The wheat from the chaff

Social media and radio commentators have been having a gabfest about President Aquino’s address on national TV last week. He announced the filing of a Motion for Reconsideration (MR) on the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP).

True to form, the opposition deemed it as “bullying,” “instigating constitutional crisis,” “arrogant,” “defiant,” “divisive,” “dictatorial” etc. etc. 

Some were even aghast that PNoy was challenging the High Tribunal when the eminent body had already “spoken”! [For the sake of verity, there were occasions in the recent past when the Supreme Court reversed itself more than once.]

A forum called “Daylight Dialogue” with the World Bank President, Jim Yong Kim, followed this rumpus. Kim heaped praises on the achievements of this administration.  

“Around the world, the spread of information technology is converging with grassroot movement for transparency, accountability, and citizen empowerment. Under your leadership President Aquino, the Philippines is absolutely in the forefront of this transformation. You’ve doubled government budget for social services and made performance informed budgeting the norm,” Kim said. 

Naturally, this did not get as much traction in media, most likely because it wasn’t provocative enough. 

Then PNoy called on his followers to wear the iconic yellow ribbon as a symbol of their support. That took the cake. The comments ranged from censure to contempt to downright calumny. 

Bayan had a field day, urging the “Noy-sayers” to wear a peach ribbon instead. Some people asked, “Why peach? Shouldn’t it be red?” They explained, “Peach is the color of time.” Huh? Perhaps closer to truth, it’s peach for “im-‘peach’-ment.” The militant Bayan is telegraphing their next move.   

As tragic as Typhoon Glenda was with almost 100 lives lost and billions in property and crop damaged, the blackout was almost a respite from the fermenting political maelstrom. The howling of the winds silenced the yowling of trolls and haters, albeit momentarily.

Now that the ludicrous lemons-versus-peaches squabbling is fading, can we go back to the meat of the issue? Better yet, can we separate the wheat from the chaff, the useful from the worthless, the gewgaw from the gem.

Deferring judgment on the verbiage, alleged veiled threats, political color and tonality of the issue – is there merit to filing a Motion for Reconsideration on the DAP ruling in the face of a 13-0 vote? Is the purpose of an MR to continue with DAP or merely to clarify some seemingly abstruse if not contradictory concepts and statements in the SC decision? 

Begging clarification

Points that beg clarification either as an ambiguous definition of law or a recondite interpretation by the Supreme Court: 

• Can “savings” be declared only after it has remained unused for practically two fiscal years as penned by Senior Justice Antonio Carpio? In the private sector, a CEO who allows capital to “sleep” is liable to get fired. 
• DAP is not new. It was called “Reserve Control Account” during FVR’s term and “Overall Savings” during GMA’s reign. Why was it questioned only now?
• That was true for PDAF, too. But unlike DAP, PDAF was proven to be a lucrative source of corruption.
• Is the Administrative Code of 1987 contradictory to the Constitution? 
• Under the “operative fact doctrine,” projects that haven’t been started can no longer push through. This should essentially be prospective rather than retrospective. 
• However, in the ruling it is stated that good faith must be proven or there will be liability from those involved in DAP projects.

The Department of Budget and Management (DBM) has released a voluminous accounting of its allotment releases amounting to P144B. Unless otherwise proven to be inaccurate by the Commission on Audit, only 9% of the funds were used for projects identified and prioritized by the Legislative branch, directly channeled by DBM to the projects concerned. So far, there are no innuendoes, brickbats or allegations of misuse. In fact, even the Supreme Court acknowledges that DAP was instrumental in the economic gains that have been achieved. Yet the Damocles sword hangs over the heads of all those who used the funds well from building classrooms to relocating typhoon victims. 

Associate Justice Arturo Brion was particularly harsh on Secretary Butch Abad. He wrote: “The actions of Budget Secretary Florencio ‘Butch’ Abad appear to negate the presumption of good faith that he would otherwise enjoy in an assessment of his perfomance of duty.” There are “indicators” showing that the budget secretary “might have established the DAP knowingly aware that it is tainted with unconstitutionality.”

“As a lawyer and with at least 12 years of experience behind him as a congressman who was even the Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, it is inconceivable that he did not know the illegality or unconstitutionality that tainted his brainchild….Armed with all these knowledge, it is not hard to believe that he can run circles around the budget and its processes and did, in fact, purposely use this knowledge for the administration’s objective of gathering the very sizeable funds collected under the DAP.”

The critical role of quality communications has never been more evident than what has transpired. Some PNoy supporters wish he had chosen a gentler tone and been “cooler.” Conviction and passion can be “spinned” as defiance and arrogance. A few scoffed at the call to wear a yellow ribbon. No less than Secretary Herminio Coloma said this was not to be taken seriously. 

Let’s separate the wheat from the chaff. The only thing of any value is the truth. The rest is trivia. – Rappler.com