MANILA, Philippines鈥揚resident Aquino was just getting started.
The morning after openly challenging the Supreme Court, the President on Tuesday assailed the magistrates once again, this time warning that their decision against his Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) ran the 鈥渞isk of putting our country鈥檚 development in a state of paralysis.鈥�
Speaking before local and international business leaders, including World Bank president Jim Yong Kim, Aquino gave a litany of reasons why he thought the high court erred in ruling that the DAP was unconstitutional.
The President described the decision as 鈥渄eeply unsettling,鈥� claiming it would have 鈥渁 chilling effect on our economy鈥攁nd consequently on millions of Filipinos.鈥�
鈥淯nfortunately, the effects of the Supreme Court decision run the risk of putting our country鈥檚 development in a state of paralysis鈥攐r worse, reversing the massive progress we have already made,鈥� he said.
Difficult to accept
鈥淚 find it difficult to accept their decision, when I know that we are right, and more importantly, that doing nothing means depriving so many Filipinos of opportunities to grow and prosper,鈥� he added.
鈥淚 find it difficult to accept the decision of the Supreme Court, when it goes against the benefit our countrymen. In fact, I believe that any reasonable person confronted with the same dilemma would come up with the same solution鈥攐r even a better refinement of what we did.鈥�
The President made it clear that 鈥淚 bear no grudge or ill will against the Supreme Court.鈥� But he again floated the possibility of a 鈥渃ollision between the executive and the judiciary,鈥� which 鈥渕ight require the intervention of the legislature.
Serve the 98M Pinoys, too
鈥淎nd we do not want this,鈥� he said. 鈥淲e want to work with our coequal branches of government, in serving the Filipino people. That is why, I still hold the hope that our colleagues in the Supreme Court never forget that, as they display the legal prowess and acumen that has served them well in their long careers, these abilities must also serve their 98 million countrymen.鈥�
Ruling removes flexibility
The last time Aquino went all-out against the Supreme Court was in 2011 and 2012 when he campaigned for the ouster of then Chief Justice Renato Corona, an appointee of then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. He replaced Corona with his own appointee, Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno, who, incidentally, joined 12 other magistrates in voting against the constitutionality of DAP practices.
Malaca帽ang has until July 19 to file a motion for reconsideration, which Aquino said it would do despite the ruling that junked the DAP by a 13-0 vote.
He warned that the ruling 鈥渃ondemns us to a spiral of inefficiency, uncertainty and lack of confidence鈥� because 鈥渘o government official can be confident in bidding out programs and projects, when the threat of a lawsuit hangs over their heads.鈥�
Aquino was questioning the high court鈥檚 position that the doctrine of operative fact 鈥渃annot apply to authors, proponents and implementers of the DAP, unless there are concrete findings of good faith in their favor by the proper tribunals determining their criminal, civil, administrative and other liabilities.鈥�
鈥淚n the short term, the decision will have the effect of once again slowing down government spending. In the long term, it removes our flexibility to act effectively in response to changing market conditions, and seize, or even create opportunities in doing so,鈥� he argued.
The President pointed to the country鈥檚 6.3-percent growth in its gross domestic product from 2010 to 2013, comparing it to the average growth of 2.8 percent from 1990 to 1999 and 4.5 percent from 2000 to 2009.
鈥淭his is indeed a shame, especially when we have come so far,鈥� he said of the court ruling.
鈥淭hey say that for a country to lift itself out of poverty, it is necessary to have a growth rate consistent at 7 percent or more. We are getting there. Unfortunately, the effects of the Supreme Court decision run the risk of putting our country鈥檚 development in a state of paralysis鈥攐r worse, reversing the massive progress we have already made,鈥� he added.
Previous DAP versions
In defending the DAP, the brainchild of Budget Secretary Florencio Abad, the President claimed his predecessors 鈥渁ll had their versions鈥� of the same budget-pooling mechanism. He cited the old 鈥淩eserve Control Account and alternatively Overall Savings, which were used in part, to respond to the Asian financial crisis, and the fiscal crisis.鈥�
鈥淚 should add: These former Presidents also exercised the authority to transfer appropriations or savings to other branches of government and even to constitutional commissions,鈥� he argued. 鈥淧erhaps we are being questioned today simply because we have been truly transparent about it.鈥�
Little was publicly known of the DAP until Sen. Jinggoy Estrada said senators who voted to convict Corona for fudging his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth in May 2012 received 鈥渋ncentives鈥� ranging from P50 million to P100 million each in additional pork barrel allocations. Abad later confirmed the existence of the DAP.
Though vigorously defending the DAP, the President said he had suspended the implementation of DAP-funded projects 鈥渙ut of prudence.鈥�
鈥淲ith their [Supreme Court justices] decision, it seems as if no government official can be confident in bidding out programs and projects, when the threat of a lawsuit hangs over their heads,鈥� he said, citing suspended projects such as 鈥渉ealth centers, agricultural facilities, and other social services that would have redounded to the benefit鈥� of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao.
鈥楤别飞颈濒诲别谤别诲鈥�
鈥淓ventually, we may be able to find the funds for these projects. It would entail going to Congress, and requesting supplemental budgets鈥攁n already-lengthy process that may even be extended by obstructionists and oppositionists.鈥�
Aquino said he was 鈥渂ewildered鈥� with the high court鈥檚 ruling, questioning the 鈥渓ogic鈥� behind the justices saying that the 鈥淒AP redounded to a lot of good, but in the same breath, saying that as a method, it was bad.鈥�
He said the ruling came to be purportedly because the high tribunal 鈥渄id not so much as look at the Administrative Code of 1987, which, I should add is still constitutional in its entirety.鈥�