SC refuses to respond to Noy’s rant

MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court would rather address the issues raised by Malacañang in an appeal of the high court’s ruling against the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) than respond to President Aquino’s continued ranting over the court’s decision.

SC spokesman Theodore Te said the President’s arguments were the same ones spelled out in his motion for reconsideration (MR) contesting the high court’s decision issued last July.

“As the President himself has said in his speech, the matters he discussed are all in the MR filed by the government; the SC will address all matters raised in the various MRs when it renders it resolution on the MRs,” Te said in a text message to reporters.

Aquino, in his speech yesterday during the sesquicentennial birth anniversary of revolutionary hero Apolinario Mabini in Batangas, again censured the SC for its decision, saying even the magistrates had tried to use the DAP model to realign funds.

Shortly after the SC issued its ruling, Aquino made a televised defense of the DAP, saying the program has legal basis.

“We do not want two equal branches of government to go head to head, needing a third branch to step in to intervene,” Aquino said, in what his critics said was a veiled threat to the magistrates.

In an MR filed last July 18, the President – through the Office of the Solicitor General – said the SC itself had engaged in cross-border transfer of funds in 2012.

Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, as acting chief justice, allowed the allocation of P2.38 billion from existing savings for the construction of Manila City Hall of Justice, Cebu Court of Appeals and Cagayan de Oro Court of Appeals buildings.

The SC was also reported to have earmarked its existing savings of P1.865 billion to augment the P100-million budget for the Manila Hall of Justice, which is an item in the 2012 budget of the Department of Justice-Office of the Secretary. The DOJ is part of the executive department.

On March 5, 2013, the SC issued another resolution requesting the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) to approve the transfer of P100 million intended for the 2012 DOJ-Justice System Infrastructure Program (JUSIP) for the Manila City Hall of Justice to the budget of the judiciary – subject to existing budgeting policies and procedures – for use in the construction of the Malabon Hall of Justice.

The Palace noted that when petitions were filed against the DAP, Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno informed the DBM in a letter dated Dec. 23 last year, that the SC was withdrawing its request to realign the P100 million intended for the Manila Hall of Justice to the budget of the judiciary.

For Sen. Sergio Osmeña III, Aquino was being disrespectful and childish with his persistent denunciation of the SC decision.

“I was shocked. As a matter of fact when he said it two days in a row, I thought it was a disrespect of a constitutional arrangement that we have when we have three equal branches of government,” Osmeña said.

“That’s the way our democracy has been working and that’s the way it’s supposed to work. So what he did was not good,” he said.

“That was childish, in the first place. Why? Because a legal decision is not subject to a popularity vote. A referendum cannot overrule the Supreme Court,” he added.

“The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is legal or not legal, what is constitutional or not constitutional. There is no higher authority than the Supreme Court. We must learn to respect that,” he said.

Osmeña noted that even the appointees of the President to the high court had ruled against the DAP.

“It was a 13-0 decision. If we’re going to be realistic, the Court is not going to reverse itself after a 13-0 decision. Even the four appointees of President Aquino voted in the 13-0. So his political handlers were really off on that one,” Osmeña said.

He said the President’s treatment of the SC might embolden some groups and individuals to defy the rule of law.

“People will say when the President can openly defy the Supreme Court, who are we supposed to obey. Let me do my thing too. So people start disrespecting the law or the rule of law and that’s no good,” Osmeña said.

Congress as arbiter

As the animosity between the Palace and the judiciary over DAP deepens, Congress should immediately step in and break the impasse, Akbayan Rep. Ibarra Gutierrez said yesterday.

“The solution to the current debate on the proper extent of the executive branch’s power over the budget lies in legislation. Congress holds the power of the purse, and it is Congress that must lay down clearer and stronger rules defining the Palace’s power over the budget and savings,” he added.

Gutierrez, who is a lawyer, pointed out that the SC, in declaring parts of DAP as unconstitutional, has exposed the “shortcomings of the law.”

“Congress must now take up the challenge of bolstering it through new legislation. The SC decision made it apparent that there is a need for clarifying legislation,” he stressed.          – With Marvin Sy, Jess Diaz