THE battle lines have been drawn. On one side, high caliber apologists have been harnessed to justify the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) of Noynoy Aquino and Butch Abad, in the face of the Supreme Court decision decreeing it unconstitutional.
On the other side are a mixture of well-meaning individuals, sharp legal minds, political enemies, Aquino haters and a sensationalist media calling for the impeachment of Aquino or, at the very least, the scalp of Abad.
One such stout defense was posed by my advertising colleague, Yoly Ong, in a piece carried by Rappler:
“Woodrow Wilson once said, ‘If you want to make enemies, try to change something.’ No one can attest to the veracity of this statement better than President Aquino and DBM Secretary Butch Abad.
“’When we assumed office in 2010, we were confronted with inefficiencies and bottlenecks in the bureaucracy – the delayed implementation of priority programs and projects and inefficient disbursements among others – so that growth contracted for three quarters in 2011.
“’With this, we introduced the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) as a reform intervention to accelerate public spending and boost the economy. This program made way for the remarkable improvement in government expenditure making a significant improvement in GDP growth which rose to as high as 7.6% last year,’ explained Abad.
“Indeed, not even the most irrational detractor can diminish the economic gains and credit rating upgrades that the country attained only under this administration, partly due to the polemic DAP.”
And Ong added:
“As early as December 2013, the economic team composed of Secretary Abad, Finance Secretary Cesar Purisima and NEDA Secretary Arsenio Balicasan recommended the termination of DAP as written in a memo to the President.
“’All economic and fiscal indicators point to the conclusion that DAP has achieved its objective as a fiscal stimulus measure. We thus recommend for His Excellency’s consideration, the termination of DAP as well as the vigorous implementation of budgetary reform measures to ensure the irreversibility of reforms.’”
In sum, reasoned Ong, the DAP was meant for a good cause, was used for a good cause, resulted in benefits for the country and, having already been put to good use, has been discontinued. So, what’s the beef?
What Ong conveniently overlooked in her treatise were the questionable disbursements among them, the alleged bribes to impeach Chief Justice Renato Corona exposed by Jinggoy Estrada – disbursements confirmed by Abad himself, although purportedly for less felonious reasons.
Ong also did not address the continued resistance of Aquino and Abad to an immediate, complete, unexpurgated accounting of all the DAP funds so far disbursed, as well as those left in the kitty.
Finally, Ong leaves us to wrestle with a moral dilemma. Can the end justify the means? Can a violation of the Constitution be excused because of good faith and good intentions?
At any rate, Bobit Tiglao, in his column in the Manila Times, belied the benefits ostensibly resulting from the DAP, while pointing out that the enlightened economic policies of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo were the main reason for the subsequent “economic gains and credit rating upgrades” being claimed by the Aquino administration.
The truth, of course, may lie in-between. The perception of a serious effort by the new Aquino administration to rid the government of corruption must certainly have caused the enlightened policies of a graft-ridden Arroyo tenure to finally yield their intended benefits. Aquino can most certainly claim credit for that.
Those still sympathetic with Aquino have tended to pile the blame on Abad, characterizing him as “the evil genius,” the consigliere or even the Rasputin who led Aquino down a crooked path disguised as Daang Matuwid.
While the critics are understandably upset over Aquino’s stubborn and self-righteous defense of the DAP and the way Abad has used the president as shield and shock absorber, the use of the Mafiosi and the Czarist labels may be too unkind.
First of all, I do not believe that either Aquino or Abad, when they decided to implement the DAP, was motivated by an evil scheme to cheat the Filipino people of billions – or even of a few thousands – to enrich themselves and to arrogate unbridled power unto themselves. I am convinced that they were motivated by a sincere desire to get things done fast, efficiently and with little chance for crooks to get in the way.
After all, didn’t Aquino and his reform-minded cabinet virtually put a halt to major public works projects and brought the much-heralded Public-Private-Partnership program to a crawl in order to cleanse the systems of rats, snakes and crocodiles?
I think Aquino and Abad may have seen too many Dirty Harry movies. The trigger happy San Francisco police inspector portrayed by Clint Eastwood, believed in eliminating suspected criminals extra-judicially. For him, doing things by the book was too inefficient, too cumbersome, and it often allowed criminals to get away. One can almost hear Aquino and Abad discussing the fate of the country’s budget.
Aquino: How do we make sure these billions are put to good use and not hijacked by crooked members of Congress?
Abad: The only way is to do it our way.
Aquino: How’s that?
Abad: We take over the funds and we take care of disbursing them.
At this point, a more knowledgeable president would have asked, “Is that legal?” But then, nobody ever expected Noynoy Aquino to be that knowledgeable. Remember, we elected him for his perceived honesty and in honor of his mother. Besides, wasn’t Abad his most trusted adviser? And didn’t Abad have a reputation for honesty, integrity and perspicacity?
Of course, Abad could also have told Aquino that what they were planning to do was a violation of the Constitution. Well, did he? Or did he think that was too complicated for Aquino to appreciate?
But what about the millions given to the senators who cooperated in impeaching Corona? Didn’t Aquino and Abad think there was something wrong with that?
But then, wasn’t it for a good cause? After all, Corona was a virtual pothole, an obstacle on Aquino’s Straight Path of governance. He had to be impeached.
And presidential spokesman Lacierda had a final argument in favor of distributing P50 million, more or less, to the cooperative senators. That accounted for a mere 9% of the total DAP funds. Apparently, small change in Malacañang’s view.
In a recent press release, Alan Peter Cayetano, a senator and a lawyer and one who claims to be a champion of honesty and integrity in public service, posed a classic problem. Said, he, “The government will be decimated if they jail everyone who does something unconstitutional.”
We must admit, that is a horrible prospect. Of course, Cayetano must have known, in the back of his mind, that such a terrible occurrence is unlikely because there is a built-in safety valve in our system of justice. It’s called selective prosecution. Only the opposition and the small fry are jailed.
* * *
