Citizenship by convenience

What kind of country have we become, when we have to debate the fine legal issues of whether Senator Grace Poe-Llamanzares remains a US citizen or how long she has lived in the country to be qualified to run for President or Vice President?

For chrissakes, she renounced being Filipino when she became a US citizen, and she doesn’t even care to tell us when.

To become one, she declared under oath, to use the words of the US Oath of Allegiance, that she “absolutely and entirely renounces and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to the’ Philippines.” In that oath, she even vowed to “bear arms” on behalf of the US.

And you want somebody who solemnly renounced — the meaning of “abjure” — the Philippines to be our leader?

Aaargggh.

We are not talking here of a case like that of her adoptive father, Fernando Poe, who had no choice but to be American, as he could not have chosen his parents.

We are talking here of somebody who had a Filipino citizenship but who decided in her adult life to be an American citizen, who even probably, I dare speculate, risked being an illegal alien – “TNT” is how they are called by Filipinos in the US – for a time.

Background: Poe’s US passport. She denounced her country to be an American. Now she wants to be our leader?

Was she poor that she just wanted her family to escape poverty from her unwanted country? No. Was she escaping political persecution? No.

She comes from a family that was among the Philippines’ rich elite. She studied in the most expensive schools here (high school, Assumption College San Lorenzo) and abroad (Boston College). She had famous and very rich step-parents. Her father was even rumored to be the most powerful Filipino ever, Ferdinand Marcos.

Yet, she decided to renounce her being Filipino, and swore allegiance to the US.

For what? For the convenience of shopping at Saks Fifth Avenue or Tiffany’s or maybe even Walmart, and touring Disneyland and Hollywood anytime she wanted? What does that tell us of her character and deepest values?

C’mon guys. Do you think somebody in Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, or the Republic of Timbuktu would dare to run for any public office there after having renounced his or her citizenship in those countries? Then reassumed the citizenship in order to win a high office?

By becoming senator and now lusting after the highest office of the land, Mrs. Llamanzares is insulting our notions of country and nationalism.

I was expecting her to say that she renounced her US citizenship when she realized that she wanted to serve the country of her birth and of her parents, whoever they were.

But instead, she matter-of-factly said she had to do that since her appointment as head of the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board “required it.”

Her husband still a US citizen?
Has her husband renounced his US citizenship? Or are they keeping their options open, one foot on each of their two countries, and decide where they’ll stay when doing so becomes convenient and profitable for them?

If she lost in the senatorial election, would she have applied for citizenship — since renouncing one’s US citizenship is irrevocable — in Canada instead, or like that noisy over-the-hump singer, in Australia?

I’m afraid I may have gotten old without realizing it, but I cannot understand that the next generation of Filipinos, that of Llamanzares, has taken citizenship as a trivial matter, and one of convenience.

There are probably 5 million Filipinos who have immigrated to the US, Canada, and Australia to become citizens of those countries. Half of my high school class at the Ateneo and probably half of my relatives, including in-laws, are in North America.

That is their choice which I respect, especially since most of them had children whom they thought would have a better life in the most developed countries in the world.

But I cannot respect people who take advantage of our depraved celebrity-politics, and who, like Llamanzares, think – just because her name-recall commands stupid votes – she can lead the country and change citizenships like a jacket one has gone tired of wearing.

Citizenship for Llamanzares is obviously one of convenience. Did she ever show any interest in social issues even in the US, and more so in the huge problems of our country, to think she can lead us as President? Did she study political science or public administration that led her to want to contribute her expertise to the development of her country?

Nations are really fraternities, an organization of which you are a member, and to which you have allegiance. Imagine if a member of Alpha Sigma denounces it for some vague reason and joins Sigma Rho. Years later he decides to leave Sigma Rho, to rejoin Alpha Sigma. Would that fraternity accept him back and allow him to be Grand Chancellor or whatever?

I am sure this is the only country in Asia, and even in the world, where somebody who has renounced her or his citizenship still gets to be elected senator (or Parliament member) and even arrogantly intends to seek the highest post of the land. I don’t think such really foolish issues arise in other civilized societies.

The US could be an exception, with one president and several would-be presidents having been accused of being born not in the US, and therefore not natural-born, as alleged in the recent cases of George Romney, who was born in Mexico and John McCain, in Panama.

Of course, there were questions over US President Obama’s citizenship, but these obviously were merely raised by bigoted American whites who rejected the idea of having an African-American as president.

Seriously, do you think Obama would have even become Illinois State senator if at any time of his life, he had renounced his US citizenship, as Llamanzares did of her Filipino citizenship?

Mamasapano report
I admired Llamanzares for her courage in leading the Senate committee’s investigation that concluded it was a case of command responsibility over the Mamasapano massacre of 44 of our elite troops by Muslim rebels. But she stopped there, a one or two days’ moment of independence. She has done nothing to make Aquino, his bosom friend Gen. Allan Purisima and army generals who refused to rescue our commandos accountable for the crime.

Or was it all simply her way to catapult herself to the name-recall level for the presidency, or even to nudge Aquino, “make me your candidate, or else.” The kindest assessment of Llamanzares is to revise that adage to read: “In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed lady is Queen.” In this Senate crop of mediocre-minded senators and Aquino lackeys, anybody who can just demonstrate a modicum of integrity and courage gets front-page praises, to be queen of the blind.

But she demonstrated a lack of delicadeza when she signed the resolutions of the committees of Aquino lackeys Antonio Trillanes 4th and Aquilino Pimentel 3rd recommending plunder charges against somebody who obviously was her biggest obstacle to the presidency.

There is a pragmatic reason why we are worried over Llamanzares’ past. It is well known that not a few Filipinos of adult age, in their desperation to become US citizens, had risked being illegal aliens for a time and stay in the US even after their tourist visas expired, until they could get expensive lawyers to win for them a court decision allowing them citizenship.

Unless, Llamanzares provides us with all the details and documents of how she became a US citizen — such as how and when she entered the US — we can’t be sure that some CIA operative (or even an investigative reporter) would unearth that she was using fake documents for a time or worked without a work permit until she became a citizen.

Do we want to risk a scenario in which the US blackmails the Philippine President to force her to comply with all its interests, even provide any information it requires? Do we risk a scenario where the nation is humiliated, with an American investigative journalist writing a banner article headlined: “Philippine President once an illegal alien in the US?”

What kind of a country have we become when a senator carrying the name of one of our great nationalists, Claro M. Recto, trivializes the citizenship of our Republic?

I am referring to Ralph Recto, who took the effort to issue a press statement he thought was cute: “If they pursue that line of inquisition against Grace, she might end up being adopted by the whole nation. Baka ampunin pa siya ng bayan.”

It’s not a line of inquisition, but a serious, valid concern that the masses, which the elite have deprived of access to accurate information, elect a US citizen. Recto’s is inane thinking. Llamanzares had been adopted by rich and famous Filipinos, Fernando Poe Jr. and Susan Roces. But she chose to be adopted by the US. Now Recto thinks Filipinos would not only adopt her, but make her their leader?

tiglao.manilatimes@gmail.com
FB: Bobi Tiglao

source:  Manila Times

DAP ruling: Bad news for the authors

IN A UNANIMOUS decision, the Supreme Court has ruled with finality that the President cannot rewrite the budget as approved by Congress. Its original ruling on the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) on July 1 last year was upheld with one modification: it narrowed the scope of legal liability to DAP’s “authors” and removed “proponents and implementors.”

This is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court, and the justices should be lauded for having the moral courage and wisdom to fight the overwhelming pressure from President Aquino III.

The sitting President and future presidents, this Congress and future congresses better heed the SC ruling. The Court supports the constitutional rule that the power of the purse belongs to Congress.

President Aquino III and Budget Secretary Butch Abad are liable for their fiscal adventurism -- for rewriting the budget as authorized by Congress to satisfy their whims and caprices, including using the DAP to “bribe” legislators to impeach and convict Chief Justice Renato Corona.

Such wanton abuse and misuse of taxpayers’ money should not go unpunished.

President Aquino may be impeached for usurping the congressional power of the purse and for misusing and misallocating public funds. The sad reality however is that since Mr. Aquino controls both houses of Congress, his impeachment is highly unlikely. However, once he steps down from Malacañang, he cannot escape criminal prosecution.

The fate of Secretary Abad is straightforward. He is liable for committing the P140-billion monumental mistake. A suit has already been filed against him before the Ombudsman, and more lawsuits will follow in the days ahead.

He has to be held liable, given such a huge misappropriation and misspending of public funds. For a much lesser offense, say for malversing a few thousand pesos, some local chief executives have gone to jail. But why not the architects of the DAP?

The modified ruling removed the legal liability of proponents and implementors of the DAP under the “operative fact doctrine.” For example, proponents (senators, congressmen, governors, university presidents, department heads and so on) and implementors (heads of agencies, local government executives, contractors, etc.) for projects funded by the DAP, where they were implemented and disbursed before the Supreme Court ruling (July 1, 2014) cannot be held liable for the use of the fund.

All transactions -- from the issuance of authority to start the project to actual construction or implementation, and finally payment of work or services actually rendered -- that was done on or before July 1, 2014, is deemed valid under the operative fact doctrine.

That’s fair. It is reasonable to assume that proponents and implementors of DAP-funded projects do not know the funding source. According, they do not have any legal liability, assuming that the work or projects were implemented according to all existing budget, accounting and auditing rules and regulations; that’s a big assumption.

But if there were misuse and fraud in the use of the DAP, then proponents and implementors of projects are not totally off the hook. For example, it would be illegal if DAP-financed projects were implemented without public bidding, where one is required.

Since the DAP has the reputation of being a “secret” fund -- not approved by Congress and unknown to the general public -- there might have been a tendency to disburse the DAP money with little regard for fiscal rules. The subsequent lists of DAP projects show that such fear was not unfounded.

The irregularities in the use of the DAP should be unearthed by the Commission on Audit, or by appropriate congressional committees or by an independent review group.

Moreover, transactions done after July 1, 2014, after the Supreme Court ruling on the DAP, may be deemed illegal. For example, work or projects funded by DAP which have not been started or completed by July 1, 2014 should cease to be valid, and any disbursements therefrom should be rendered illegal.

It is the responsibility of the Commission on Audit to issue disallowances of disbursements associated with the DAP after July 1, 2014.

The Supreme Court affirmed the illegality of three budget practices assailed in the original July 1. 2014, decision. The ruling clearly limits the tendency of the Executive to broaden its budgetary powers. It affirmed the illegality of the following:

• Withdrawal of unobligated allotments from implementing agencies and declaration of “savings” of withdrawn unobligated allotments and unreleased appropriations before the end of the fiscal year.

• Cross-border transfers of savings from the Executive to augment appropriations of other offices; and

• Use of unprogrammed funds despite the absence of the National Treasurer’s certification that revenue collections exceeded targets.

The decision does not limit the President, the Senate President, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the heads of constitutional offices in their use of savings and the augmentation of items in the General Appropriations Act (GAA). The constitutional power to use savings is intact; it is not in dispute.

The Supreme Court rules that the term “savings” has to be used in its true sense. It has to be real savings, not contrived ones. The withdrawal of unobligated allotments from implementing agencies and declaration as “savings” of withdrawn unobligated allotments and unreleased appropriations before the end of the fiscal year is not savings in its true sense.

In addition, the item to be augmented by savings has to be specified in the General Appropriations Act. Put differently, the President cannot use savings to augment a nonexistent item in the GAA.

For too long, our national leaders have chosen to take the Constitution lightly. They observe it when expedient and ignore it when inconvenient.

Finally, this unfortunate DAP episode could have been avoided had the Executive prepared the national budget well. There would have been no need for the President and his budget secretary to rewrite the budget after Congress had approved it, had they prepared it carefully and in accordance with national priorities.

Benjamin E. DiOkno is a former secretary of Budget and Management.

bediokno@gmail.com

source:  Businessworld

SC upholds Estrada win

THE Manila Times story predicting that the Supreme Court (SC) will dismiss a disqualification case against Manila Mayor Joseph Estrada was right on target.

Voting 11-3, with one justice inhibiting, the SC en banc on Wednesday junked a petition seeking to reverse a Commission on Elections (Comelec) ruling that Estrada was qualified to run for mayor in the 2013 elections.

The High Court, through Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, dismissed the consolidated petitions filed by former Manila Mayor Alfredo Lim and his lawyer Alicia Risos-Vidal.

Estrada won in the mayoral race in 2013 with 349,770 votes, against Lim’s 307,291 votes.

De Castro is the same justice who convicted Estrada for the crime of plunder De Castro is the same justice who convicted Estrada for the crime of plunder at the Sandiganbayan on September 12, 2007.

Associate Justice Francis Jardeleza took no part in the case because he represented the Comelec during his stint as Solicitor General.

Voting with de Castro were Justices Presbitero Velasco Jr., Arturo Brion, Diosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin, Mariano del Castillo, Martin Villarama Jr., Jose Perez, Jose Mendoza, Bienvenido Reyes and Estela Perlas-Bernabe.

Mendoza and Brion have issued separate concurring opinions.

The three SC justices who voted to oust Estrada were Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno, Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio and Associate Justice Marvic Leonen.

Estrada was overjoyed upon learning of the SC decision.

“Masayang-masaya ako at gusto kong magpasalamat…Nagpapasalamat ako sa mga Supreme Court justices,” [I’m so happy and I want to thank the Supreme Court justices.],” he told reporters.

The former President said he immediately relayed the good news to family members.

Although he earlier announced that he will no longer run for mayor in 2016, Estrada said he may seek reelection if Vice Mayor Isko Moreno runs for higher office.

“I have palabra de honor (word of honor). I promised my vice mayor I won’t run. It all depends on Vice Mayor Isko Moreno. If he changes his mind, then I will run for reelection,” he explained.

“If the people will ask for it, then we can do nothing,” Estrada said.

According to him, Moreno is well equipped to succeed him as Manila mayor.

But the vice mayor had said he will not run against Estrada if the latter decides to seek another term. Moreno said he may run for senator or congressman instead.

When asked if he has a message to former mayor Alfredo Lim, Estrada said: “God bless him and may he be empowered in his retirement.”

City’s victory
Estrada’s children celebrated with their father, saying the SC decision is a victory not only for the Manila mayor but for the electorate of the city.

Sen. Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada, who is detained for plunder, expressed hope that the decision of the High Court will finally put all questions and uncertainties over the pardon given to his father and his eligibility to run for public office to rest.

“Now that this issue has been settled, let us focus on helping the local government of Manila to succeed in the next 18 months in restoring the glory and grandeur of our beloved capital city which were lost due to years of mismanagement and negligence,” the senator said.

Sen. Joseph Victor Ejercito also praised the SC for its decision.

“They (SC justices) respected the mandate that was given by the people to Mayor Estrada,” Ejercito said.

With Jaime R. Pilapil And Jefferson Antiporda

source:  Manila Times

May-December recess? We're deliberating, not holidaying, says SC

The Sereno Supreme Court may not be holding sessions for the full-month of May and the second half of December but it does not mean that the justices go on holiday during those stretches, said SC spokesman Theodore Te.

Te was reacting to a Monday item in this space noting that even Cory Aquino spokesman, former Senator Rene Saguisag, had joined the grumbling about the Sereno court's laid-back work schedule as "indolent."

Saguisag, now a law professor in San Beda College, also expressed dismay about the present Supreme Court's penchant to "stage presscons, speechify, travel abroad, socialize, accept accept."

Te also revealed that the Supreme Court has also set aside the whole month of November, in addition to May and the second-half of December, as "court recess" where the justices switch to the writing cycle.

The Supreme Court, by way of background, has two cycles -- the adjudication and the writing cycles, with the latter more commonly known in judicial circles as "recess."

The adjudication cycle goes on the whole year, except in the months of May, November and the second half of December as earlier noted, when the whole bench and its divisions do not meet to decide and deliberate on cases "but the justices continue to report for work in order to catch up on decision-writing and submission of drafts," Te said.

The only days last month that the Supreme Court did not work, aside from the national holidays, was on December 12 (Te actually said it was a "no transaction" day), when the justices held their Christmas party, on December 23 afternoon and on December 29, the latter having been declared by the Sereno court as a judicial holiday.

This January, the Supreme Court like all government offices will have lost six working days to holidays, including four to Catholic Church-related functions.

Asked why the current Supreme Court had resorted to the May and December recess when the previous SC administrations had deliberated and issued decisions for the whole month of May and even in the second half of the merry month of December, Te replied, "I cannot comment for lack of knowledge on the matter."

source:  Philippine Star Column of Victor Agustin

Support the Supreme Court and save our Republic

Last of two parts

Will the Supreme Court stand up against President Benigno Aquino 3rd and his administration’s violations of law and constitutional democratic institutions?

In fact, it has done so more than once — prompting Aquino to launch the first of his assaults on the law and democratic institutions. The magistrates ruled against Executive Order No. 1, issued on June 30, 2010, singling out the past government for investigation and thus violating equal protection under the law. Then in November 2011, the High Court voided Justice Secretary Leila de Lima’s travel ban on the former First Couple.

Within days of the travel ban voiding, Arroyo was under arrest without bail on rushed electoral sabotage charges. Two weeks later on December 7, Chief Justice Renato Corona was impeached by the House of Representatives, with little reading of the charges and lots of pork barrel disbursements.

From the foregoing episodes as well as the anger of Aquino and his allies over last year’s rulings against pork barrel and the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), the Supreme Court almost surely faces virulent excoriation and attack if it again rules against the administration.

Hence, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), and other national and sectoral institutions and groups advocating rule of law and republican democracy must even now make clear and tangible their support for the High Court in its duty of setting legal limits on government.

Without this unequivocal and unrelenting support, the justices are on their own, and some could falter under pressures from the Palace, its impeachment-brandishing allies, and pro-Aquino segments of maintstream media. Hence, the call on the Supreme Court to defend democracy and law, is also a trumpet blast for the IBP, the CBCP, and other advocates of justice and freedom to defend the Judiciary.

EDCA: Illegal and unfair?
Pressures will be aplenty when petitions questioning the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), the Bangsamoro Agreements and Basic Law, and the automated elections of 2010 come up for judgment. Already, there are moves to spare Aquino another unconstitutional ruling by just referring the defense deal to the Senate.

Last time we checked, the Supreme Court is supposed to rule on issues raised before it, such as whether EDCA was concluded in a constitutional way or not. Referring the deal to the Senate does not resolve the question of the legality of EDCA’s forging.

Plus: referring the deal to the Senate may usurp a presidential prerogative. Only the Executive can decide what to do with its treaties and agreements, including those ruled illegal, not the Judiciary. All the latter can and should do is affirm or void the pacts.

So bottom line: The Supreme Court should decide whether EDCA was forged in the manner laid out in the Constitution. That’s part of the separation of powers and checks and balances — the same paramount principle violated by pork barrel and DAP. And the Supreme Court must make doubly sure that this tenet is clearly affirmed and stressed in the EDCA ruling.

Sacrificing the law for ‘peace’
If the Aquino camp may go ballistic over decisions suspending suspect pork in the 2015 budget or voiding EDCA for lack of Senate ratification, expect multiple warheads raining down on the High Court if the Bangsamoro law and agreement as well as the 2010 automated elections are struck down.

The administration would blame the Supreme Court if fighting resumes in Mindanao over a voided Bangsamoro pact. Malacañang would also lambast as irresponsible and destabilizing a decision declaring the polls that elected Aquino null and void for failing to comply with key provisions of the Election Code governing them.

The argument that would sway many, if not most Filipinos is that the justices should allow some liberties with the law to avoid political conflict and instability. The very same thinking behind DAP: The end justifies the mincemeat that key statutes are reduced to.

Except that letting Bangsamoro and automated elections issues through without serious review would grind not just crucial provisions of the Constitution, but the Republic’s sovereignty, security and suffrage themselves — all foundations of our nationhood.

Dubious provisions in the Bangsamoro pact could give secessionist elements the door to breakaway and belligerency, especially the provision stripping the Armed Forces of the Philippines of its law enforcement function in the region and scaling the AFP down.

If the future regime declares independence, protected by its police, that would give separatists the belligerency and international recognition they crave. That would be a far greater security threat than even a resumption of hostilities with Muslim rebels.

As for elections, the Supreme Court must declare automated polls invalid if indispensable and legally mandated safeguards are voided. Otherwise, they would be set aside again and again, knowing that results would be affirmed for fear of disorder.

No, the justices must rule that dispensing with basic safeguards would void the polls, especially procedures absolutely necessary to ensure that only valid returns are counted and votes are correctly tabulated,.

Even the 2010 and 2013 elections? Sure. Those polls may be declared void, while allowing officials proclaimed in good faith to exercise full authority till the end of their terms. Much like the decision voiding DAP, but letting its ongoing projects continue.

That messy resolution is far better than allowing the voiding of election safeguards that are as fundamental as canvassing only verified tally sheets and tabulating votes as written in ballots in manual polls.

Backed by the IBP, the CBCP and other civil society, the Supreme Court must not allow potentially fatal blows against the body democratic, blackmailed by Palace and Congress warnings of war and instability.

Our forefathers braved those very threats to bequeath a free, democratic, constitutional Republic of the Philippines to us. We must protect our nation, our Constitution and our institutions — even if we must fight more battles. Especially against the abusive elites burdening our people since time immemorial.

(The first part was published two days ago.)

source:  Manila Times' Column of Ricardo Saludo

SC says it’s final: ‘Pork’ is dead

THE Supreme Court (SC) en banc has hammered the final nail on the coffin to officially declare the death of the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) or pork barrel.

The PDAF being declared unconstitutional has become “final and executory,” according to a copy of a three-page entry of judgment obtained by The Manila Times.

The document, signed by Corazon delos Reyes, deputy Clerk of Court and chief of the Judicial Records Office, was subsequently recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgment.

The PDAF case ruling of the High Court on November 19, 2013 is now part of the Supreme Court Reports Annotated (SCRA) under the case Pedrito M. Nepomuceno vs. President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino 3rd ad Secretary Florencio Abad of the Department of Budget and Management.

Petitioners in the case included lawyer Samson Alcantara of the Social Justice Society, former Manila Councilor Greco Belgica and former congressman Augusto Syjuco.

The declaration has become final and executory since no motion for reconsideration of the November 19, 2013 ruling handed down by Associate Justice Estela Perlas-Bernabe was filed by Malacanang.

An SC source said no appeal was made by the Palace in order to save the presidential pork that was said to be funds under the controversial Disbursement Acceleration Program or DAP.

“The court hereby directs all prosecutorial organs of government to, within the bounds of reasonable dispatch, investigate and accordingly prosecute all government officials and/or private individuals for possible criminal offenses related to the irregular, improper and/or unlawful disbursement/utilization of all funds under the pork barrel system,” the tribunal said.

The justices voted 14-0, with one inhibition made by Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco since his wife, Lorna Velasco, was a party-list member of the House of Representatives and his son Lord Allan Velasco was a former representative of Marinduque province.

The SC en banc also declared unconstitutional:

“All legal provisions of past and present congressional pork barrel laws such as the previous PDAF and CDF (Countrywide Development Fund, later called PDAF) articles and various congressional insertions, which authorize/d legislators–whether individually or collectively organized into committees–to intervene, assume or participate in any of the various post-enactment stages of the budget execution, such as but not limited to the areas of project identification, modification and revision of project identification, fund release and /or fund realignment, unrelated to the power of congressional oversight;

“All legal provisions of past and present congressional pork barrel laws, such as the previous PDAF and CDF articles and the various congressional insertions, which confer/red personal, lump-sum allocations to legislators from which they are able to fund specific projects which they themselves determine;

“All informal practices of similar import and effect, which the court similarly deems to be acts of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of discretions; and

“The phrases “and for such other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the president under (Section) 8 of PD (Presidential Decree) 910 to finance the priority infrastructure (development) projects under (Section) 12 of PD 1869 as amended by PD 1993 , for both failing the sufficient standard test in violation of the principle of non-delegability of legislative powers.”

The 15-man tribunal has made permanent the temporary restraining order (TRO) it earlier issued against PDAF.

“Accordingly, the court’s temporary injunction dated September 10, 2013 is hereby declared to be permanent.”

“Thus, the disbursements/release of remaining PDAF funds allocated for year 2013, as well as for all previous years and the Malampaya funds under the phrase ‘And for such other purposes as may hereby directed by the (P)resident’ pursuant to Section 8 of PD 910 which are, at the time of this decision is promulgated, not covered by Notice of Cash Allocation but only by Special Allotment Release Orders, whether obligated or not, are hereby enjoined.”

In addition, the SC en banc “also enjoins the release of funds sourced from the Presidential Social Fund under the phrase ‘to finance the priority infrastructure development projects pursuant to Section 12 PD 1869 as amended by PD 1993.’ Said funds covered by this permanent injunction shall not be disbursed/released but instead returned to the general coffers of government except for the funds covered by the Malampaya funds and the Presidential Social Fund (that) shall remain therein to be utilized for their respective special purposes not otherwise declared unconstitutional.”

Meanwhile, the court junked a plea of the petitioners to summon the Commission on Audit, Malacanang, and Congress on the book of accounts pertaining to PDAF since it can be done via separate petition for mandamus or it can be obtained directly from the respective government agencies.

source:  Manila Times

Macalintal says Pacquiao is not yet qualified to run for the vice presidential post in 2016

Filipino boxing icon and Sarangani Rep. Manny Pacquiao is not yet qualified to run for the vice presidential post in the 2016 elections because of the age requirement.

Noted election lawyer Romulo Macalintal said that Pacquiao, who is reportedly being considered as the running mate of Vice President Jejomar Binay in the coming national polls, will only be 38 years old in 2016.

“Having been born on December 17, 1978, Pacquiao will only be 38 years old in 2016. Clearly, he is not yet qualified to run for vice president or to be the running mate of Binay in 2016,” Macalintal said in a statement.

Section 3, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution provides that a candidate for president or vice president must be at least 40 years of age on the day of the election.

Speculations on the Binay-Pacquiao tandem in the next elections floated after Pacquiao welcomed Binay in General Santos City when the latter visited the province to oversee the government’s housing projects last Monday.

But Macalintal noted that Pacquiao is qualified to run in the senatorial race.

“He is qualified to run for senator, where the age qualification is at least 35 years of age,” the lawyer said.

Section 3, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution states that a senatorial candidate must be 35 years of age on the day of the election.

Earlier, Binay already announced that Pacquiao will be included in his senatorial lineup in the 2016 polls. PNA

source:  Manila Times