method of denigrating the opposition rather than arguing the law (the blog to which I refer). I used to think “he’s for the nation first”, now I think he is for his clients first.
Two or the most respected lawyers I have known and respected lost more of their cases than won.. But are the Two that are the most Honoured, most respected by the legal profession, the citizens …awarded the most prestigious recognitions and honours by the nation as they will Defend their Clients without compromising the name of Justice and or bringing disrepute to Justice…the Brother Edward and Brian Greenspan..they are admired by the Crown Attorneys prosecuting their Clients and will beat them but will always be proud that they argued their cases against one of the Brother Greenspan and the Jury sided with them…
The hilarious ways of lawyers. Here’s Harry Roque’s latest blog: http://harryroque.com/2014/07/17/the-president-as-a-bully/
He hits the President head-on as being a “bully”, offering up the following esteemed logic:
“Well, we ourselves will file a partial motion for reconsideration but find no need in bullying the Court to accede to our arguments. We will rely on the tried and tested formula of arguing through law and reason.”
Ahahahahahaha, yes, Harry, but you have just bullied your “opponent”, the President, just as Mr. President “bullied” the Supreme Court, his opponent.
Methinks you speak out of both sides of your mouth, as attorneys who are in business to win cases, not be honest or honorable, are inclined to do. Attorneys are much like peddlers of shoes or insurance or even shampoo.
# 18. ibig bang sabihin lagi na lamang hahamunin ni noynoy ang legalidad ng bawat isyu upang patunayang lahat ng kanyang gagawin ay nakakabuti sa bayan?
okey, sige. payag ako. payag kami.
PERO ang tanong:
bakit kailangang patago at saka lamang ipagpipilitang tama at kapakipakinabang KAPAG meron mga anomalyang sumingaw?
bakit hindi magawang ilantad nang deretsahan sa taong bayan ang rolyo ng listahan ng sinasabing mga proyektong pinakinabangan ng buong sambayanan?
bakit sa halip na kunsultahin ang dalawang kapantay na sangay ng pamahalaan ay MAS inuunang paniwalaan at sundin ang sulsol ng isang miyembro ng gabinete gayung napakaraming mga dalubhasa sa batas na nakapaligid sa kanya lalo na ‘yung mga appointed justices?
hindi ba’t sa halip na nakakatuwa ang kanyang mga katwiran at palusot gayudnin ang hayagang pagkiling niya sa mga katulad ni abad ay lumalabas na mas ginagawa niyang tanga ang mga karaniwang mamamayang walang tigil niyang tinatawag na “BOSS”?
@MPRivera, I leave you to your suspicions. Skepticism is a healthy position as long as it does not become irrational. I agree the accounting for DAP is weak and the distributions to congressmen need to be investigated to make sure none was stolen. For myself, I continue to believe the Philippines is in excellent leadership hands, better than it has been for a long, long time. I’m moving on, putting DAP into the history books, and maybe that is what President Aquino should do, too, after he gets a few constitutional issues clarified by the Supreme Court.
Here is what the fallout should be…granting the Decision of President Aquino to approve the DAP and the resulting anomalies that was borne by the programs was a very Bad Political decision, then punish those that committed the crime and punish the Politicians not involved in Crime “Politically”..and here is a very good and classic example…in late 2000, the then Liberal Government of PM Chretien appropriated $250 millions for sponsorships programs in Quebec after a very Close Separation Vote by the Quebecois and the objective of the programs is to increase the Visibility of the Federal Govt in the Province..But most of the Money intended for the Programs ended up to the pockets of the GHOSTS and millions reverted back to the Liberal campaign fund..Thru the FOI or access to information act, the Media was able to take a peek into the Scandal which prompted the Auditor General to investigate and She called the RCMP to conduct the criminal probe …
The RCMP arrested and charged many prominent Liberals Party officials and businessmen for Corruption related offenses and a two years long Judicial Inquiry resulted in more than 200 hundred Legislative Measures for reforms…The Liberals Lost the Government to the Harper Conservatives and until now is still Recovering from that Scandal…
The only Role the Court had on this Scandal is to hear the Criminal Charges of those that committed the Crimes..
That Corruption Scandal was perhaps the biggest one the last one seen comparable was some 100 years ago…
And Yesterday, the RCMP is expected to announce the Charges for the 3rd Senator implicated in Corruption and one more to go…they were all suspended without pay while under investigation…
Did Pnoy and Abad pocket money from DAP? Is there any evidence that they stole from DAP? If there’s none, then let’s move on.
What is unconstitutional is not necessarily criminal.
http://metronews.ca/news/canada/1046975/former-supreme-court-judge-critical-of-both-harper-and-courts-ruling-on-marc-nadon/
And here it is, the Clash between the PM and the SC of Canada…who was wrong and who was right? It could have ended with a New Process of Installing SC Justices, since the Harper Government has the Majority and can amend and or Change the Rules, but Cooler heads prevailed and all is a OK…
Here is the opinion of Retired SC Justice and agreed the PM was right but wrong in refusing to take a call from the CJ (hurt feelings)
Is that too much for President Aquino to understand? -Ellen
Sa Tagalog, mahirap ba yan intindihin, Mr. President?
May issue: DAP.
Sinabi ng Supreme Court, Unconstitutional. Labag sa Constitution.
Money involved here is not peanuts: P360 billion, according to sources with access to projects.
sa pinalabas na listahan ng Malacanang, P167 billion ang projects for funding at ang napalabas ay P144 billion.
Hayaan na lang natin muna ang isyu na labag sa Constitution.
Si Abad, sabi niyo walang ninakaw.
Question: is that a result of an investigation?
Kung walang imbestigasyon na ginawa, paano nyo alam na walang ninakaw.
Tanong nyo: anong pruweba na may ninakaw.
Sagot: maghintay lang kayo. Ang katotohanan ay parang tubig. Kahit pigilan, nyo, hahanap ng paraan yan na aagos.
ang sinumang halal na opisyal ng gobyerno lalo na ang presidente ay dapat maging simbolo ng pagkakaisa at pagkakabuklodbuklod ng buong sambayanan at HINDI ‘yung nagiging instrumento ng pagkakahatihati at pagkakawatak watak ng lahat ng sektor. bilang pangulo ng bansa, dapat ay maging una sa lahat ang pagsasakatuparan ng mga programang mangangalaga sa seguridad at kapakanan ng karaniwang mamamayang nagtiwala sa kanyang mga plataporma AT dapat isaisantabi ang anumang usaping may kinalaman sa partidong kanyang kinaaniban.
SIYA ay hinalal ng taong bayan bilang presidente at hindi ng kanyang partido lamang kaya’t marapat na sa kanyang panunungkulan ay WALANG dilaw, walang berde at walang pulang tinitingnan o inuunang pahalagahan. DAPAT ay pantay pantay.
meron pa kayang isisilang na magiging presidente ng pilipinas na susundin at muling isasabuhay ang katulad nang ginawang pamamalakad ni pangulong ramon magsaysay bago at matapos na mahalal sa malakanyang?
PNoy committed ‘mortal sin’ in implementing DAP: Briones
“……..The former national treasurer also said the issue here is not whether Aquino stole public money through the DAP.
She stressed that even if the President did not gain a single centavo from the implementation of the program, he is still liable for any wrong done under the program……”
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/07/19/14/pnoy-committed-mortal-sin-implementing-dap-briones
A lethal mix of studied ignorance and malicious sanctimoniousness kaya ang pwedeng itawag sa mga sumusunod?
Sabi ng Supreme Court unconstitutional ang cross-border transfers ng pondo pero sila mismo nag cross-border transfer.
Eto basahin ninyo yun Motion for Reconsideration pages 25-28 and
Annexes C,D, and E are photocopies of the letters of the SC en banc. http://raissarobles.com/2014/07/19/read-for-yourself-the-actual-motion-for-reconsideration-on-dap/
Bakit ok pag sila ang gumagawa pero hindi okay pag si Pnoy ang gumawa? Bakit constitutional pag sila pero unconstitutional pag si PNoy? Bakit kailangan magpatunay ng good faith si Pnoy at sila hindi? Bakit ganoon?
Ang kaliwa naman ay kumabig ng P400M sa PDAF pero kung magsalita sila akala mo hindi nagkikintaban ang mga nguso nila mula doon sa P400M na taba na pinagpyestahan nila. Sila pa ngayon ang nangunguna sa anti-pork movement kahit nangangamoy pa sila nung tabang kinain nila.
Pero pag tinanong mo sila bakit sila nakiparte sa PDAF, ang isasagot nila sa iyo ay “eh ginamit naman namin sa mabuti. Wala naman kaming ibinulsa.”
Pero kung si Pnoy ang magsabi na ginamit niya sa mabuti ang DAP at wala siyang binulsa ang isasagot ng kaliwa sa kanya ay “eh hindi naman yun ang isyu.”
Ano ang mga iyan mga ignoranteng nagmamarunong at maruruming nagmamalinis?
Manuel @ 36…Exactly they just wanted the President to just say nothing and roll over with all the personal insults thrown at his side..being called arrgance of the law and rude when it is provided that in every Offence there is a corresponding Defence and in Every Argument there is a counter argument…
The SC did not declare DAP unconstitutional but part and practices in implementing the program…Hence the Unanimous agreement…the better action if it was in our Jurisdiction, the SC will give the Administration a fix deadline to Fix the Part of the Program that are not in adherence to the Charter and it can not make the deadline, then that Part, the cross border will be illegal from there On, but not before..
But for those who committed the Crime of profiting personally from the Programs, should be dealt by the Criminal Justice…
I was not surprised that the Framers of our Charter (whoever those Bright heads, thank goodness) included the Over Riding provision that the Govt and any of the legislature can over rule and or invoke for its every legislation or act to preclude judicial review, for the Fear that Someday in the Future our Courts may take the Law the law into their Hands…and start running the Government.
Vic #37 Exactly what Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson feared – the creation of an unaccountable oligarchy, the tyranny of the Supreme Court.
Simula pa lang, may mali na. Halos lahat ng news items, pahiyaw ang mga headlines na nagsasabing SC: DAP Unconstitutional – habang pabulong na ipinaliliwanag sa loob ng balita na DAP is constitutional, however, some practices under the program are not
Kung naiba ang pagkakalahad ng headline, may debate kaya ngayon sa mga barberya, sari-sari store o parlor?
Page 90 of the SC’s decision said that the doctrine of operative fact “cannot apply to the authors, proponents and implementors of the DAP, unless there are concrete findings of good faith in their favor by the proper tribunals determining their criminal, civil, administrative and other liabilities.” This is probably what compelled Noy to behave the way he did.
What if the President just kept quiet? One might say that the President is a weakling for not standing up to an almost direct imputation of bad faith on his (and other authors, proponents, and implementors of DAP) part. One might even be tempted say – Hindi nagreact… natatakot siguro, kasi guilty.
The President reacted the way he did – now, we are almost a chorus in saying that the President is both arrogant and ignorant.
Manuel # 38..I was in the midst of the discussion among our First Ministers prior to the Passing of the Constitution Act of l982 by the Parliament and then PM Trudeau was not Comfortable of the Framers’ inclusion of the Notwithstanding Clause or the Over riding Clause (Sec 33 Canada Charter of Rights and Freedoms) But the Framers reminded the PM that it could have been IMPOSSIBLE for him to invoked the war measure Act he did in October of 1970 to quell the violent Separatist’s uprising in Quebec if the Court will rule that ACT unconstitutional and without the Govt overriding power…
And his Justice Minister at the Time, one of the longest serving PM after him, Jean Chretien was happy about it, because the SC might ruled the Hate Crime Law unconstitutional in violation of the Freedom of Speech..so far the SC upheld the Law as its objective far outweight the infringement of the Freedom of Speech Right…under its own established Oakes Test..the test of proportionality and reasonable limits prescribed in law, that can be justified in a Free and Democratic Society…
And when the Final Document was passed and Assented by her Majesty Queen E II, PM Trudeau, proudly declared to the nation that “this Charter will last a thousand Years” and that was some discussion put off for another day…the repeat of someone who said something about the Third Reich…
Read paragraphs 73, 74 75, and 76 on page 26.
Mull over it. Those paragraphs underscore why Jardeleza should not be appointed to the Supreme Court.
But what are savings? Unspent appropriations. So the prohibition on transfers still applies. The prohibition does not cease to apply, merely because one does not spend. Otherwise, it would be so easy to circumvent the prohibition, merely by not spending, as seems to have been done here.
If there are savings, they go to the general fund. And you need Congressional appropriations to dip into the general fund.
Besides, what is the emergency in buying computers for the COA, that it cannot wait for Congressional appropriations? We are not talking of life or death here.
This is like saying, parricide prohibits the killing of one’s child. But Defendant killed his adult son Your Honor. The victim was no longer a child. So Defendant is guilty of a lesser offense.
This is what CJ Narvasa calls a sophistic argument. In Tagalog, namimilosopo.
The President did not make any inter-departmental transfer which is prohibited (see paragraph 73 above). The President merely made available his savings to the other departments. When those funds went to the other departments, they became internal funds of those departments. So they were augmenting from their funds, not from funds of other departments.
Tama naman di ba? Pinabayaan ng Pangulo ang secretary na dumukot sa bulsa ng Pangulo. Ibinulsa ng secretary ang pera ng Pangulo. So pera na iyon ng secretary. So there was no inter-departmental transfer, dahil pera na iyon ng secretary/department.
Four years of law school and a stint at Harvard for this argument?
What one is prohibited from doing directly, one cannot do indirectly.
I did not augment Your Honors. I gave them access to funds. They made the augmentations. So there was no cross-border augmentation. Hawak na nila ang pera when they made the augmentations.
And, since they were the ones who spent, it is they who must prove good faith, not me.
It does not take a lawyer to discern what the President is trying to explain. He knows the SC will not reverse its ruling. What got his goat is the SC opened the floodgates for people to sue the executive branch for acts committed which were not deemed unconstitutional then. By filing the MR and showing documents that the SC also erred in requesting the cross-border transfers, he was in fact reminding them that nobody accused the SC of doing an illegal act and even approved their request to do so because all along, the executive branch believed that the practice was ok. In their instant ruling, the SC just slammed the door on the executive because people are mad about PDAF and DAP. PNoy is telling them, “We gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were performing your duties with regularity when you requested approval for the cross-border transfers and that the intended purpose will be benefited. Now you are throwing us under the bus by not granting us the same benefit of the doubt that we accorded you.” The ruling should not have been any different from the PDAF ruling. Declared unconstitutional. Period. Dinugtongan pa e. Habulin si Abad at Aquino unless they can prove good faith. Should the same not apply to the Honorable Magistrates themselves for the approved cross-border transfers they ruled unconstitutional? Ano ang mahirap intindihin dito? What arrogance? It’s about respect. If you still can’t see through the obfuscation, you need to get new glasses, er brain, maybe.
The House had priority projects. The Senate had them as well. So it would have been so easy to get a majority to appropriate funds for those priority projects.
But if funds were appropriated, they would have been bound to spend on the items stated in the appropriations. What those Honorable men and women wanted was a blank check; which is what the PDAF was. And the DAP is the same, because lump sum funds were given to the congressmen and senators to spend.
So it is true. The DAP is not PDAF. The DAP is an augmentation of the PDAF.
The cross border transfers of the Supreme Court are found on page 27, paragraph 78-81.
From paragraph 78, the Supreme Court transferred 100 million from its savings to the DOJ, which had an appropriation of 100 million for the Manila Hall of Justice.
In paragraph 80, the Supreme Court was asking for the return of the 100 million, by the transfer of the funds appropriated for the DOJ (100 million) to the Supreme Court.
It is clear, that the Supreme Court lent its savings to the DOJ in paragraph 78. And in paragraph 80, it was asking for the appropriation for the DOJ, as reimbursement for the money it lent.
So there was no taking of funds from one activity to fund another, like taking money from the construction of school houses to buy bullets or helmets for the police. The funds were used for the same activity in the appropriation – the DOJ’s Manila Hall of Justice.
Is it a transfer if funds are merely lent? Is the power of Congress to determine on which activity money should be spent, subverted if the spending is for the exact same activity in the appropriation?
Of course, there was a passing of funds from the Supreme Court to the DOJ, and the passing back from the DOJ to the Supreme Court.
Thats quite irregular. I have never heard of branches of govt lending each other money. What about the interest?
Sorry. Wrong reading.
The Supreme Court allocated 1.8 billion of its savings for the building of the Manila Hall of Justice. The DOJ also had an appropriation of 100 million for the Manila Hall of Justice.
The Manila Hall of Justice was to be built on land owned by the Supreme Court, with money from the savings of the Supreme Court.
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/270875/news/metromanila/construction-of-p1-8-b-city-of-manila-hall-of-justice-finally-underway
Since the Supreme Court already paid for it, it wanted the money for the same activity, appropriated for the DOJ, transferred to the Supreme Court, so that it could construct the Malabon Hall of Justice.
I don’t know why the money for the building of courts is given to the DOJ, instead of the judiciary.
CJ Sereno, however, withdrew the request.
SnV (#43, saxnviolins – July 20, 2014 10:01 pm),
Hindi ko makuhang tumawa kasi nakaiiyak…
Sabi ng matatanda: palta rason…
Tama ka…namimilosopo!
Blessed Nite to all of you Folks…especially to Ma’am Ellen…miss you all!
Aquino tried to turn the tables on SC. The problems is, his info was wrong. http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/07/23/14/pnoy-turns-tables-sc-you-did-it-too.
Tony la Viña of Ateneo University: “I wonder who misled the President about this so-called cross-border transfer by the Judiciary. A review of the facts would show that the savings that was supposedly moved to the Department of Justice was not moved at all but simply earmarked but with the Judicial Department actually doing the construction of the Manila courts. While the Supreme Court should not respond to the President, perhaps it is time for the Court or the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to inquire on why such blatantly wrong legal advice is being given to the highest official of the land.”
He did it again. Mapilit. Parang woodpecker.
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/622514/aquino-defends-dap-assails-judiciarys-cross-border-transfers
Uy. Sino ang nagpayo niyan?
He was guided kuno by the action of the Supreme Court, in his own actions. But the request by the Supreme Court for the Malabon Hall of Justice was made on March 5, 2013 (MR, page 27). That certainly could not have guided the holDAP done in 2011 and 2012.
Give a guy a rope long enough and he hangs himself.
November 5, 2013 ko pa sinabi ito.
http://www.ellentordesillas.com/2013/11/04/aquino-and-the-beetle-experiment/
Comments 12 and 17.
The guy is being done in by friendly fire. The speechwriter made the guy admit to technical malversation. With such bumbling subordinates, who needs enemies?
Ma’am Ellen and SnV,
LOL…
SnV,
Na-cite kita diyan sa ‘technical malversation’ comments mo dito:
http://raissarobles.com/2014/07/08/president-aquinos-dead-mom-president-cory-may-yet-save-her-son-from-jail-over-dap/comment-page-3/#comment-142129
Salamat.
Kim Henares: I want your SALNs, so that there is equal treatment of a Corona and other justices.
Supreme Court: After two years? You’ve got to be kidding. DENIED.
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/07/23/14/sc-denies-birs-request-justices-salns
Remember two years na lang ang natitira. Ang mga nakaupo sa bench, will be there after the Penoy’s term is over. Do they really want this fight? Do they want to anger the body they may have to run to if a case of technical malversation is filed?
The only weapon of the Executive is the threat of impeachment. That rings hollow now, knowing that it took 1 billion to kick out Corona. Impeachment requires two-thirds, which is not there. I count about ten against.
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/07/24/14/sc-declined-palaces-offer-use-savings
SC declined Palace’s offer to use savings
An en banc SC resolution dated Jan. 21, 2014, barely six months before handing down the DAP decision, reveals that the magistrates had declined the DBM’s offer for the release of pooled savings to the judiciary in response to the SC’s March 5, 2013 resolution on the request to use the P100 million Manila Hall of Justice construction JUSIP appropriation for the Malabon Hall of Justice construction.
Ellen; to Clarify who is right and who is wrong why not the legal community asked the International Commission of Jurist to investigate and give its opinion or judgement just like the case between our PM and the CJ of the SC…
I pasted a bigger portion as the Star link may not be available to non print subscriber…this Quarrel between our PM and the SC is quite very Public and the SC was 1 Justice short for some 9 months due to this dispute…But it is not uncommon for the Head of the Government and the SC to disagree Publicly…
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/07/25/chief_justice_cleared_in_spat_with_stephen_harper_government.html
http://www.theFRED CHARTRAND / THE CANADIAN PRESS FILE PHOTO
Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin’s call to the justice minister to flag a potential legal problem was “not inappropriate,” the International Commission of Jurists found.
By: Tonda MacCharles Ottawa Bureau reporter, Published on Fri Jul 25 2014
OTTAWA — An international legal body has cleared Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin in her efforts to communicate with Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government over a judicial appointment to her court last year, and slammed the prime minister for remarks it says hurt her moral authority, integrity and public confidence in the judiciary.
The Geneva-based International Commission of Jurists, in a letter to a group of Canadian lawyers and legal academics who asked it to investigate, said it concluded that McLachlin’s move to flag a potential legal problem was “not inappropriate.”
On the contrary, Harper’s and his officials’ remarks were the problem, it said. It urged the prime minister and his justice minister to withdraw the remarks and apologize, and to revamp its judicial selection process to boost transparency and independence.
The group’s review outlines the facts of the unprecedented spat that unfolded after Harper’s officials revealed a call by McLachlin to Justice Minister Peter MacKay.
Harper’s officials suggested McLachlin’s behaviour was “inappropriate and inadvisable” and amounted to lobbying against Harper’s eventual choice of Federal Court of Appeal Judge Marc Nadon for a spot on the Supreme Court.
The ICJ dismissed that argument, and added its voice to an overwhelming chorus in Canada that said the best thing Harper could do is withdraw his remarks and apologize.
“The Prime Minister and Minister of Justice could best remedy their encroachment upon the independence and integrity of the judiciary by publicly withdrawing or apologizing for their public criticism of the Chief Justice.”
The ICJ is a respected non-governmental organization of up to 60 lawyers including senior judges, attorneys and academics who “promote respect for international human rights through the law. It has no legal power or authority, but a Manitoba law professor who with others sought the opinion, says it is known and respected for its expertise in judicial independence, and its “neutrality.”
It set out the responsibilities of the Canadian government under international law to uphold an independent judiciary, and said Harper, MacKay and other senior government officials had made criticisms of McLachlin that were “not well-founded and amounted to an encroachment upon the independence of the judiciary and integrity of the Chief Justice.”
Their public criticism “could only have a negative impact on public confidence in the judicial system and in the moral authority and integrity of the judiciary, and thereby on the independence of the judiciary in Canada.”
The letter was the result of an examination undertaken in response to a May 9 letter written by Manitoba law professor Gerald Heckman, Saskatchewan professors Ken Norman and Brent Cotter, Lucie Lamarche of the Université du Québec à Montréal and the University of Ottawa, Toronto professor Audrey Macklin and Lorne Sossin dean of Osgoode Hall Law School.
In an interview Heckman said he agreed with what he called a “thoughtful and constructive” opinion that was “not a condemnation” but a review based on international principles.