THE Supreme Court has ruled that the Office of the President has no
authority to impose disciplinary action on the Ombudsman’s deputies,
saying the administrative authority being exercised by the Executive on
the deputy ombudsman is unconstitutional.
“The Court held that the Office of the President has no power of
discipline over the office of the deputy ombudsman,” Supreme Court
spokesman Theodore Te said.
He said that of the appointed officials in the Office of the
Ombudsman, only the special prosecutor was covered by the Palace’s power
of discipline.
But he failed to tell more about the high court decision and declined
to name the justices who voted in favor of the ruling, saying some
magistrates had said they intended to submit their respective separate
concurring opinions.
The high tribunal made its ruling on the case of retiring Deputy
Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices Emilio
Gonzales III, the official who was dismissed from the service by the
Palace over the bloody hostage-taking incident at the Luneta Park on
Aug. 23, 2010.
The Court ruled on the constitutional issue on its own initiative
because it was not raised in the motion for reconsideration of its
earlier ruling ordering Gonzales’ reinstatement.
“The Court, voting 14-1, denied the Office of the Solicitor General’s
motion for reconsideration on the Court’s decision in these cases dated
September 4, 2012 (only insofar as the Court orders the reinstatement
of petitioner Gonzales III for the reason that the acts imputed to him
do not constitute betrayal of public trust),” the high court’s Public
Information Office said.
“On the issue of the lack of cause to dismiss petitioner Gonzales,
the Court sustained its previous position, subject to the dissent of one
justice. Several Justices have indicated that they will submit separate
opinions pending the promulgation of the decisions.”
The Palace ordered Gonzales dismissed in March 2011 for mishandling
the case of dismissed policeman Senior Inspector Rolando Mendoza, who
held hostage a busload of Chinese tourists from Hong Kong during the
incident in which eight Hong Kong nationals were killed.
But in Sept. 2012, the Supreme Court reversed the dismissal and
ordered his reinstatement after ruling that the grounds in the findings
of the Palace “fall short of the constitutional standard of betrayal of
public trust.”
Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales, however, did not allow Gonzales to
immediately assume his post, saying the high court ruling was not yet
final then.
Gonzales is set to retire next month.
source: Manila Standard
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
Monday, February 3, 2014
Oral Arguments @ SC: Dumping DAP
A lot of people tuned in during the oral arguments by the Executive
Branch before the Supreme Court last 28 January 2014. The Executive was
represented by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) Secretary
Butch Abad and the Solicitor General Francis Jardeleza. It was
interesting to know the answers to several questions: Whose idea was
DAP? Why was it put together? Who drafted it? What was the impact of
enforcing DAP in the bureaucracy? When dod it start? These would have
been easy to learn if we had a Freedom on Information Law or even just
the Robredo-Disclosure Bill.
There were also public administration principles that were considered and really new ones that were offered such as the “use or lose” principle invoked by the Executive to force the Executive agencies to use their funds. Savings declared as early as June of the fiscal year (this is disastrous, to say the least). Augmenting an item which is not for the Executive Branch (notion of cross border funding, such as Commission on Audit and House of Representatives). Use of mandatory reserves which cannot be used to augment other items. Loose use of such key budgeting principles as “mandatory reserves,” “augmentation fund,“ “final discontinuance,” abandonment” and “re-alignment.”
Interestingly, the whole oral defense of the Executive Branch sets aside the existing process (Budget Call), the role of the Development Budget Coordination Committee (DBCC) as well as that of Congress. There was no specificity because the 2010 budget essentially was a budget of the previous administration and that is why they impounded (review of expenses and projects) some funds resulting in a slowdown which thus affected growth. Because of their decision to slow things down, there was negligible growth and the economy contracted. It was not because of the absorptive capacity of the Bureucracy or the DRRM Law as they pointed out. In fact, the Disaster and Risk Reduction and Management was not given the P1-billion budget needed and one of the early budget reforms the Aquino administration did was to remove pre-disaster share of the national with the local government units.
Interestingly, too, the Aquino Administration adopted in FY 2011 zero-based budgeting. If indeed it was a zero-based budgeting, there would have been no slow grind. It would have cured the defect they wanted done. Zero-based budgeting is an approach to planning and decision-making which reverses the working process of traditional budgeting. In traditional incremental budgeting (Historic Budgeting), departmental managers justify only variances versus past years, based on the assumption that the “baseline” is automatically approved. By contrast, in zero-based budgeting, every line item of the budget must be approved, rather than only changes. During the review process, no reference is made to the previous level of expenditure. Zero-based budgeting requires the budget request be re-evaluated thoroughly, starting from the zero-base. This process is independent of whether the total budget or specific line items are increasing or decreasing. So, is zero-based budgeting just lip service or were Abad and Jardeleza just mouthing things to defend the indefensible?
Pointed questions were asked by Justices Lucas Bersamin, Antonio Carpio and Arturo Brion. It was a withering scene where the DBM Secretary and Solicitor General often had stuttering and stammering episodes in answering questions from the Bench. But what probably got the jaded listener to stand up was when the Executive Duo said that DAP is functus officio or moot and academic. And that the Supreme Court need not rule anymore on the instant issue because the Executive had dumped DAP. In fact, the news over the weekend virtually became a distancing strategy, most especially for BSA3.
According to DBM Secretary Abad, it was the President’s idea to have DAP. No quibbling there. And we have a President who personally takes the shot from any and all for his KKK and here before the Bench, Abad dumped his President even while Justice Brion established later that Abad had expertise (cabinet secretary, years as legislators with Abad even volunteering he was chair of Appropriations Committee, DBM Secretary, etc). Even Memo Circular No. 541 was the subject of drilled questionings on intent and statutory construction. The concept of final abandonment by June was an issue that kept on being raised considering that a fiscal year is 12 months and the principle of obligation in budgeting has always been 2 years.
When you hear the DBM Secretary saying that to deal with slow-poked agencies, removal of budget is necessary, it shows the kind of management style they have. Imagine a budget removed from an agency by June of the fiscal year? Incredible! Then again, Abad and Jardaleza crossed the thin line when they said that the use of the power to augment non-existing items is no violation of the Constitutiton. I was shocked!
DAP is also about discretionary power. It’s how one uses savings and justifies its usage. An ordinary mind refers to it as juggling of funds! The Executive duo kept saying there is nothing to resolve since DAP has completed its task. I wonder what that task was since the timing is dubious. It’s as if all these storylines were being produced after the fact.
The post-DAP environment saw the following sections adopted in the 2014 General Appropriations Act (GAA): Sections 67, 68, 69, 70, and 71 of the General Provisions of Republic Act No. 10633 outlines the definition and rules in the use and realignment of Savings.
According to Section 68, Savings refer to “portions or balances of any programmed appropriation in this Act (2014 GAA) free from any obligation or encumbrance which are: (i) still available after the completion or final discontinuance or abandonment of the work, activity, or purpose for which the appropriation is authorized; (ii) from appropriation balances arising from unpaid compensation and related costs pertaining to vacant positions and leaves of absence without pay; and (iii) from appropriation balances realized from the implementation of measures resulting in improved systems and efficiencies and thus enabled agencies to meet and deliver required for planned targets, programs and services approved in this Act at a lesser cost.”
The same section also limits augmentation to existing program, activity or project with appropriation in the GAA and prohibits the use of Savings to fund non-existing programs, activities and projects or to appropriations not authorized by the GAA.
The Supreme Court interprets and it should rule on DAP to lay down jurisprudence and guide the Executive and the Legislative Branches. More so, it should protect the taxpayers from patently unconstitutional acts. Not because the program ended means the Supreme Court can’t look into it. The more it should rule for reason and justice.
As a citizen, I recall Humpy Dumpy . . .
source: Manila Times' Column of MA. LOURDES N. TIQUIA
There were also public administration principles that were considered and really new ones that were offered such as the “use or lose” principle invoked by the Executive to force the Executive agencies to use their funds. Savings declared as early as June of the fiscal year (this is disastrous, to say the least). Augmenting an item which is not for the Executive Branch (notion of cross border funding, such as Commission on Audit and House of Representatives). Use of mandatory reserves which cannot be used to augment other items. Loose use of such key budgeting principles as “mandatory reserves,” “augmentation fund,“ “final discontinuance,” abandonment” and “re-alignment.”
Interestingly, the whole oral defense of the Executive Branch sets aside the existing process (Budget Call), the role of the Development Budget Coordination Committee (DBCC) as well as that of Congress. There was no specificity because the 2010 budget essentially was a budget of the previous administration and that is why they impounded (review of expenses and projects) some funds resulting in a slowdown which thus affected growth. Because of their decision to slow things down, there was negligible growth and the economy contracted. It was not because of the absorptive capacity of the Bureucracy or the DRRM Law as they pointed out. In fact, the Disaster and Risk Reduction and Management was not given the P1-billion budget needed and one of the early budget reforms the Aquino administration did was to remove pre-disaster share of the national with the local government units.
Interestingly, too, the Aquino Administration adopted in FY 2011 zero-based budgeting. If indeed it was a zero-based budgeting, there would have been no slow grind. It would have cured the defect they wanted done. Zero-based budgeting is an approach to planning and decision-making which reverses the working process of traditional budgeting. In traditional incremental budgeting (Historic Budgeting), departmental managers justify only variances versus past years, based on the assumption that the “baseline” is automatically approved. By contrast, in zero-based budgeting, every line item of the budget must be approved, rather than only changes. During the review process, no reference is made to the previous level of expenditure. Zero-based budgeting requires the budget request be re-evaluated thoroughly, starting from the zero-base. This process is independent of whether the total budget or specific line items are increasing or decreasing. So, is zero-based budgeting just lip service or were Abad and Jardeleza just mouthing things to defend the indefensible?
Pointed questions were asked by Justices Lucas Bersamin, Antonio Carpio and Arturo Brion. It was a withering scene where the DBM Secretary and Solicitor General often had stuttering and stammering episodes in answering questions from the Bench. But what probably got the jaded listener to stand up was when the Executive Duo said that DAP is functus officio or moot and academic. And that the Supreme Court need not rule anymore on the instant issue because the Executive had dumped DAP. In fact, the news over the weekend virtually became a distancing strategy, most especially for BSA3.
According to DBM Secretary Abad, it was the President’s idea to have DAP. No quibbling there. And we have a President who personally takes the shot from any and all for his KKK and here before the Bench, Abad dumped his President even while Justice Brion established later that Abad had expertise (cabinet secretary, years as legislators with Abad even volunteering he was chair of Appropriations Committee, DBM Secretary, etc). Even Memo Circular No. 541 was the subject of drilled questionings on intent and statutory construction. The concept of final abandonment by June was an issue that kept on being raised considering that a fiscal year is 12 months and the principle of obligation in budgeting has always been 2 years.
When you hear the DBM Secretary saying that to deal with slow-poked agencies, removal of budget is necessary, it shows the kind of management style they have. Imagine a budget removed from an agency by June of the fiscal year? Incredible! Then again, Abad and Jardaleza crossed the thin line when they said that the use of the power to augment non-existing items is no violation of the Constitutiton. I was shocked!
DAP is also about discretionary power. It’s how one uses savings and justifies its usage. An ordinary mind refers to it as juggling of funds! The Executive duo kept saying there is nothing to resolve since DAP has completed its task. I wonder what that task was since the timing is dubious. It’s as if all these storylines were being produced after the fact.
The post-DAP environment saw the following sections adopted in the 2014 General Appropriations Act (GAA): Sections 67, 68, 69, 70, and 71 of the General Provisions of Republic Act No. 10633 outlines the definition and rules in the use and realignment of Savings.
According to Section 68, Savings refer to “portions or balances of any programmed appropriation in this Act (2014 GAA) free from any obligation or encumbrance which are: (i) still available after the completion or final discontinuance or abandonment of the work, activity, or purpose for which the appropriation is authorized; (ii) from appropriation balances arising from unpaid compensation and related costs pertaining to vacant positions and leaves of absence without pay; and (iii) from appropriation balances realized from the implementation of measures resulting in improved systems and efficiencies and thus enabled agencies to meet and deliver required for planned targets, programs and services approved in this Act at a lesser cost.”
The same section also limits augmentation to existing program, activity or project with appropriation in the GAA and prohibits the use of Savings to fund non-existing programs, activities and projects or to appropriations not authorized by the GAA.
The Supreme Court interprets and it should rule on DAP to lay down jurisprudence and guide the Executive and the Legislative Branches. More so, it should protect the taxpayers from patently unconstitutional acts. Not because the program ended means the Supreme Court can’t look into it. The more it should rule for reason and justice.
As a citizen, I recall Humpy Dumpy . . .
source: Manila Times' Column of MA. LOURDES N. TIQUIA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)