Hooray for PNoy! (1)

04 November 2013

Last October 30, President Noynoy addressed his “Minamahal [niyang] kababayan” on primetime TV.

Unfortunately I missed the telecast, since I was in Mindanao on that day and was occupied up to late in the evening, so I had to rely on the text of his speech which I accessed from the official gazette when I got home.

After carefully reading the President’s speech, my take is as follows: I felt that he made the right move in directly addressing the citizenry and state his views to help clarify the Pork Barrel and DAP issues, which he felt is being muddled in the ongoing public debate. His tapping the TV networks to provide - for the first time -  airtime for his “President’s Address to the Nation” also jibes with what I have noticed lately as the President’s seeming intensification of his direct contact with the citizens on relevant issues and concerns. Such was reflected in his extended stay in Zamboanga during the ill-famed siege by the rogue MNLF faction, as well as in his two visits to Bohol after the 7.2 magnitude earthquake, where he – together with members of his cabinet - even slept one night in tents to somehow show sympathy and unity with the suffering citizens.

In his primetime TV message, he identified the opposing sides as his Kababayans and the government they mandated to implement changes (and which for the last 3 years and 5 months have instituted reforms, went after those that are corrupt, and took care of the poor) on one side, and, the anomalous officials allegedly involved in the Pork Barrel Scam on the other side.

The President stressed that the real (root of the) issue is that of the “crime of stealing”, which those who were accused of involvement (in the PDAF scam) have been trying hard to divert away from the public’s attention. He also opined that it would be difficult for the accused officials to explain, and for the public to believe justifications for their repeated use of the same fake NGOs for their pork barrels; or their not checking, even once, whether the funds budgeted for their projects actually delivered the intended outputs, or, whether such outputs were really enjoyed by the intended beneficiaries.

 And so, instead of refuting the crime they are charged with, and categorically state that they are not thieves, those that were accused, on the advice of an elder, resorted instead to a strategy that introduced counter charges that would muddle the real issue and get the public to believe that those that are in the administration are no better than them, and so, making all of them, of the same kind.

It is my opinion that the President, although not verbalizing  it, was referring to, among others, the insinuation made by one senator in a privileged speech – while brandishing a supposed memo, the contents of which the public never got to see - that the “senator judges” were bribed with P50 million during the trial of the convicted former chief justice. Such insinuation however was recanted by that same senator during interpellation after the said privileged speech, and who also stated that the P50 million was not a bribe.

However, the said “bribe” issue snowballed, prompting the DBM to come out in an effort to explain and counter the accusation. In the process, the DBM cited the existence of the Disbursement Acceleration Program as the mechanism used in accelerating the use of funds to increase the country’s capital project expenses that can improve the GDP growth.

In a contrasting response to the evasive manipulation and scheming maneuvers of the officials accused of stealing, the President not only strongly rebuffed the claim of the accused PDAF scammers that they and the members of his administration are of the same kind; he also categorically stated that he and his team are not thieves, and that they are instead the ones persecuting thieves.

To fortify his claim, he also cited the appointment, in his administration, of credible people leading the Commission of Audit (which for the first time made public its report on the PDAF special audit which officially revealed the scam), as well as a reliable Ombudsman who can assure the public of just and fair investigations needed in pushing the Tuwid na Daan advocacy of the administration.

The President continued in his speech to say that DAP is not a Pork Barrel, and that DAP is also not stealing. This is so because allowing spending of funds through the use of a mechanism such as DAP is clearly stated in the Constitution, and in other laws.

The way I understand it (and which I also mentioned in last Friday’s column, PJ, November 1), such provision is contained in Article VI, 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines Section 25, Sub-section (5), i.e., “…the President…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.”

Meanwhile the law that makes this constitutional provision operational is contained in E.O. No. 292, Administrative Code of 1987, Book VI –National Government Budgeting, i.e., “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…” and “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.”

Such position, I believe, has also been expounded on by former Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban in his column, With Due Respect, last Sunday (PDI, November 3).

Due to space constraints, the continuation of this article will follow as part 2 in the next column. Meanwhile, comments/reactions will be appreciated and can be sent through this writer’s email (sl3.mekaniko @gmail.com) or this writer’s blog (http://mekaniko-sl3.blogspot.com)