Criticisms are credible only for as long as the critics themselves are not “birds of the same feather” as the persons they denounce. In my Philstar column last Friday July 18, 2014 I minced no words in criticizing PNoy for his lack of humility to admit his mistakes with regards to his use of the public funds for the so called Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) surreptitiously fabricated shortly after the start of his administration in 2011. My denunciation centered on his refusal to accept the Supreme Court decision declaring as unconstitutional some of the acts done by his administration under the DAP to the extent of even hurling threats at the SC for rendering such decision.
So just to prove that I am not like the subject of my criticism, I am acknowledging my mistake here and now when I wrote that the Administrative Code (AC) cited by PNoy to defend the fabrication of the DAP, antedates the present constitution. I pointed this out to show that the said AC particularly Section 39, Chapter 5 Book VI is no longer operative and valid since it is incompatible with Article XVIII Section 25 (5) of the Constitution subsequently adopted and ratified on February 2, 1987.
Indeed some lawyers pointed out that said AC contained in an Executive Order issued by the late President Cory Aquino was published in the Official Gazette on July 25, 1987 and took effect one year after. So it did not actually antedate the Charter and still enjoy the presumption of validity until the SC expressly declares it unconstitutional. On this point therefore I humbly admit my mistake and I stand corrected.
But it must be pointed out that whether or not it antedates the Charter, it does not mean that PNoy’s fabrication of the DAP is constitutional. The unanimous SC ruling on this matter clearly and unequivocally declares the following acts done under the DAP as violations of the principle of separation of powers and Section 25 (5) Article XVIII of the Constitution: the transfer of savings outside the Executive Branch; the funding of government projects not covered by the General Appropriations Act; the renaming of unreleased allotments and appropriations of agencies as “savings” ; and the use of un-programmed funds without certification by the National Treasurer the revenue collections exceed revenue targets.
If these acts are already determined by the SC as unconstitutional, the AC on which they are based must therefore be also unconstitutional. What is left here is the express determination by the SC of its unconstitutionality. And in all probability, it will done when the SC resolves the Government’s Motion for Reconsideration of its DAP ruling where it will have the opportunity to expressly declare the AC’s unconstitutionality. At least said MR has also served some purpose. It has given the SC the chance to clarify this matter which has been apparently raised only at this stage.
With a unanimous decision, it is really quite inconceivable for the SC to completely reverse itself on this controversy. More so if it will only be based on PNoy’s argument that actions done for the benefit of the country and its people can never be wrong or unconstitutional. Obviously PNoy line of reasoning here is that “the end justifies the means.” He is justifying the unconstitutional parts of the DAP with what he believes are their good and beneficial purpose. To be sure the overall public perception is that he has not only threatened the SC because of its DAP ruling but that he is also ready to defy the SC if will be for the alleged benefit of the people he serves. With such threatening and contemptuous stance prior to the filing of the MR, with more reason should the SC deny the MR. Otherwise the SC may also be perceived as not up to par in performing its power of judicial review or the power to determine the constitutionality or validity of the acts of the Executive and Legislative Branches of the government pursuant to Article VIII Sec 2(1) of the Constitution.
Hence the most revealing but alarming aspect of the ongoing DAP controversy is the dangerous tendency of this government to ignore or even defy the SC ruling if it believes that said ruling will not supposedly serve the good purpose and beneficial end of its actions and moves. This is also manifested in the other SC ruling declaring some provisions of the RH Law as unconstitutional.
As it is now turning out the DOH has been implementing the RH law even without any IRR in place. The danger here is that it appears to be implementing the RH provisions already declared unconstitutional. In this connection the following letter I received from Ms.Emma Roxas, president of the “Doctors for Life,” is quite alarming. Ms Roxas wrote:
“Now that you mentioned the RH Law, perhaps it might interest you to know that the population control advocacy/policy of the government is being pursued in all the health centers nationwide presently.
At the recent annual conference of “Doctors for Life” held last June 15, at the Makati Medical Center, doctors from the Visayas reported that the conditional cash transfers of DSWD are being given to the poor families only if the husbands agree to be vasectomized and the wives sterilized by ligation, while the female children ages 10-14 have to be injected with anti-fertility vaccines. This was reported by doctors who were approached for the treatment of these children due to the open sores they have all over their bodies. The sores were discovered to be caused by the anti-fertility vaccines injected to them. No vaccines and no sterilization, no cash doleout. Those medical practitioners who reported this are willing to submit complaint affidavits.”
These are times indeed when we should be more vigilant and continue to pray for our country and fellowmen.
E-mail: attyjosesison@gmail.com