Unfortunately, deadlines did not allow me to wait for the President’s speech before writing this piece. For the second time since last October, President Aquino elects to address the people directly through television to tackle issues concerning the “disbursement acceleration program” (DAP). The first time, it seemed he wanted to impress the justices of the Supreme Court more than the man on the street, justifying the controversial diversion of public funds without even disclosing details of the program. He simply wanted his word taken without proof the money was not stolen. That nationally televised address failed to make an impact on public perceptions. Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court declared the DAP unconstitutional. In its wake, the Palace seemed to be scrambling for a response. One spokesman tried to shift the onus to legislators who received DAP funds, asking for an audit on how the money was spent. That backfired. It was the President who should explain his extraordinary (and unconstitutional) act of generosity. Until Jinggoy Estrada mentioned the senators received some sort of “incentive” after convicting the former Chief Justice, no one outside Butch Abad’s tight circle knew about the DAP. Not even the presidential legal adviser at that time and the Executive Secretary knew about the impounding and diversion of billions of pesos in a manner that completely castrated Congress of its power over the purse. Opinion ( Article MRec ), pagematch: 1, sectionmatch: 1 Until inadvertently unmasked, the DAP was a secret conspiracy between the Budget Secretary and his President. The President’s speech last night should have addressed this aspect of secrecy and total absence of transparency. Edwin Lacierda tried his hand at another line of spin, saying the Supreme Court and the Palace simply had a difference of opinion on DAP. Considering Lacierda advertised himself a constitutional expert, he should have known this most basic thing: only the Court has a valid opinion on anything involving constitutionality. Separation of powers dictates the executive branch cannot nurse a separate opinion on the matter. We are not a dictatorship (although the DAP has been described as budgetary dictatorship). Not yet, at least until this administration completely castrates the powers of the two other branches. Another line of spin that was tried portrays the DAP as a scheme animated by “good faith” because it would benefit the people. That claim to “good faith” was made without itemizing the use of funds under this scheme. After a year of public clamor, the Budget Secretary has not released a full accounting. The “good faith” argument is much like saying extrajudicial killings of criminals are justifiable because they help protect the people. Under the rule of law, the end cannot possibly justify the means. This is at least a better effort than the one presented by government lawyers during oral arguments before the High Court. Government lawyers said the DAP had been terminated and, presto, there was no case at bar. That is much like saying the rape had been consummated; therefore there was no need to further discuss the crime. The past few days, commercial public relations operatives aligned with the Palace have been trying to peddle a peculiar spin. They tried to sell the notion the critics of DAP are driven by dubious motives — therefore it was better to trust the President on this. The usual trolls stalking the feedback sections of newspapers echo the line. The spin smacks of personality cult building. It will probably sell in North Korea. Here, it seems unable to gain traction. Filipinos are not about to trust a leader who refuses to divulge the facts. Hopefully, the President last night did not rehash any of the abovementioned lines of spin attempted by his frantic underlings. Those lines of spin clearly failed to arrest the rising tide of public anger and disappointment over DAP. Last week, Butch Abad made what should have been a thoroughly equivocal offer to resign. Aquino rejected the resignation and absolved the controversial secretary saying something that made no sense: How could something that did our people right be wrong? The President still does not seem to get it. The controversy is not about whether DAP actually benefitted our people. The controversy is about whether or not this scheme is constitutional. Since the Court already ruled on the matter, the controversy ought to be settled. Statesmanship dictates that the President, obeying the cardinal constitutional principle of separation of powers, simply accepts the judgment. If he argues against the Court’s wisdom using the public pulpit, that would be bad form. If the President chose last night to argue against the wisdom of the High Court, he would have been badly advised. That is not what statesmanship dictates. We can understand that the ruling on DAP sticks a pin into the President’s inflated pride and even more inflated self-righteousness. Constitutionalism dictates he bows before the wisdom of the Court. We did not see that in his remarks last week absolving Abad. Some of the President’s most uncivil henchmen reacted to the Supreme Court ruling by allowing vindictiveness to get the better of them. They asked for the Judiciary Development Fund to be strictly audited. These henchmen seem to be pandering to the President’s attitudinal weaknesses than to anything else. All this grandstanding can only irk the Court but not diminish its wisdom. All our people want is full disclosure about where the money went. If the Palace listened to the public clamor, last night’s speech ought to have been entirely about itemizing the “accelerated disbursement.” If it was not, the whole enterprise fails. - See more at: webcache.googleusercontent/search?q=cache:philstar/opinion/2014/07/15/1346312/spin#sthash.9U7Rc0zP.dpuf
Posted on: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 05:38:42 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015