From RTVMalacanang Youtube account
Malaca帽ang鈥檚 claims that President Benigno Aquino is empowered by Section 49 of the 1987 Administrative Code to use savings on priority activities that promote economic well-being have drawn criticism from the country鈥檚 foremost experts on constitutional law.
鈥淎ny freshman student of law will know that when you interpret a statutory provision, you always do so in harmony with the Constitution,鈥� Fr. Ranhilio C. Aquino, dean of the San Beda Graduate School of Law, said in reference to the legal basis the Palace had invoked for its Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), which the Supreme Court has declared unconstitutional.
鈥淎nd therefore, any construal of this particular provision of the Administrative Code must be consistent with Article VI, Section 25 of the Constitution and other relevant provisions of the fundamental law. You don鈥檛 ever make a statute qualify the Constitution,鈥� Aquino said on his Facebook account.
鈥淲hatever the grant of power the Administrative Code may seem to afford the President, such a statutory provision must always be read in consonance with the Constitution, and never against it. That is a fundamental rule of legal hermeneutics. So the code says that the President can use savings to fund priority projects, that should be read with the proviso: Provided constitutional requirements are fulfilled, owing to the simple and ineluctable fact that the Constitution is the fundamental law.鈥�
Aquino explained that while Section 49 referred to savings what the Supreme Court鈥檚 decision on the DAP听 鈥減recisely declares [was] that what [the President] classified as 鈥榮avings鈥� were not really savings as understood in constitutional law.鈥�
鈥淣o matter how enlightened鈥攐r benighted鈥攐ne鈥檚 reading of the law is, under our scheme of appropriation of powers, legal consistency is a judicial function! Isn鈥檛 that rather simple?鈥� he said.
听
Bernas view
Also on his Facebook account, Fr. Joaquin Bernas said the Administrative Code and other statutes and executive orders crafted before the enactment of the 1987 Constitution must be compatible with the Charter in order to remain in effect.
Bernas, like Aquino, cited Article VI, Section 25 which says: 鈥淣o 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.鈥�
鈥淭o understand the constitutional provision one must know that the budget for the various offices consists of听 鈥榠tems.鈥� An item is an amount of money to be used for a specific purpose. When the purpose of the item has been achieved and some money is still left over, such leftover is the 鈥渟aving鈥� which may be transferred to augment other items in the budget for the same office,鈥� said Bernas, a member of the commission that drafted the 1987 Constitution.
He added that under the General Appropriations Act, three instances may give rise to savings.听 These are balances 鈥渟till available after the completion or final discontinuance or abandonment of the work, activity or purpose for which the appropriation is authorized; from appropriations balances arising from unpaid compensation and related costs pertaining to vacant positions and leaves of absence without pay; and from appropriations balances realized from the implementation of measures resulting in improved systems and efficiencies and thus enabled agencies to meet and deliver the required or planned targets, programs and services approved in this Act at a lesser cost.鈥�
鈥淭here is no authorization for what is called听 鈥榗ross border transfer,鈥� that is, the transfer of savings in one office or department to another office or department. Thus savings in the President鈥檚 budget may not be moved to other departments or offices, e.g., to Congress, to the judiciary, or to a constitutional commission.听 Section 49 cannot fit into this constitutional limitation,鈥� Bernas argued.
Both Bernas and Aquino said the Supreme Court justices who declared the DAP unconstitutional were aware of Section 49.
Yellow cheerleaders
Aquino also criticized supporters of the President, whom he called the 鈥淵ellow Cheerleaders,鈥� for citing Aquino鈥檚 accomplishments, the corruption of his predecessors and the jailing of opposition senators in the administration鈥檚 arguments supporting the DAP.
鈥淏ut that is not the point, dearies!听 The point is whether or not the DAP is consistent with the Constitution. Now, if you are willing to say,听 鈥楧amn, the Constitution,鈥� then I ask:听 Are you willing to accept the consequences of sweeping aside the Constitution? No Bill of Rights, no recourse against the strong hand of the State, no checks and balances, and what [Mr. Aquino] says is the law?鈥� he said.
RELATED STORIES
SC declares parts of DAP unconstitutional
Aquino approved P177B for DAP, memos show
