03 October 2013
It seems that my sixth sense is still working, because my
initial “inkling”, early on, as to the direction the commentaries regarding the
PDAF were being spun by some– though somewhat super discreetly - turned out to
be, as far as I’m concerned, correct.
As I feared, the ultimate objective of these
personalities/groups is the degradation of the President, and the proof is that
he is now sued with the ombudsman, for impeachment and for plunder. And this is
the reason why early on, in previous articles, I expressed my rather
unsolicited cautionary reminder to the good intentioned citizens/netizens,
similarly angered by the PDAF scams, that “the President is not the enemy.”
Well, it’s not that I’m worried that this seeming “fifth
column” would succeed in their wicked intentions. I do not think so…not with
the questionable personalities that they use, and the discredited resource
persons they tap, to pursue their ends. It is more of the pique that imperfect
mortals like me usually undergo from time to time but “let go off” after a
while. And, by the way, the impeachment and plunder charges against the
President was negatively reacted to in the social media,
But before I proceed, I would like to stress that I do
recognize the ways of our kind of democracy, and very much aware, as well, of
Section 4 of Article III (Human Rights) of the 1987 Constitution –which applies
to all bonafide citizens of the Philippines. And, as such, I believe that the
sanctity of the “freedom of expression” makes equal the intrinsic value of
every citizen’s opinion.
Now, back to my “inkling.” Well, the way I remember it, this
hullaballoo was triggered by the fortuitous falling out of Janet Napoles and
her cousin Benhur Luy, and for which he was illegally detained by Napoles and
her brother Reynald, but later on rescued by the NBI upon the request of his
parents. This led to his expose’ on Napoles’ PDAF scam, which was brought to
the attention of the public through an investigative report based on interviews
with Luy (then under the protective custody of the NBI), other whistle blowers,
and sworn affidavits that they submitted.
The report which was published in six parts that ran from
July 12 to July 17, 2013 in one of the major broad sheets implicated five
senators and twenty three congressmen in a scam that siphoned off P10 billion
PDA Funds with the use of bogus NGOs and ghost projects. And this triggered
calls for a probe by some senators.
The public’s anger was later on fanned further by the
release on August 16 of the COA Special Audit Report for the 2007 – 2009 PDAF,
which somehow validated the whistle blowers’ expose’ and which this time
specifically identified three senators and some congressmen that requested the
transfer of their funds (worth hundreds of millions of pesos) to NGOs
identified with Napoles.
This development also prompted the President to suspend on
Aug 20 the release of the balance of the 2013 PDAF. He however also announced
his inclination (because of its equalizing effect in terms of delivering
assistance and small infrastructure projects to the countryside) to retain the
system and just install additional controls to prevent its manipulation by
corrupt legislators.
But other groups however insisted for a total abolition of
the pork barrel system to which the President and the House of Representatives
eventually acceded by eliminating the P25-plus billion PDAF from the 2014 GAA
that’s currently being subjected to hearings in the house. The said fund was
distributed directly to implementing agencies (e.g. DPWH, DOH, DepEd, etc.),
but the congressmen however retained the option of being able to recommend some
projects.
While this was going on, an online call for a protest on
August 26 against the PDAF/pork barrel system snowballed and culminated in
gathering a combined total of about a hundred thousand participants in the
Luneta, as well as in some major cities in the country and abroad. Already
noticeable by this time was the seeming focus on the abolition also of what
they term as the President’s pork barrel, in spite of his effort to explain the
logic of, and need for, a lump sum (and discretionary) fund in his particular
case.
Meanwhile, Napoles was ordered arrested August 15, for
charges of alleged serious illegal detention of Benhur Luy, but went on hiding.
And it was only after President Noynoy announced, on August 28, a P10 million
reward for her arrest that she emerged to voluntarily surrender to him on
August 29. This was also the day that the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee started
its probe of the P10 billion Napoles PDAF scam.
After a few days, on Sept 10, the Supreme Court, based on
petitions made earlier by two losing senatorial candidates issued a TRO against
the release of the balance of the 2013 PDAF. Then on September 16, the
Department of Justice filed before the Ombudsman plunder and malversation
charges against Napoles, Senators Revilla, Estrada and Enrile together with 34
others.
At this point, I notice the hopeless effort of the “fifth
column” being sustained at high gear, while the three identified senators seem
to be drawn deeper into the pit of the scandal as the Senate Blue Ribbon
Committee members continued their probing of their “witnesses” particularly the
whistle blowers.
Then, Senator Jinggoy Estrada, in defense, came up with his
by now controversial privilege speech and raised the issue (while displaying a
letter that up to now everyone’s curious to see the contents) about an alleged
P50 million amount he seemingly connects to the trial of impeached Chief
Justice Corona, but which he later, during interpellation, said was not a
bribe.
And thus, the item called the Disbursement Acceleration
Program was born to the public. And as the DBM struggled to explain the DAP,
those that ever since (from my point of view) found fault with the President,
particularly the “fifth column” minions, didn’t waste any time in seizing this,
for them a golden opportunity, to use in degrading the President. But as I
earlier mentioned, I don’t think they’ll succeed…not with their questionable
attack dogs, nor their discredited resource personalities.
Now, why do I have such views, and where do I base it? Well,
the views I express are formed from information that can be gleaned from the
environment that most ordinary people are exposed to, i.e. the tri-media, the
social network, and friends from various walks of life.
Like for instance, I chanced upon a radio program (while riding
with a friend one early evening going east of Manila for an overnight business
engagement) I heard for the first time and where two persons, my engineer
friend termed as monkeys, kept on using what seemed to me twisted logic to put
a cabinet member’s comments regarding the DAP in a bad lite. Of course, they
were having a good time because there was no rebuttal from the person they were
victimizing. I also learned that my friend considers the two as monkeys because
they always “monkey around” in treating even very serious matters during their
program.
On our way back early morning, we were again listening to
the same station, and he informed me that the person we were listening to was
one of the monkeys the previous evening, and he was this time interviewing a
former NEDA secretary (now with the academe) who was objectively explaining the
origin of what was by that time already known as DAP. Later in the morning
another person interviewed was another academician who is well acknowledged for
her anti-PNoy stance. And what I found amusing later on during that early
evening news, as I was being brought to where I parked my car, was that only
the sound bite of the anti-PNoy academician and others like her (a priest and a
politician) were used in the news, and, the thrust was that of the illegality
of of the DAP.
The other day, while driving to another meeting, I tried
listening to my friend’s radio station where I chanced upon Secretary Lacierda
being interviewed and in the process of explaining the legality and basis of
the DAP. He mentioned Article VI, Section 25, Sub-Sec. 5 of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution, and Sections 39 & 49 of Chapter 5, Book 6 of the 1987
Administrative Code, which I accessed and am posting here for the consumption
of the reader, and for him/her to form a conclusion as to the legality of the
DAP (without having to rely on the interpretation of others).
Article VI, 1987 Constitution of the
Republic of the Philippines
Section 25, Sub-section (5): No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer
of appropriations; however, the President, the President of the Senate, the
Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court, and the heads of the Constitutional Commissions may, by law, be
authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their
respective offices from savings in other items of their respective
appropriations (http:// www.chanrobles.com/article6.htm)
E.O. No. 292, Administrative Code of 1987,
Book VI –National Government Budgeting
Section
39. Authority to Use Savings in
Appropriations to Cover Deficits. – Except as otherwise provided in
the General Appropriations Act, any savings in the regular appropriations authorized in the General Appropriations
Act for programs and projects of any department, office or agency, may, with
the approval of the President, be used to cover a deficit in any other item of
the regular appropriations: provided, that the creation of new positions or
increase of salaries shall not be allowed to be funded from budgetary savings
except when specifically authorized by law: provided, further, that whenever
authorized positions are transferred from one program or project to another
within the same department, office or agency, the corresponding amounts
appropriated for personal services are also deemed transferred, without,
however increasing the total outlay for personal services of the department,
office or agency concerned.
Section 49. Authority
to Use Savings for Certain Purposes. – Savings in
the appropriations provided in the General Appropriations Act may be used for
the settlement of the following obligations incurred during a current fiscal
year or previous fiscal years as may be approved by Secretary in accordance
with rules and procedures as may be approved by the President:
(9)
Priority activities that will promote the economic wellbeing of the nation,
including food production, agrarian reform, energy development, disaster
relief, and rehabilitation.
(http://philippinelaw.info/statutes/eo292bk6-administrative-code-of-1987-book-vi-national-government-budgeting.html)
Comments/reactions
will be appreciated and can be sent through this writer’s email (sl3.mekaniko
@gmail.com) or through this writer’s blog (http://mekaniko-sl3.blogspot.com).
No comments:
Post a Comment