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
Wednesday, December 25, 2013
House threats against SC ‘retaliatory’
A MAGISTRATE of the Supreme Court said he
and his colleagues recognize the unhappiness of congressmen over their
decisions on two controversial issues, but threats of impeachment or
investigation into judicial funds will not stop them from performing
their duties.
“They are just getting back at us,” a justice of the Supreme Court told the Manila Standard on condition of anonymity.
He said members of the Court are aware that some congressmen are making issues of the disqualification of Marinduque Rep. Regina Reyes-Ongkiko and the decision to declare pork barrel unconstitutional.
“Perhaps, it’s really hard to accept for some of them that the billions in discretionary funds that they enjoyed for a long time will be gone just like that,” the justice said, a day after Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno defended the Judiciary Development Fund.
Sereno explained on Monday that the JDF was a special purpose fund established in 1984, under Presidential Decree No. 1949, precisely to help ensure and guarantee judicial independence.
Court spokesman Theodore Te, maintained that the Supreme Court had no intention to disrespect Congress as a coequal branch of government, as claimed by Oriental Mindoro Rep. Reynaldo Umali, a House prosecutor during the impeachment of former Chief Justice Renato Corona.
“The Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to strike down acts of Congress which violate the Constitution,” Te said, reiterating that the Court was the agency tasked by the Constitution to review the constitutionality of any legislation.
“Its members cannot be impeached for doing their duty even if members of Congress disagree with the outcome,” Te added.
Te echoed Sereno’s explanation that, unlike congressional pork barrel, the JDF is not discretionary as the law defines how it will be used: 80 percent for cost of living allowances while not more than 20 percent for office equipment and facilities of the courts.
“While the chief justice is given the power to administer and allocate the fund and shall have the sole exclusive power and duty to approve the authorize disbursement and expenditures of the fund, she is not given any discretion on how the funds will be used,” Sereno said in a statement Monday.
Sereno also denied reports that the JDF amounted to some P5 billion, noting that 80 percent of it is released monthly to employees as cost-of-living allowances.
The 20-percent component, on the other hand, had an accumulated balance of P1.435 billion as of last Nov. 30, according to a report by the Supreme Court’s office of fiscal management and budget office.
Of this amount, P732.5 million has been earmarked for the construction of Court of Appeals buildings in Cebu and Cagayan De Oro and consultancy services for the electrical system of the high court in Manila.
Another P620.7 million has been certified as available for various capital outlays, including the procurement of computers, and construction and repair of court houses, she added.
The Court said the 20-percent component, which amounts to P200 million a year, is “barely enough for the court to source its budget for renovations, repairs and construction of halls of justice and for the various equipment needed for court operations.”
The Court said it had already submitted a report on how the JDF was used to the House committee on appropriations during budget deliberations in September.
“The JDF reports are also included in the annual report submitted by the chief justice in August 2013 to the Office Of The President, the Senate president, and the speaker of the House of Representatives. The annual report is also posted in the judiciary’s website and is accessible to everyone,” the Court said.
Since the last quarter of 2011, the Court said, it has been submitting financial reports on the JDF to the Department of Budget and Management.
Sereno issued the statement after Iloilo City Rep. Niel Tupas, chairman of the House committee on justice, said the move to scrutinize the JDF was aimed at reestablishing the chamber’s power after the Court declared pork barrel funds as unconstitutional.
Tupas vowed to give priority to the investigation when Congress resumes session next year amid the demand of congressmen who believe the Court encroached on their power over the purse.
source: Manila Standard
“They are just getting back at us,” a justice of the Supreme Court told the Manila Standard on condition of anonymity.
He said members of the Court are aware that some congressmen are making issues of the disqualification of Marinduque Rep. Regina Reyes-Ongkiko and the decision to declare pork barrel unconstitutional.
“Perhaps, it’s really hard to accept for some of them that the billions in discretionary funds that they enjoyed for a long time will be gone just like that,” the justice said, a day after Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno defended the Judiciary Development Fund.
Sereno explained on Monday that the JDF was a special purpose fund established in 1984, under Presidential Decree No. 1949, precisely to help ensure and guarantee judicial independence.
Court spokesman Theodore Te, maintained that the Supreme Court had no intention to disrespect Congress as a coequal branch of government, as claimed by Oriental Mindoro Rep. Reynaldo Umali, a House prosecutor during the impeachment of former Chief Justice Renato Corona.
“The Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to strike down acts of Congress which violate the Constitution,” Te said, reiterating that the Court was the agency tasked by the Constitution to review the constitutionality of any legislation.
“Its members cannot be impeached for doing their duty even if members of Congress disagree with the outcome,” Te added.
Te echoed Sereno’s explanation that, unlike congressional pork barrel, the JDF is not discretionary as the law defines how it will be used: 80 percent for cost of living allowances while not more than 20 percent for office equipment and facilities of the courts.
“While the chief justice is given the power to administer and allocate the fund and shall have the sole exclusive power and duty to approve the authorize disbursement and expenditures of the fund, she is not given any discretion on how the funds will be used,” Sereno said in a statement Monday.
Sereno also denied reports that the JDF amounted to some P5 billion, noting that 80 percent of it is released monthly to employees as cost-of-living allowances.
The 20-percent component, on the other hand, had an accumulated balance of P1.435 billion as of last Nov. 30, according to a report by the Supreme Court’s office of fiscal management and budget office.
Of this amount, P732.5 million has been earmarked for the construction of Court of Appeals buildings in Cebu and Cagayan De Oro and consultancy services for the electrical system of the high court in Manila.
Another P620.7 million has been certified as available for various capital outlays, including the procurement of computers, and construction and repair of court houses, she added.
The Court said the 20-percent component, which amounts to P200 million a year, is “barely enough for the court to source its budget for renovations, repairs and construction of halls of justice and for the various equipment needed for court operations.”
The Court said it had already submitted a report on how the JDF was used to the House committee on appropriations during budget deliberations in September.
“The JDF reports are also included in the annual report submitted by the chief justice in August 2013 to the Office Of The President, the Senate president, and the speaker of the House of Representatives. The annual report is also posted in the judiciary’s website and is accessible to everyone,” the Court said.
Since the last quarter of 2011, the Court said, it has been submitting financial reports on the JDF to the Department of Budget and Management.
Sereno issued the statement after Iloilo City Rep. Niel Tupas, chairman of the House committee on justice, said the move to scrutinize the JDF was aimed at reestablishing the chamber’s power after the Court declared pork barrel funds as unconstitutional.
Tupas vowed to give priority to the investigation when Congress resumes session next year amid the demand of congressmen who believe the Court encroached on their power over the purse.
source: Manila Standard
Tuesday, December 24, 2013
High-stakes SC fight rages on P-Noy pork
PRESSURE TACTICS: The pressure being applied on the
Supreme Court by Malacañang and its House allies to uphold the
constitutionality of the Disbursement Acceleration Program, a source of
presidential pork, is being stepped up as the tribunal prepares to rule
on the issue.
The Supreme Court as an institution has no feeling and harbors no fear of anyone. It is not the 15-strong tribunal but its individual members who are heirs to such human frailties as dread and anxiety.
Only an SC justice can succumb to pressure tactics or blackmail. We pray then that justices with pivotal votes will stick to their conviction and that the tribunal will emerge from this bruising high-stakes fight with its integrity intact.
But if it would be impeachment, who would stand as accused — Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, the entire SC membership, just the justices appointed by former President Gloria Arroyo, or only those inclined to vote against DAP?
Selective impeachment will be highly suspicious. It will not win public support, unless it is preceded by the usual massive media demolition job on the targeted justices.
The House threatens to unsheathe its oversight sword inserted in the 2014 national budget. The weapon empowers the Congress to review the use of the funds of the Judiciary, a separate branch of government that is guaranteed fiscal autonomy by the Constitution.
In what looks to us like a bad move, Malacañang has joined the fray by commenting and acknowledging that indeed the Congress could (it sounded like “should”) wield its newly acquired oversight powers to check how the SC spends its money.
“The Congress had not questioned the fiscal autonomy of the Supreme Court until now. In street parlance, this is ‘resbak’ (retaliation) from the Congress after the SC declared the lawmakers’ Priority Development Assistance Fund as unconstitutional.”
Tiangco, who is United Nationalist Alliance secretary general, said Liberal Party researchers have been digging up on suspected corruption and misuse of the JDF in complete disregard of the Court’s fiscal autonomy.
But administration stalwart Cavite Rep. Elpidio Barzaga said fiscal autonomy must be subservient to fiscal accountability and responsibility. He pointed out also that the Congress now enjoys oversight powers to review the use of judiciary funds.
“We’ve to be very vigilant,” he said. “We’ve already seen their moves along the impeachment idea, the Department of Justice-National Bureau of Investigation probe on ‘Ma’am Arlene,’ the scrutiny of the judicial budget, the probe on the JDF and the Special Allowance for the Judiciary.”
He assailed as hypocrisy the Aquino administration’s invoking a 29-year-old Marcos presidential decree to poke into judicial funds. Malacañang’s “bullying,” he said, undermines not only fiscal autonomy, but also the principle of check and balance.
Elsewhere, a ranking member of the Nationalist People’s Coalition disclosed days ago that Liberal party gofers have approached them for support in the threatened filing of impeachment complaints against SC justices who do not support the legality of DAP.
Sources said the administration needs only three more SC votes to tilt the balance in favor of Malacañang on the DAP issue.
Having DAP declared unconstitutional — like the PDAF before it – could expose President Aquino to possible impeachment, if it could be shown that DAP was created by Budget Secretary Florencio Abad upon his instructions.
At this point, however, even if its constitutionality is voted down by the SC, the President’s impeachment is still a distant possibility.
First, Abad could take the fall by saying DAP was his sole creation on the belief that it was legal and necessary to speed up disbursement and stimulate the economy. He could swear that the President did not order him to create it, although that may sound a bit incredible.
Second, with the President still in virtual control of an overwhelming number of congressmen, it is unlikely that an impeachment complaint against him will prosper.
However, with political loyalty being a transactional item in the legislative market, the votes might shift if/when patronage (pork) funds dwindle and the President’s popularity continues to drop.
source: (The Philippine Star)
The Supreme Court as an institution has no feeling and harbors no fear of anyone. It is not the 15-strong tribunal but its individual members who are heirs to such human frailties as dread and anxiety.
Only an SC justice can succumb to pressure tactics or blackmail. We pray then that justices with pivotal votes will stick to their conviction and that the tribunal will emerge from this bruising high-stakes fight with its integrity intact.
* * *
OVERSIGHT POWER: Senior congressmen smarting from
the Court’s taking away their pork barrel for being unconstitutional are
threatening the justices with impeachment on the basis of their
speculation that the tribunal’s Judiciary Development Fund may have been
misused.But if it would be impeachment, who would stand as accused — Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, the entire SC membership, just the justices appointed by former President Gloria Arroyo, or only those inclined to vote against DAP?
Selective impeachment will be highly suspicious. It will not win public support, unless it is preceded by the usual massive media demolition job on the targeted justices.
The House threatens to unsheathe its oversight sword inserted in the 2014 national budget. The weapon empowers the Congress to review the use of the funds of the Judiciary, a separate branch of government that is guaranteed fiscal autonomy by the Constitution.
In what looks to us like a bad move, Malacañang has joined the fray by commenting and acknowledging that indeed the Congress could (it sounded like “should”) wield its newly acquired oversight powers to check how the SC spends its money.
* * *
‘RESBAK’: Noting the looming showdown on the
presidential pork (DAP) whose constitutionality is under review by the
tribunal, Navotas Rep. Toby Tiangco said:“The Congress had not questioned the fiscal autonomy of the Supreme Court until now. In street parlance, this is ‘resbak’ (retaliation) from the Congress after the SC declared the lawmakers’ Priority Development Assistance Fund as unconstitutional.”
Tiangco, who is United Nationalist Alliance secretary general, said Liberal Party researchers have been digging up on suspected corruption and misuse of the JDF in complete disregard of the Court’s fiscal autonomy.
But administration stalwart Cavite Rep. Elpidio Barzaga said fiscal autonomy must be subservient to fiscal accountability and responsibility. He pointed out also that the Congress now enjoys oversight powers to review the use of judiciary funds.
* * *
PALACE BULLYING: Tiangco said Malacañang and its
congressional point men have until Jan. 28, when the SC oral arguments
on DAP are to open, to increase pressure on the justices to vote
favorably on the presidential pork.“We’ve to be very vigilant,” he said. “We’ve already seen their moves along the impeachment idea, the Department of Justice-National Bureau of Investigation probe on ‘Ma’am Arlene,’ the scrutiny of the judicial budget, the probe on the JDF and the Special Allowance for the Judiciary.”
He assailed as hypocrisy the Aquino administration’s invoking a 29-year-old Marcos presidential decree to poke into judicial funds. Malacañang’s “bullying,” he said, undermines not only fiscal autonomy, but also the principle of check and balance.
Elsewhere, a ranking member of the Nationalist People’s Coalition disclosed days ago that Liberal party gofers have approached them for support in the threatened filing of impeachment complaints against SC justices who do not support the legality of DAP.
Sources said the administration needs only three more SC votes to tilt the balance in favor of Malacañang on the DAP issue.
* * *
IMPEACHMENT UNLIKELY: The decision of the Supreme
Court on DAP or presidential pork will have a survival impact on
President Aquino and the LP-led administration.Having DAP declared unconstitutional — like the PDAF before it – could expose President Aquino to possible impeachment, if it could be shown that DAP was created by Budget Secretary Florencio Abad upon his instructions.
At this point, however, even if its constitutionality is voted down by the SC, the President’s impeachment is still a distant possibility.
First, Abad could take the fall by saying DAP was his sole creation on the belief that it was legal and necessary to speed up disbursement and stimulate the economy. He could swear that the President did not order him to create it, although that may sound a bit incredible.
Second, with the President still in virtual control of an overwhelming number of congressmen, it is unlikely that an impeachment complaint against him will prosper.
However, with political loyalty being a transactional item in the legislative market, the votes might shift if/when patronage (pork) funds dwindle and the President’s popularity continues to drop.
* * *
RESEARCH: Access past POSTSCRIPTs at www.manilamail.com. Follow us via Twitter.com/@FDPascual. Send feedback to fdp333@yahoo.comsource: (The Philippine Star)
Monday, December 23, 2013
We have no pork -- SC
THE SUPREME Court (SC) has disputed claims
that its judiciary development fund (JDF) is a form of pork barrel
following reports that the tribunal also has its own discretionary
funds.
The Office of the Chief Justice (OCJ) clarified in a statement the JDF is not a pork barrel fund but a "special purpose fund" which helps ensures the independence of the Judiciary.
"While the Chief Justice is given the power to ‘administer and allocate the fund and shall have the sole exclusive power and duty to approve the authorized disbursements and expenditures of the fund,’ she is not given any discretion on how the funds will be used."
The OCJ also said the Judiciary has submitted to Congress a report on the uses and balances of the JDF.
"The annual report is also posted in the Judiciary’s Web site and is accessible to everyone."
Various lawmakers have questioned the JDF, saying it is a form of pork barrel.
The Supreme Court last month declared as unconstitutional the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) of lawmakers following reports that the congressional funds were channeled to bogus nongovernment organizations implementing ghost projects. -- Mikhail Franz E. Flores
source: Businessworld
The Office of the Chief Justice (OCJ) clarified in a statement the JDF is not a pork barrel fund but a "special purpose fund" which helps ensures the independence of the Judiciary.
"While the Chief Justice is given the power to ‘administer and allocate the fund and shall have the sole exclusive power and duty to approve the authorized disbursements and expenditures of the fund,’ she is not given any discretion on how the funds will be used."
The OCJ also said the Judiciary has submitted to Congress a report on the uses and balances of the JDF.
"The annual report is also posted in the Judiciary’s Web site and is accessible to everyone."
Various lawmakers have questioned the JDF, saying it is a form of pork barrel.
The Supreme Court last month declared as unconstitutional the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) of lawmakers following reports that the congressional funds were channeled to bogus nongovernment organizations implementing ghost projects. -- Mikhail Franz E. Flores
source: Businessworld
Sunday, December 15, 2013
Bangsamoro: Power-sharing and development
FIRST, allow me to share the statement of
the Philippine Center for Islam and Democracy (PCID) on the successful
Government of the Philippines-Moro Islamic Liberation Front (GPH-MILF)
negotiations in Kuala Lumpur over the weekend.
"The PCID applauds the signing of the Annex on Power Sharing by the negotiating panels of the Philippine Government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. We congratulate the members of the panels for reaching this collaborative effort in establishing the Bangsamoro government structure envisioned to be responsive to the aspirations and needs of the region and its people.
"We at PCID see the annex as another step towards the preparation of the legal framework supporting the peace processes in Mindanao. The document should lay the foundation for the long-awaited genuine, inclusive and meaningful political autonomy for the Bangsamoro, with its diversity of peoples and cultures. However, the key is in the enactment of the enabling Basic Law by the Bangsamoro Transition Commission (BTC) that would set the parameters for its interpretation and eventual implementation by the still to be established Bangsamoro Political Entity.
"Mandating the representation of non-Moros, women and other sectors in the regional assembly is laudable, as this will ensure the dividends of peace and developments will be shared equitably, and safeguard their distinct cultures, rights and civil liberties.
"PCID is hopeful that definitive provisions on Ancestral Domain, particularly as it relates to the Indigenous Peoples of the region, will be addressed by the BTC. Another concern is the reported deferment of the delineation of territorial waters, and its inclusion in the last annex on Normalization. These two contentious issues will have to be resolved, as this impact the viability of the Bangsamoro as a distinct politically autonomous region.
"We are hopeful that the provisions embodied in the annex will ultimately motivate all Bangsamoro people to become more involved in the drafting of the Basic Law. With the people’s active engagement in the ensuing public consultations, the envisioned Bangsamoro legal framework would, at the very least, establish an autonomy truly reflective of the aspirations of all Bangsamoro.
"Finally, PCID reiterates its continuing support for the peace process and hopes that the coming new year would be greeted by the signing of the final annex on Normalization."
The three annexes will strengthen the foundation for economic development, thus expanding the economic pie, which will, in turn, strengthen fiscal autonomy. As BTC Chair Mohagher Iqbal said, "Political autonomy without fiscal autonomy, or power without resources will break as soon as it is being put to test."
Allow me to continue the discussions on expanding the economic pie during the "Business and Investment Climate for the Bangsamoro" held at the Waterfront-Insular Hotel in Davao City (Nov. 26-27).
Former National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) Secretary Dondon Paderanga, who chaired the Forum, cited the critical role of the private sector in his synthesis. The private sector is key to bridging the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) -- soon to become the Bangsamoro Region -- from the challenges it faces to the opportunities available in agri-business, power, mining and natural resource development, tourism and trade. To do this, the region must address the constraints: particularly in peace, law and order; sustainable infrastructure, including human infrastructure; skills for the business sector and the state of education; governance and policy. All these have been barriers to sustainable development, as detailed by the presentation of PCID Convenor Urooj Malik, former Director of the Asian Development Bank, and now Bangsamoro Development Authority’s senior adviser for Sustainable Development.
Additional inputs from the private sector with regards to the challenges to competitiveness included: openness to foreign capital participation; fair and equal treatment for foreign and domestic companies; ease of doing business (such as strong arbitration laws in line with international arbitration practice and adherence to international conventions); open and transparent local economy; access to land and a stable and predicable policy environment (political and economic). The Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro (FAB) and the annexes, in part, address these concerns, but need to be fleshed out by the BTC.
Mr. Paderanga, a native son of Mindanao, summarized the immediate (and doable) strategic interventions: investment promotion and identification of projects as well as for the Bangsamoro to negotiate and determine its economic goals of fiscal autonomy and an autonomous economic strategy, not too tightly bound by the strings of Manila.
In the medium to long-term, the Bangsamoro will need to put the fundamentals in place for business and labor regulation, incentives and business support, land and property rights, banking and finance including Islamic finance.
In a nutshell, the former NEDA Chief said: "Economic Sustainability is critical!" The consensus of the 120 gathered participants: while government will have to focus on policy and institutional options and actions following the FAB and the signed annexes, there are options that are doable now. Further, short-term and long-term strategies must address the four identified thematic areas: sustainable social infrastructure, both human and physical infrastructure; business/labor regulations; financing -- particularly Islamic finance; and land and property rights.
A piece of advice shared by many participants: the Bangsamoro must avoid past mistakes and have a development plan that addresses its unique situation. Tom Allen, Project Director of the conference and former World Bank Country Director, had stated earlier: "It cannot be ‘business as usual’ for the Bangsamoro." Autonomy provides the Bangsamoro with the legal foundation to set its own strategy, a power it has not exploited in the past. Listening intently were Dr. Safrullah Dipatuan and the board of the Bangsamoro Development Agency (BDA), as were members of the BTC and the Bangsamoro Leadership and Management Institute (BMLI). (It was unfortunate that none of the invited officials from the ARMM Regional Government attended, apart from Board of Investments head Ishak Mastura. (Hmmm. Political dynamics at play?)
The BDA is currently immersed in drafting its Bangsamoro Development Plan. Their timetable: to have the final draft ready by April 2014, ready to be addressed by Congress when it convenes to work on the national budget. Last Wednesday, the World Bank hosted the meeting of government’s development partners to discuss how to provide the assistance needed by the BDA in crafting the Plan.
Time is tight and resources are limited. We hope that the calamities that have visited the Philippines, both disasters due to man and to nature, will not distract government and development partners from their commitment to support the Bangsamoro. We have a window of opportunity, closing fast, to set things right in Muslim Mindanao. For the sake of the nation as well as the long-suffering Bangsamoro, we need to exert all efforts to ensure that the promise of autonomy made to the Bangsamoro decades ago is converted to reality. A truly autonomous Bangsamoro will contribute to the growth and wellbeing of the entire nation. A dysfunctional Bangsamoro, as it is today, will continue to be a millstone that will drag the Philippines down. Seems to me that there is only one rational choice.
source: Businessworld
"The PCID applauds the signing of the Annex on Power Sharing by the negotiating panels of the Philippine Government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. We congratulate the members of the panels for reaching this collaborative effort in establishing the Bangsamoro government structure envisioned to be responsive to the aspirations and needs of the region and its people.
"We at PCID see the annex as another step towards the preparation of the legal framework supporting the peace processes in Mindanao. The document should lay the foundation for the long-awaited genuine, inclusive and meaningful political autonomy for the Bangsamoro, with its diversity of peoples and cultures. However, the key is in the enactment of the enabling Basic Law by the Bangsamoro Transition Commission (BTC) that would set the parameters for its interpretation and eventual implementation by the still to be established Bangsamoro Political Entity.
"Mandating the representation of non-Moros, women and other sectors in the regional assembly is laudable, as this will ensure the dividends of peace and developments will be shared equitably, and safeguard their distinct cultures, rights and civil liberties.
"PCID is hopeful that definitive provisions on Ancestral Domain, particularly as it relates to the Indigenous Peoples of the region, will be addressed by the BTC. Another concern is the reported deferment of the delineation of territorial waters, and its inclusion in the last annex on Normalization. These two contentious issues will have to be resolved, as this impact the viability of the Bangsamoro as a distinct politically autonomous region.
"We are hopeful that the provisions embodied in the annex will ultimately motivate all Bangsamoro people to become more involved in the drafting of the Basic Law. With the people’s active engagement in the ensuing public consultations, the envisioned Bangsamoro legal framework would, at the very least, establish an autonomy truly reflective of the aspirations of all Bangsamoro.
"Finally, PCID reiterates its continuing support for the peace process and hopes that the coming new year would be greeted by the signing of the final annex on Normalization."
The three annexes will strengthen the foundation for economic development, thus expanding the economic pie, which will, in turn, strengthen fiscal autonomy. As BTC Chair Mohagher Iqbal said, "Political autonomy without fiscal autonomy, or power without resources will break as soon as it is being put to test."
Allow me to continue the discussions on expanding the economic pie during the "Business and Investment Climate for the Bangsamoro" held at the Waterfront-Insular Hotel in Davao City (Nov. 26-27).
Former National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) Secretary Dondon Paderanga, who chaired the Forum, cited the critical role of the private sector in his synthesis. The private sector is key to bridging the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) -- soon to become the Bangsamoro Region -- from the challenges it faces to the opportunities available in agri-business, power, mining and natural resource development, tourism and trade. To do this, the region must address the constraints: particularly in peace, law and order; sustainable infrastructure, including human infrastructure; skills for the business sector and the state of education; governance and policy. All these have been barriers to sustainable development, as detailed by the presentation of PCID Convenor Urooj Malik, former Director of the Asian Development Bank, and now Bangsamoro Development Authority’s senior adviser for Sustainable Development.
Additional inputs from the private sector with regards to the challenges to competitiveness included: openness to foreign capital participation; fair and equal treatment for foreign and domestic companies; ease of doing business (such as strong arbitration laws in line with international arbitration practice and adherence to international conventions); open and transparent local economy; access to land and a stable and predicable policy environment (political and economic). The Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro (FAB) and the annexes, in part, address these concerns, but need to be fleshed out by the BTC.
Mr. Paderanga, a native son of Mindanao, summarized the immediate (and doable) strategic interventions: investment promotion and identification of projects as well as for the Bangsamoro to negotiate and determine its economic goals of fiscal autonomy and an autonomous economic strategy, not too tightly bound by the strings of Manila.
In the medium to long-term, the Bangsamoro will need to put the fundamentals in place for business and labor regulation, incentives and business support, land and property rights, banking and finance including Islamic finance.
In a nutshell, the former NEDA Chief said: "Economic Sustainability is critical!" The consensus of the 120 gathered participants: while government will have to focus on policy and institutional options and actions following the FAB and the signed annexes, there are options that are doable now. Further, short-term and long-term strategies must address the four identified thematic areas: sustainable social infrastructure, both human and physical infrastructure; business/labor regulations; financing -- particularly Islamic finance; and land and property rights.
A piece of advice shared by many participants: the Bangsamoro must avoid past mistakes and have a development plan that addresses its unique situation. Tom Allen, Project Director of the conference and former World Bank Country Director, had stated earlier: "It cannot be ‘business as usual’ for the Bangsamoro." Autonomy provides the Bangsamoro with the legal foundation to set its own strategy, a power it has not exploited in the past. Listening intently were Dr. Safrullah Dipatuan and the board of the Bangsamoro Development Agency (BDA), as were members of the BTC and the Bangsamoro Leadership and Management Institute (BMLI). (It was unfortunate that none of the invited officials from the ARMM Regional Government attended, apart from Board of Investments head Ishak Mastura. (Hmmm. Political dynamics at play?)
The BDA is currently immersed in drafting its Bangsamoro Development Plan. Their timetable: to have the final draft ready by April 2014, ready to be addressed by Congress when it convenes to work on the national budget. Last Wednesday, the World Bank hosted the meeting of government’s development partners to discuss how to provide the assistance needed by the BDA in crafting the Plan.
Time is tight and resources are limited. We hope that the calamities that have visited the Philippines, both disasters due to man and to nature, will not distract government and development partners from their commitment to support the Bangsamoro. We have a window of opportunity, closing fast, to set things right in Muslim Mindanao. For the sake of the nation as well as the long-suffering Bangsamoro, we need to exert all efforts to ensure that the promise of autonomy made to the Bangsamoro decades ago is converted to reality. A truly autonomous Bangsamoro will contribute to the growth and wellbeing of the entire nation. A dysfunctional Bangsamoro, as it is today, will continue to be a millstone that will drag the Philippines down. Seems to me that there is only one rational choice.
source: Businessworld
Thursday, December 5, 2013
Understanding the PDAF decision
n a unanimous vote, the Supreme Court declared the congressional pork
barrel (not just the Priority Development Assistance Fund)
unconstitutional, thereby reversing three separate rulings it had issued
earlier sustaining the constitutionality of pork barrel. The decision
also invalidated illegal provisions in two laws that authorize the
President to use the controversial Malampaya fund and the President’s
Social Fund, which some, erroneously I believe, call presidential pork.
The main decision was penned by Associate Justice Estela Perlas-Bernabe with Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, Associate Justice Arturo Brion, and Associate Justice Marvic Leonen registering their concurring opinions.
Aside from procedural issues, the ponencia resolved two substantive issues, namely: (1) Whether or not the 2013 PDAF article and all other congressional pork barrel laws similar thereto are unconstitutional; (2) Whether or not certain provisions of PD 910,116, relating to the Malampaya funds, and PD 1869, as amended by PD 1993, relating to the Presidential Social Fund, are unconstitutional insofar as they constitute undue delegations of legislative power.
In declaring congressional pork barrel unconstitutional, the Court held that post-enactment measures embedded in the PDAF - project identification, fund release, and fund realignment - are not related to legislative duties, and hence, are encroachments on duties that properly belong to the executive function of budget execution. Second, the individual participation of the members of the Congress is an express violation of the principle of non-delegability of rule-making functions lodged in the Congress.
Further, the Court said that “these post-enactment measures which govern the areas of project identification, fund release and fund realignment are not related to functions of congressional oversight and are violative of the principle of non-delegability since said legislators are effectively allowed to individually exercise the power of appropriation, which is lodged in Congress.
The Court ruled not just on the PDAF but declared unconstitutional all laws, (past, present and future) and formal and informal practices which had allowed legislators to take part in post-enactment and implementation. In my view, this renders the proposed legislative initiative to ban the pork barrel unnecessary.
In her separate opinion, Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, while agreeing with the result, observed that the ponencia made no doctrinal pronouncement that all lump-sum appropriations per se are unconstitutional. She postulated that wholesale rejection of lump-sum allocations contrives a rule of constitutional law broader than what is required by the precise facts in the case. She further observed that lump-sum appropriations are not textually prohibited by the Constitution.
In the same breath, Justice Brion and Justice Leonen warned against the possibility of the Court exceeding the bounds set by the actual case and controversy; that a total condemnation of lump-sum funding is an “extreme position that disregards the realities of national life,” as Justice Brion stated.
The Court, echoing petitioners, said that “the fact that individual legislators are given post-enactment roles in the implementation of the budget makes it difficult for them to become disinterested ‘observers’ when scrutinizing, investigating or monitoring the implementation of the appropriation law to a certain extent, the conduct of oversight would be tainted as said legislators, who are vested with post-enactment authority, would, in effect, be checking on activities in which they themselves participate.
As to the presidential pork barrel, the ponencia agreed with petitioners that “the phrase “and for such other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the president” under section 8 of PD 910 constitutes an undue delegation of legislative power insofar as it does not lay down a sufficient standard to adequately determine the limits of the President’s authority with respect to the purpose for which the Malampaya funds may be used.
Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, concurring with the ponencia, reasoned that the phrase “for such other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the president” in PD 910 is an undue delegation of legislative power.
For his part, Associate Justice Brion said that the Malampaya fund because of “its purpose and lack of specificity; its lump sum nature and its disbursement solely at the discretion of one man, unchecked by any other; how and why a multi-project and multi-activity fund covering many projects and activities, now and in the future, should be held at the discretion of one man; and the legal situation where the power of congress and its participation in national policymaking through the budget process is disregarded. All these can be encapsulated as violations of the doctrines of separation of powers and checks and balances x x x.”
The main decision concluded that the pork barrel system must be struck down as unconstitutional insofar as, among others, “it has allowed legislators to wield, xxx non-oversight, post-enactment authority in vital areas of budget execution, the system has violated the principle of separation of powers; insofar as it has conferred unto legislators the power of appropriation by giving them personal, discretionary funds from which they are able to fund specific projects which they themselves determine, it has similarly violated the principle of non-delegability of legislative power; insofar as it has created a system of budgeting wherein items are not textualized into the appropriations bill, it has flouted the prescribed procedure of presentment and, in the process, denied the president the power to veto items.”
Emphasizing the deleterious nature of the pork barrel system Justice Leonen most aptly puts it, saying: pork barrel funds historically encourage dole-outs. It inculcates a perverse understanding of representative democracy. It encourages a culture that misunderstands the important function of public representation in congress. It does not truly empower those who are impoverished or found in the margins of our society.”
Facebook Page: Dean Tony La Viña Twitter: tonylavs
source: Manila Standard today
The main decision was penned by Associate Justice Estela Perlas-Bernabe with Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, Associate Justice Arturo Brion, and Associate Justice Marvic Leonen registering their concurring opinions.
Aside from procedural issues, the ponencia resolved two substantive issues, namely: (1) Whether or not the 2013 PDAF article and all other congressional pork barrel laws similar thereto are unconstitutional; (2) Whether or not certain provisions of PD 910,116, relating to the Malampaya funds, and PD 1869, as amended by PD 1993, relating to the Presidential Social Fund, are unconstitutional insofar as they constitute undue delegations of legislative power.
In declaring congressional pork barrel unconstitutional, the Court held that post-enactment measures embedded in the PDAF - project identification, fund release, and fund realignment - are not related to legislative duties, and hence, are encroachments on duties that properly belong to the executive function of budget execution. Second, the individual participation of the members of the Congress is an express violation of the principle of non-delegability of rule-making functions lodged in the Congress.
Further, the Court said that “these post-enactment measures which govern the areas of project identification, fund release and fund realignment are not related to functions of congressional oversight and are violative of the principle of non-delegability since said legislators are effectively allowed to individually exercise the power of appropriation, which is lodged in Congress.
The Court ruled not just on the PDAF but declared unconstitutional all laws, (past, present and future) and formal and informal practices which had allowed legislators to take part in post-enactment and implementation. In my view, this renders the proposed legislative initiative to ban the pork barrel unnecessary.
In her separate opinion, Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, while agreeing with the result, observed that the ponencia made no doctrinal pronouncement that all lump-sum appropriations per se are unconstitutional. She postulated that wholesale rejection of lump-sum allocations contrives a rule of constitutional law broader than what is required by the precise facts in the case. She further observed that lump-sum appropriations are not textually prohibited by the Constitution.
In the same breath, Justice Brion and Justice Leonen warned against the possibility of the Court exceeding the bounds set by the actual case and controversy; that a total condemnation of lump-sum funding is an “extreme position that disregards the realities of national life,” as Justice Brion stated.
The Court, echoing petitioners, said that “the fact that individual legislators are given post-enactment roles in the implementation of the budget makes it difficult for them to become disinterested ‘observers’ when scrutinizing, investigating or monitoring the implementation of the appropriation law to a certain extent, the conduct of oversight would be tainted as said legislators, who are vested with post-enactment authority, would, in effect, be checking on activities in which they themselves participate.
As to the presidential pork barrel, the ponencia agreed with petitioners that “the phrase “and for such other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the president” under section 8 of PD 910 constitutes an undue delegation of legislative power insofar as it does not lay down a sufficient standard to adequately determine the limits of the President’s authority with respect to the purpose for which the Malampaya funds may be used.
Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, concurring with the ponencia, reasoned that the phrase “for such other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the president” in PD 910 is an undue delegation of legislative power.
For his part, Associate Justice Brion said that the Malampaya fund because of “its purpose and lack of specificity; its lump sum nature and its disbursement solely at the discretion of one man, unchecked by any other; how and why a multi-project and multi-activity fund covering many projects and activities, now and in the future, should be held at the discretion of one man; and the legal situation where the power of congress and its participation in national policymaking through the budget process is disregarded. All these can be encapsulated as violations of the doctrines of separation of powers and checks and balances x x x.”
The main decision concluded that the pork barrel system must be struck down as unconstitutional insofar as, among others, “it has allowed legislators to wield, xxx non-oversight, post-enactment authority in vital areas of budget execution, the system has violated the principle of separation of powers; insofar as it has conferred unto legislators the power of appropriation by giving them personal, discretionary funds from which they are able to fund specific projects which they themselves determine, it has similarly violated the principle of non-delegability of legislative power; insofar as it has created a system of budgeting wherein items are not textualized into the appropriations bill, it has flouted the prescribed procedure of presentment and, in the process, denied the president the power to veto items.”
Emphasizing the deleterious nature of the pork barrel system Justice Leonen most aptly puts it, saying: pork barrel funds historically encourage dole-outs. It inculcates a perverse understanding of representative democracy. It encourages a culture that misunderstands the important function of public representation in congress. It does not truly empower those who are impoverished or found in the margins of our society.”
Facebook Page: Dean Tony La Viña Twitter: tonylavs
source: Manila Standard today
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)