In the din of the loud calls to prosecute P-Noy and Butch Abad for the controversial DAP that was declared - in part - as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, lets hear it from one of the most erudite columnists we have, Prof. Randy David. Im reproducing here the pertinent portions of his column in yesterdays PHILIPPINE DAILY INQUIRER for easier perusal: In his lucid concurring opinion on the case involving the Disbursement Acceleration Program, Associate Justice Marvic Leonen precisely makes this point: Likewise, to rule that a declaration of unconstitutionality per se is the basis for determining liability is a dangerous proposition. It is not proper that there are suggestions of administrative or criminal liability even before the proper charges are raised, investigated, and filed. Any discussion on good faith or bad faith is, thus, premature. One begins to appreciate the importance of this distinction after reading the Supreme Court’s ruling on the DAP—not just the main decision but also the separate concurring and dissenting opinions of the justices. One realizes that the decision is far from being a blanket declaration of unconstitutionality of an act of government. The careful nuancing of the justices’ opinions reflects their appreciation of the immense complexity of the issues involved. The key issue is not, as many might suspect, whether or not to assign culpability for the objectionable portions of the DAP. As one may glean from a careful reading of the ruling and the separate opinions, the main issue rather is determining how much leeway to give to the political branch of government, notably the executive, in its pursuit of national objectives. The high court is conscious that policymaking belongs to the political branches, and that the Constitution is not a straitjacket. And even as it is its task to ensure that the government abides by the Constitution, it avoids construing this mandate in a manner that discourages innovation in governance. The high court concedes the point that the DAP was not a single program or measure but a comprehensive budgetary policy with many reform components aimed at making public expenditure rational and effective. Unfortunately, this policy’s principal thrusts were poorly articulated in the document that became the basis for declaring major aspects of it unconstitutional—i.e., National Budget Circular No. 541. opinion.inquirer.net/76300/unconstitutional
Posted on: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 03:02:38 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015