Mr. Aquino’s unpresidential act of unprofessionally attacking the Supreme Court over its adverse ruling on the unconstitutionality of the DAP may lead to a Constitutional Crisis
By Jose Mario De Vega
I refer to the Philippine Daily Inquirer report, “Aquino warns SC of clash”, July 15th concerning the nationally televised address of Mr. Aquino defending his DAP.
I say that Mr. Aquino’s outburst is undeniably an unpresidential act of attacking the Highest Court (also a co-equal branch of the government) of this Republic.
I am not saying that the so-called Chief executive have no right or cannot question the said Court’s ruling, yet what I am disgusted was the method used and the manner utilized by Mr. Aquino in defending his economic vision and/or national financial blue-print which primarily anchored on DAP which the Court struck down last week — overwhelmingly for its contravention of the laws and for its constitutional incongruity!
Mr. Aquino used the said televised speech as a platform to castigate the Court and lampoon its ruling by using words which in my view is not only unprofessional, but irrefutably unpresidential, bullish, unworthy of a statesman, uncouth and unmistakably immoral!
His utter disregard of the moral authority of the Court and his unmistakable disrespect of its findings and judgment are acts unworthy of the president.
His arrogance and being stubborn betrays his ignorance and silly idiocy, not only of the laws, but also of the most basic tenets of political ethics and general public morality of civil governance.
Consider the very words expressed by this creature:
“My message to the Supreme Court: We do not want two equal branches of government to go head to head, needing a third branch to step in to intervene. We find it difficult to understand your decision. You had done something similar in the past, and you tried to do it again; there are even those of the opinion that what you attempted to commit was far graver. Abiding by the principle of “presumption of regularity,” we assumed that you did the right thing; after all, you are the ones who should ostensibly have a better understanding of the law. And now, when we use the same mechanism—which, you yourselves have admitted, benefit our countrymen—why is it then that we are wrong?”
Mr. Aquino, you are wrong because even if your intention is good, but if the means you are using are against the provision of the Constitution, the Supreme Court will do its duty to invalidate and/or declare your “acts and practices” unconstitutional!
On the Question of Threat and Bullying
Mr. Aquino, I cannot help but sharply observed that within your speech, why are you, in a sense, threatening the Supreme Court?
To quote from the blog post of Atty. Harry Roque, dated July 17th:
“I could not believe my ears. There he was- the President of the Republic—acting like the head of the Sputnik gang, with apologies to the gang.
“Sure, no one likes to lose. But when you want to reconsider a loss, you should argue on the basis of law and reasons- at least if its the highest court that you need to convince. But no, the President threw both reason and law and instead acted like a bully telling the members of the Court that if they do not reverse themselves on the DAP, he will ask the Legislature to remove them from office. He even taunted them to a fight, as if the Justices, because of their sheer physical age, could stand up to him.”
On the issue of the legality of DAP
Mr. Aquino you also used that Monday night address to defend the legality of your DAP by quoting a provision on the Administrative Code (Book VI, Chapter 5, Section 39 of the 1987 Administrative Code of the Philippines) and by citing an illustration (the parking zone) which in my view is not only stupid but incontestably impertinent.
Again, let me quote the legal analysis of Atty. Roque to dispute your baseless contention:
“And why did he think the Court was wrong on the DAP? He identified at least two points, both of which do not hold water. One, the administrative code purportedly empowers him to realign funds even on a cross-border basis. The problem with this submission is the elementary principle of hierarchy of laws. Even assuming that the administrative code authorizes him to resort the DAP, all laws must still conform to the Constitution, the latter being the supreme law of the land. Those that do not are declared by the courts as null and void ab initio, or without legal effect from the beginning.
“Second, he argued that at most, the DAP is akin to parking at a no parking zone in order to bring a dying patient to a hospital. Really? Since when did a culpable breach of the Constitution become akin to a breach of a minor local ordinance? Moreover, the Court identified a major breach of the Constitution as basis for invalidating the DAP; that is, that it usurped the exclusive power of Congress over the purse. The DAP involved more than a violation of an ordinance that could result in a parking ticket. The DAP was about the very essence of representative democracy: that there will be no taxation without representation and its corollary, that there can be no spending of public funds without the consent of the people acting through their representatives. That was the full impact of the ruling of the Supreme Court when it reiterated the doctrine in Demetria vs. Alba that the Executive could only realign savings to augment an existing line item and only within the executive or that branch of government that incurred the saving. To sanction what the DAP purported to do, which was to replace projects identified by Congress with other projects identified by the Executive would infringe on the power of Congress to pass the appropriations law which incidentally, is also an important part of the system of checks and balances institutionalized by the Constitution by having three co-equal branches of government.”
If I may add, it is also written on Article 7 of Republic Act 386 also known as the Civil Code of the Philippines that:
“Art. 7. Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their violation or non-observance shall not be excused by disuse, or custom or practice to the contrary.
“When the courts declared a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the former shall be void and the latter shall govern.
“Administrative or executive acts, orders and regulations shall be valid only when they are not contrary to the laws or the Constitution.”
Hence, Mr. Aquino, the fact that your DAP is inconsistent with the Constitution it was declared by the Court unanimously as unconstitutional, for the Constitution is the Highest Law of the land and it is always Supreme!
On the Aquino Regime
I cannot understand the fact that you and your family who suffered gravely under the Marcos dictatorship, with the rest of the Filipino people why are you now acting like a dictator and a bully!?
Is it the case that ‘a good man’ like you has already turned into a Darth Vader? Does power truly corrupts?
Another issue, if one will deeply analyze the principle of DAP, its inner mechanism and how it works, one can immediately see that the same is nothing but the legacy of Marcos.
Sad but true! The question now is: So, Mr. Aquino, are you now the new Makoy?
What are you going to do, if on your Motion for Reconsideration, still the Court affirms its ruling?
What can you say to those idiots in Congress who filed bill that seeks to abolish the Judiciary Development Fund?
How about the threat of some moronic Tongresmen of the possibility of impeaching some Justices of the Supreme Court?
I do not know whether you are aware of all these nefarious moves and idiotic acts of vengeance and vindictive hints, but let me warn you and your regime, your acts of bullying the Supreme Court may lead to a Constitutional Crisis!
Is that your so-called “tuwid na daan”?
Jose Mario Dolor De Vega
All submissions are republished and redistributed in the same way that it was originally published online and sent to us. We may edit submission in a way that does not alter or change the original material.
Human Rights Online Philippines does not hold copyright over these materials. Author/s and original source/s of information are retained including the URL contained within the tagline and byline of the articles, news information, photos etc.