A layman’s dangerous reading of SC’s definition of ‘capital’

IN Monday’s piece, Due Diligencer asked the Securities and Exchange Commission if it had fully complied with the order of the Supreme Court for it to review the foreign ownership of Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co.
Apparently, the high court recognized the competence of the SEC as the securities industry regulator that it tossed to its officials the sensitive task of penalizing PLDT for violating the 60-40 ownership rule between Filipinos and foreigners.

The penalty may be imposed only if the company is found in violation of the 60-40 rule in favor of Filipinos.

Since Due Diligencer failed to find anything either for or against PLDT that the SEC should have posted on its website, it is expanding its poser. This time, it wants to know if the SEC should also apply the SC’s ruling on PLDT ownership to other companies engaged in industries where Filipinos should own at least 60 percent of outstanding capital stock.

If the answer is yes, then why has the SEC, led by Chairperson Teresita J. Herbosa, not even made the first step in reviewing the ownership profiles of companies registered with it? The commission’s examiners, if the commissioners would allow them, may want to start with the ownership filings posted on the website of the Philippine Stock Exchange by publicly listed companies.

Of course, SEC officials may not agree with a layman’s reading of a court decision. Being lawyers, they may have different interpretation of a court decision that may be so full of legalese it is beyond this writer’s comprehension.

For example, the SEC’s five-man body may have a different interpretation of the SC’s ruling on the Gamboa-PLDT case that its members may not agree with this writer. But Due Diligencer has been rereading said decision too often that it could not forget a very intriguing portion that deals on the 60-percent minimum Filipino ownership.

“Thus, if a corporation, engaged in a partially nationalized industry, issues a mixture of common and preferred non-voting shares, at least 60 percent of the common shares and at least 60 percent of the preferred non-voting shares must be owned by Filipinos,” the SC said in its ruling written by Associate Justice Antonio Carpio.

Then the SC elaborated: “In short, the 60-40 ownership requirement in favor of Filipino citizens must apply separately to each class of shares, whether common, preferred non-voting, preferred voting or any other class of shares.”

The SC went on: “This uniform application of the 60-40 ownership requirement in favor of Filipino citizens clearly breathes life to the constitutional command that the ownership and operation of public utilities shall be reserved exclusively to corporations at least 60 percent of whose capital is Filipino-owned.

“Applying uniformly the 60-40 ownership requirement in favor of Filipino citizens to each class of shares, regardless of differences in voting rights, privileges and restrictions, guarantees effective Filipino control of public utilities, as mandated by the Constitution.”

By its ruling, the SC did not mean adding all the shares whether common or voting or non-voting preferred shares and dividing the total by the number of shares owned by Filipinos. If the quotient is less than 60 percent, then the ownership ratio of the company is in violation of the law.

To a layman, the SC simply means computing separately each class of shares in a company’s outstanding capital stock to determine if Filipinos control at least 60 percent of the common voting shares, 60 percent of the voting preferred shares and 60 percent of the non-voting preferred shares of public utilities.

Due Diligencer hopes it is wrong in concluding that the issuance of preferred shares would not effectively dilute the foreign ownership in a company to the legal limit of 40 percent. If it is right, then the SEC examiners who are underpaid and overworked may have to extend their working hours beyond eight hours in reviewing the ownership profiles of companies to see to it that foreigners should not own more than 40 percent of the outstanding capital of public utilities.
esdperez@gmail.com

source:  Manila Times

Grace Padaca being eased out of Comelec

PRESIDENT Benigno Aquino 3rd is no longer inclined to reappoint former Isabela governor Grace Padaca to the Commission on Elections (Comelec) after her confirmation, along with those of two other poll body officials, was bypassed by the powerful Commission on Appointments (CA) recently.
Padaca, according to an unimpeachable source of The Manila Times, is not likely to get another ad interim appointment from the President because she has pending cases at the Office of the Ombudsman and the Sandiganbayan.

“She failed to file her SALN [statement of assets liabilities and net worth] for three years when she was still governor. She has also a graft case,” the source said.

The Times tried to get the reaction of Presidential Communications Secretary Herminio Coloma Jr. and Malacañang spokesman Edwin Lacierda but the officials were mum on the issue. Coloma, in a text message, said he will have to verify Padaca’s status with the Office of the President.

Prior to the sine die adjournment of Congress, the CA did not act on the appointments of Padaca and Comelec Commissioners Louie Tito Guia and Al Parreño. Padaca’s term will only expire on February 2, 2018 because she is serving the remaining term of former Commissioner Augusto Lagman.
Parreño replaced Commissioner Rene Sarmiento while Guia replaced Armando Velasco.

The President will have to reappoint the officials, who will again be subjected to CA scrutiny in the next Congress.

Earlier this year, the Office of the Ombudsman asked the Sandiganbayan to proceed with the trial of Padaca, who is facing charges of malversation and graft.

The graft case stemmed from Padaca’s awarding of a P25-million grant to the Economic Development for Western Isabela and Northern Luzon Foundation Inc. that was disbursed without the concurrence or approval of the Isabela provincial board when she was Isabela governor.

Padaca entered a plea of not guilty on October 22, 2013. She had sought the dismissal of the charges claiming immunity from suit. Her lawyers said when Aquino appointed Padaca to the Comelec on October 2, 2012, she automatically enjoys the protection of Sections 2 and 3, Article 11 of the 1987 Constitution. The provision states that she is already an impeachable officer and only the House of Representatives has the exclusive power to do that.

But Ombudsman prosecutors argued that the former governor cannot hide behind her supposed immunity because the criminal charges were filed before her appointment to the poll body.

The Sandiganbayan also argued that such immunity could lead to an “abuse of political power of appointment” to insulate public officials from liability.
 
source:  Manila Times

Government ‘stimulus’ unconstitutional -- SC

THE SUPREME COURT yesterday struck down “acts and practices” under the Aquino administration’s Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) for violating constitutional provisions on the transfer of appropriations and separation of powers.

With one justice abstaining, the high court “partially granted” petitions for review and prohibition questioning the DAP’s validity and its related executive issuances, particularly National Budget Circular 541.

Among the practices voided was the withdrawal of unobligated allotments from implementing agencies and declaring these, as well as unreleased appropriations, part of savings before the end of a fiscal year. The SC said this did not conform to the definition of savings under the General Appropriations Act (GAA).

The “cross-border” transfer of funds from the executive to other branches of government and the funding of projects not included in the GAA were likewise struck down.

“The Court further declares void the use of unprogrammed funds... for noncompliance with the conditions provided in the relevant General Appropriation Acts,” SC Spokesperson Theodore O. Te said in a briefing where he also announced that the high court had upheld the constitutionality of the Reproductive Health Law.

Mr. Te said the DAP, in particular, violated Article 6, Section 25 (5) of the 1987 Constitution stating that “No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations; however, the President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of Constitutional Commissions may, by law, be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations.”

The DAP was a stimulus package designed to fast-track public spending and push economic growth. It was approved by President Benigno S. C. Aquino III on Oct. 12, 2011, with funds to be sourced and augmented out of “savings” generated during the year and additional revenue sources. A total of P83.53 billion was released under in 2011 and another P58.7 billion in 2012. The initiatives funded included P30 billion of the government’s required P50-billion equity infusion in the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas.

The government, in its defense, said it was within the President’s power to spend and augment the budget, insisting that the DAP is a “fund management system” and not a “fund” as claimed by petitioners.

The high court’s Mr. Te sidestepped a question on Budget Secretary Florencio B. Abad’s liability as one of the main defendants, but a legal expert from the University of the Philippines-College of Law said Mr. Abad could face administrative sanctions.

“It amounts to malversation except there’s no element of whether or not Secretary Abad benefited from it. At the very least, there is an administrative liability,” UP professor Herminio Harry L. Roque said.

Mr. Abad, for his part, said in a text message: “I will reserve my comment until I read the full text of the SC decision.” The Budget department, meanwhile, said: “We will yield to the Office of the President to issue a statement on the SC decision on the DAP.”

Deputy Presidential Spokesperson Abigail F. Valte said the Palace was deferring comment pending receipt of the court ruling.

A copy of the decision written by Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin was not made immediately available. Five other magistrates will likewise write separate opinions on the DAP’s constitutionality, namely Associate Justices Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, Mario Victor F. Leonen, Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. del Castillo and Antonio T. Carpio.

A member of the 15-person tribunal, who asked not to be named for lack of authority to speak to the press, said in a text message that the ruling, which strikes down the four practices, “effectively covers the entire DAP.”

“[The] word ‘partially grant’ was used because other prayers of petitioners, like disclosure of documents, were not granted because they were moot,” the Justice said.

Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago, meanwhile, lauded the decision.

“It’s basically a no-brainer. The DAP is illegal because it was not contained in the 2011 or 2012 budgets, and because the alleged savings were used to augment new budget items which were not previously authorized by Congress,” she said in a statement.

Business groups, meanwhile, asked if the decision would affect the Aquino administration’s reform efforts.

Gregorio S. Navarro, Management Association of the Philippines president, said: “The SC has declared PDAF (Priority Development Assistance Fund) illegal, hence it would have been highly unusual not to likewise declare DAP illegal, at least partially so. The question is what next?”

Peter Angelo V. Perfecto, Makati Business Club executive director, who noted that the DAP had addressed the business sector’s concern over an infrastructure project slowdown, said the court ruling “will better guide our government in the prudent management and utilization of public resources.”

“We recall that DAP was the means by which government accelerated much needed infrastructure projects that had slowed down due to careful review by the Aquino administration of all projects in line with its policy of zero tolerance for corruption,” Mr. Perfecto said.

Nine petitions were filed questioning the DAP. These came from the Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption; Confederation for Unity, Recognition and Advancement of Government Employees; losing senatorial candidate Greco Antonious Beda B. Belgica and two others; lawyer Manuelito R. Luna; Integrated Bar of the Philippines; Philippine Constitutional Association; Jose Malvar Villegas Jr.; militant leaders and party-list lawmakers; and former Iloilo Representative Augusto L. Syjuco, Jr. -- Mikhail Franz E. Flores and Bettina Faye V. Roc with reports from Ailyn D. Galura and Daryll Edisonn D. Saclag

source:  Businessworld

SC: Aquino no authority to discipline Ombudsman

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

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

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

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.

*      *      *

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.com

source:  POSTSCRIPT By Federico D. Pascual Jr. (The Philippine Star)