Thoughts on DAP decision

President Aquino was being true to himself when he publicly expressed his dismay over the decision of the Supreme Court declaring certain portions of the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) unconstitutional.

He is not deferential to or awed by the so-called gods of Padre Faura.

Shortly after his proclamation as president, he declared at the outset he does not want to be sworn into office by then Chief Justice Renato Corona whose appointment to the tribunal’s top post he considered illegal.

That privilege went to then Senior Associate Justice and now Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales, who was rumored at that time in the legal circles to be at odds with Corona.

In the early days of his administration, Aquino did not hide his displeasure over the slow pace of justice in the country. He said court cases take from 10 to 12 years before they are resolved with finality.

Before a gathering of judges, lawyers and law enforcers in 2011, Aquino criticized, in the presence of Corona, the tribunal for being a stumbling block to good government and pointedly questioned Corona’s impartiality.

The in-your-face statements turned out to be the opening salvo for Corona’s impeachment and eventual removal from the tribunal.

With Corona out of the way, Aquino disregarded the tribunal’s “tradition of seniority” and appointed the most junior justice to head it.

Disappointment

The subliminal message of that unexpected appointment was he did not think any of the senior justices appointed by his predecessor is up to the challenge of improving our system of justice.

He reprised his disregard of the seniority rule in the judiciary by appointing the most junior member of the Sandiganbayan as its presiding justice when the position became vacant.

All these acts show that, in dealing with the judiciary, Aquino follows his instincts and is hardly influenced by or, worse, even goes against the advice, of his legal advisers.

Not being lawyer, he does not feel constrained by the attitudes or traditions that lawyers have been trained into observing when they deal with, legitimately or otherwise, with His Honor.

Given this frame of mind, it is not surprising that Aquino went public to express his disappointment with what he considers an unacceptable judgment on a budgetary measure that enabled the government to speed up the delivery of essential services to the public.

If similar statements were made by a less prominent person, he would have been quickly cited and penalized for contempt; if a lawyer were involved, he would have been suspended from the practice of law or disbarred.

The gods of Padre Faura have zero tolerance for criticism that, from their point of view, put them in a bad light.

Human error

Ahead of the motion for reconsideration that Aquino said the government will file on the DAP decision, some quarters have advised him to simply comply with it because it is right or correct.

Whether that decision, or for that matter, any decision of the tribunal, is right or wrong is a matter of perception. For the winning party, it is right. For the loser, it is wrong.

The justices are human beings, too. They have their own faults and shortcomings. They are not infallible or omniscient.

That is why the law allows the filing of motions for reconsideration on their decisions. These filings enable them to take a second look at their action and, if warranted, reverse themselves.

There is no shame in admitting misappreciation of facts or misinterpretation of laws. Justice is not about maintaining His Honor’s pride or reputation, but giving every man his due under the law.

Besides, a decision that may seem correct today may not be so several years from now. The tribunal’s rulings are not etched in stone.

On a number of occasions, the tribunal has set aside or modified earlier decisions either because the circumstances under which they were rendered have changed or there are compelling reasons that justify a different interpretation of the law.

Final word

The decision on congressional pork barrel clearly illustrates this point. In 1994, 2001 and 2012, the tribunal repeatedly declared this source of largesse of lawmakers as a valid exercise of legislative power.

But lo and behold, last year, in the wake of the exposé on the misuse of pork barrel funds through bogus NGOs, the tribunal had a change of heart and declared them unconstitutional.

The justices who voted thrice to declare them perfectly in order took a 180-degree turn and declared them contrary to the same Constitution they earlier said authorized it.

Whether the justices played to the gallery when they demonized pork barrel funds or did so in a sincere belief of its illegality is a question that will be left for history to answer.

Understandably, the lawmakers raised a howl about the loss of their beloved pork barrel funds and described the tribunal’s action as wrong. On the other hand, the people opposed to the lawmakers’ “piggy bank” hailed it as correct.

There is nothing in the Constitution that says we should obey the tribunal’s decisions because they are correct or presumed to be such.

They should be obeyed because they constitute the final word on legal disputes and therefore become part of the laws of the land that should be followed.

In all probability, the justices will not backtrack from their earlier decision to declare certain portions of DAP as unconstitutional. They would look ridiculous if they do a reprise of their turnaround on the pork barrel issue.

It is not far-fetched to speculate, though, that they may soften the adverse effects of their decision on projects that are currently being funded by DAP funds, the liability of officials who disbursed the money in good faith and other related concerns.

Like the pork barrel fund issue, the justices have their ears on the ground.

For comments, please send your e-mail to [email protected].