09 JULY 2014 COLUMN FOR MINDANAO DAILY By JESSE E.L. BACON II TITLE: Prior knowledge There are more pluses than minuses for the nation to safely assume that when the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) was conceived up to its actual implementation the Aquino administration knew for a fact it was dangerously treading on unconstitutional grounds. For President Aquino and the DAP’s architect, Budget Secretary Florencio “Butch” Abad, to claim otherwise is pure mental dishonesty on their part. To deny prior knowledge is pure hogwash also. So why did they tread on such ground if they knew it was unconstitutional? At the time of its conception and implementation in 2011, DAP’s unconstitutionality was just presumed. It became unconstitutional only thus illegal when the Supreme Court ruled it to be such. Prior to that ruling the presumption of regularity in the performance of their function or duty on the part of Aquino and Abad in conceiving and in implementing DAP is present. It is up to those who would not want to accord them such presumption to prove before the court of law that the duo acted in blatant disregard of the law and the constitution. And that would be another issue. But why did Aquino and Abad chose to implement this budget impounding program that the Supreme Court no less said was not bad per se based on its intentions but still declared it unconstitutional? Those of you who watched the first game of the Philippine Basketball Association’s Governor’s Cup Finals series last week must have raised quizzical eyebrows also for the referee’s non-call of an apparent foul on Paul Lee, the Rain or Shine Elasto Painter’s prized guard, in the last seconds of the game that could have sent it either to overtime or victory for the latter’s team. A technical expert sitting as a separate one-man panel assisting the fans and the game anchors understand the technical intricacies of each game in the Finals including the referees’ calls or non-calls explained that the referee could have either called it a foul or not. That the referee did not call it a foul was a judgment call on his part, a privilege granted him by the rules. In conceiving and in implementing the DAP it was also a judgment call on the part of Aquino and Abad. DAP as what we’ve said above was not yet unconstitutional at the time of its conception and implementation. It was just presumed to be unconstitutional at that point. It became unconstitutional, at least certain parts of it as what the Supreme Court decision on the matter pointed out, after the promulgation of the ruling by the highest tribunal. Presumably, Aquino and Abad opted to embrace DAP for the purpose of accelerating government spending that at that point of its implementation was criticized for being too conservative. The zero-budgeting policy adopted by the Aquino administration as a mechanism to plug loopholes that marred the budget process in the past nine years preceding it was pinpointed as the reason for the low government spending. In other words, Aquino and Abad took their chances by embracing a presumed unconstitutional act in their desire to accelerate government disbursements thus pump-prime the economy. Both claimed the DAP achieved what it was intended for, bring about growth in the domestic economy. That particular claim is supported by economists to be true while there are those who do not believe it. The latter group says the DAP’s contribution in improving the country’s gross domestic product to 7.2 percent is a myth for it is not supported by facts. I’ll leave it to the economic experts to debate on this and simply learn from them. But even the Supreme Court did not belittle the contribution of DAP in pump-priming the economy in its own decision. The Court just justified its axing the DAP, or parts of it, as not in conformity with the constitution by saying good intentions and the resultant good that it may produce still could not make an unconstitutional act constitutional. Should Aquino then be impeached because of DAP? I am personally reluctant about this move for the cost, not only economic-wise but political as well as social, it may bring to the nation. It’s too costly for the nation to bear. But I’ll respect those who’ll push for his impeachment. However, I’d rather see the Makabayan solons filing such complaint rather than for the House of Representatives to give due course to the complaints separately filed by lawyer Oliver Lozano and former Iloilo Rep. Augusto Syjuco. And in the case of Abad, the role he played in conceiving and in implementing DAP is too heavy for the daang matuwid mantra of the Aquino administration to bear. The noblest thing he should do now is leave DBM for his own sake, for the sake of Aquino and the nation. (Reactions at jelbacon@yahoo or at jelbaconii@gmail. Read me also at raconteurme.blogspot)
Posted on: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 02:26:29 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015