PNoy transfers power to approve reclamation projects to NEDA | News | GMA News Online

see- PNoy transfers power to approve reclamation projects to NEDA | News | GMA News Online


"x x x.

President Benigno Aquino III has transferred the power to approve all reclamation projects from the Philippine Reclamation Authority (PRA) to the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA).

“The power of the President to approve reclamation projects is hereby delegated to the NEDA Board,” Aquino, who chairs NEDA as President, said in Executive Order No. 146.

The bureaucratic move comes at a time of rising opposition to a plan to reclaim a large portion of Manila Bay, a project supported by Mayor Joseph Estrada, a former Philippine president.

Opponents have denounced the reclamation as an environmental risk and have raised the specter of storm surge in  the heart of Manila, the fresh image of Yolanda's victims coming to mind.

In 2006, then-President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo issued EO 543 delegating the power of the President to approve reclamation projects to the PRA.

Aquino, however, said there is “a need to ensure that reclamation initiatives or projects are coordinated and integrated at the national and regional levels of development planning and programming, consistent with established national priorities of the government, and synchronized with development planning, programming, and budgeting.”

According to its website, NEDA is “the country’s independent economic development and planning agency.” It is headed by the President as chairman of its board, with the Secretary of Socio-Economic Planning, concurrently NEDA Director-General, as vice-chairman. Some Cabinet members, the Central Bank Governor, ARMM and ULAP are also members of the board.

In need of NEDA approval

The EO said that NEDA Board approval shall specifically required for:

• reclamation projects initiated/proposed by PRA or any government entity allowed under existing laws to reclaim land;
• reclamation projects initiated by the private sector/entity through PRA, local government units, or other government agencies authorized to reclaim land;
• reclamations/reclamation components of respective development projects of such agencies mandated to reclaim under their respective charters such as but limited to the Philippine Ports Authority, Laguna Lake Development Authority, Bases Conversion and Development Authority, Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority, Philippine Veterans Investment Corporation, Department of Public Works and Highways; and National Power Corporation.

But Aquino said the PRA will continue to process, evaluate, and recommend the approval of all proposed reclamation projects. He also said that except for the power to approve reclamation projects, all other powers, functions, and mandates of PRA shall be retained.

PRA welcomes EO

In a statement, the PRA Board said it welcomes the EO because it “assures that every reclamation initiative is coordinated and integrated in the national and regional levels of development planning.”

It explained that the EO just “formalizes” the approval protocol that it has been following.

“In parallel with the PRA’s stringent 5-stage approval process and due diligence in projects that are crucial to development, this EO will guarantee that every approved reclamation project will be consistent with established national priorities of the government,” it said.

With Aquino's EO, the PRA Board said it can now focus on its other duties, including evaluating project proposals, conducting technical studies, and seeking clearances from other government agencies. — KBK, GMA News x x xx."

Wider inquiry of pork misuse up | Inquirer News

see - Wider inquiry of pork misuse up | Inquirer News


"x x x.

The country’s chief prosecutors will begin to discuss on Friday how they will undertake the Supreme Court directive last week for the executive department to undertake a wider investigation of the misuse of lawmakers’ pork barrel, Justice Secretary Leila De Lima said on Tuesday.

De Lima said the high-level meeting she called at the Department of Justice would include all her undersecretaries and assistant secretaries, Prosecutor General Claro Arellano and National Bureau of Investigation officer in charge Medardo De Lemos.

“I told them to read carefully the SC directive before the meeting and also come up with complete proposals on how to go about that another gargantuan task,” she told reporters.

She said she also intended to call on Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales to find out the “division of labor” in the task assigned to them by the high court. This was aimed at preventing work duplication or overlap, De Lima added.

Last week, the high court, in voting to declare the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) for this year as well as previous pork barrel allocations as unconstitutional, asked all prosecutorial arms of the government to conduct a wider probe of the misuse of the funds and to prosecute those involved.

x x x."

Read more: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/535513/wider-inquiry-of-pork-misuse-up#ixzz2lrluBPOt
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

SC declares PDAF unconstitutional | Inquirer News

see - SC declares PDAF unconstitutional | Inquirer News


"x x x.

MANILA, Philippines—Voting 14-0, the Supreme Court on Tuesday declared as unconstitutional the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) or “pork barrel.”

In the decision authored by Associate Justice Estela Perlas Bernabe, the high court declared as unconstitutional the entire 2013 PDAF.

The high court also nullifies “all legal provisions of past and present Congressional Pork Barrel laws, such as the previous PDAF and Countrywide Development Fund (CDF) articles and the various Congressional Insertions, which authorize/d legislators-whether individually or collectively organized into committees—to intervene, assume or participate in any of the various post-enactment stages of the budget execution.”

At the same time, the high court also nullified the laws that provided lawmakers lump-sum allocations to fund their chosen projects.

“All informal practices of similar import and effect, which the Court similarly deems to be acts of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of discretion,” are also declared void.

“Accordingly the Court’s temporary injunction dated Sept. 10, 2013 is hereby declared to be permanent. Thus, the disbursement/release of the remaining PDAF funds allocated for the year 2013, as well as for all previous years…are hereby enjoined,” the high court said.

The high court ordered the Department of Justice and the Office of the Ombudsman to investigate and file the needed cases against all government officials as well as private individuals involved in the improper disbursement of PDAF.

Among those who separately petitioned the court to scrap the PDAF system are losing senatorial candidates Samson Alcantara and Greco Belgica.

Petitioners pointed out that the system on discretionary funds of both Congress and Malacañang violated the constitutional limits given to the executive and the legislative because they were able to spend money beyond what was approved by Congress “since these are lump sum funds.”

On the other hand, the government through the Office of the Solicitor General said the high court has upheld the constitutionality of the PDAF system in previous cases, including LAMP vs. DBM.

Below is a copy of the Supreme Court ruling:

Part 3

Part 1

Part 2

Related stories

‘Solons sold their PDAF’

What is PDAF?

Pro-pork lawmakers tell foes: PDAF a matter of choice

Read more: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/530223/sc-declares-pdaf-unconstitutional#ixzz2l4XJE7LD
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

x x x."

raissa robles | Why President Aquino can’t declare Martial Law in Tacloban

see - raissa robles | Why President Aquino can’t declare Martial Law in Tacloban


"x x x.

Just my opinion

by Raïssa Robles

Forget Martial Law.

But President Benigno Aquino may be able to declare a “state of emergency”. I will explain that at the end of this piece.

UPDATE: 12:36 pm of Monday, Noevember 11, 2013

A state of emergency has just been declared and a curfew imposed in Tacloban City.

Aquino will not declare Martial Law in typhoon-ravaged Tacloban City.

He can’t.

Not unless Tacloban residents stage a rebellion, such as declare themselves an independent state or take up arms against the government.

The present Philippine Constitution clearly states that Martial Law can only be declared by the sitting President under two circumstances -

ONE – in case of invasion
TWO – when there is a rebellion

But there is another condition super-imposed: only when “the public safety requires it” during an ongoing invasion or rebellion.

All these were safeguards imposed after the Marcos dictatorship’s abuse of martial law powers. And by the way, it would be highly ironic if Aquino declared Martial Law on an island that gave birth to some of the power players of the 1972 Martial Law – Imelda Romualdez-Marcos and her brother Benjamin “Kokoy” Romualdez. And whose clan continues to rule the province.

It was for this reason that in December 2009, following the Maguindanao massacre, then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s government had to go through the rigmarole of claiming the Ampatuans had staged a rebellion. This was in order to justify Arroyo’s declaration of Martial Law there.

You can read about it more by going to this link. The Ampatuan family’s rebellion case has since been tossed out by the court.

Can Aquino declare a “state of emergency” then?

That is a gray area in the Constitution which simply states -

“The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of allarmed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion.”

But notice the phrase “lawless violence”. The Constitution does not define what kind of violence there has to be in order to justify the calling of the armed forces. It is left to presidential discretion.

x x x."

Passage of local Lemon Law pushed | Tempo - News in a Flash

see - Passage of local Lemon Law pushed | Tempo - News in a Flash


"x x x.

Las Piñas City Representative Mark A. Villar has re-filed a legislation that aims to strengthen consumer protection, particularly that of buyers of motor vehicles which fail to meet the standards of quality and performance. He recently filed House Bill No. 3199 or “Lemon Law of 2013.”

The bill seeks to adopt the Philippine version of the US lemon law, with provisions appropriate to the country’s setting.

“Owning a motor vehicle is a big investment and could take a substantial chunk of one’s savings. But for some unfortunate buyers, such investment amounts to nothing after they acquired a “lemon” or those vehicles that fail to meet the standards of quality and performance,” said Villar.

In the explanatory note of his proposed bill, Villar cited that the lemon law originated in the United States. It was crafted primarily to return to the consumer the full value of his money. Among others, it provides that if a manufacturer or its authorized dealer cannot successfully repair a defective product within a reasonable number of repair attempts, the manufacturer must either promptly replace or repurchase the product.

“If the car has been repaired four or more times for the same defect within the warranty or Lemon Law Rightsperiod, yet the same non-conformity or defect continues to exist or the car is out of service due to repair for a cumulative total of 30 calendar day, the car qualifies as a lemon,” Villar said.

x x x."

Right against self-incrimination - G.R. No. 136051

see - G.R. No. 136051


"x x x.

Petitioners argue that the Court of Appeals gravely erred when it found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to recognize petitioners Oscar Mapalo and Chito Rosete’s constitutional right against self-incrimination when, through its Orders dated 22 July 1997 and 27 August 1997, it allowed and scheduled the taking of their depositions by way of oral examination.  They explain they refuse to give their depositions due to the pendency of two criminal cases against them, namely, Batasan Pambansa Blg. 22 and Estafa, because their answers would expose them to criminal action or liability since they would be furnishing evidence against themselves in said criminal cases. They allege there can be no doubt that the questions to be asked during the taking of the deposition would revolve around the allegations in the complaint in the civil case which are identical to the allegations in the complaint-affidavits in the two criminal cases, thus, there is a tendency to incriminate both Oscar Mapalo and Chito Rosete.  Moreover, they explain that while an ordinary witness may be compelled to take the witness stand and claim the privilege against self-incrimination as each question requiring an incriminating answer is shot at him, an accused may altogether refuse to answer any and all questions because the right against self-incrimination includes the right to refuse to testify.

In short, petitioners Mapalo and Chito Rosete refuse to have their depositions taken in the civil case because they allegedly would be incriminating themselves in the criminal cases because the testimony that would be elicited from them may be used in the criminal cases.  As defendants in the civil case, it is their claim that to allow their depositions to be taken would violate their constitutional right against self-incrimination because said right includes the right to refuse to take the witness stand.

In order to resolve this issue, we must determine the extent of a person’s right against self-incrimination.  A person’s right against self-incrimination is enshrined in Section 17, Article III of the 1987 Constitution which reads: “No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.” 

The right against self-incrimination is accorded to every person who gives evidence, whether voluntary or under compulsion of subpoena, in any civil, criminal or administrative proceeding.  The right is not to be compelled to be a witness against himself.  It secures to a witness, whether he be a party or not, the right to refuse to answer any particular incriminatory question, i.e., one the answer to which has a tendency to incriminate him for some crime.  However, the right can be claimed only when the specific question, incriminatory in character, is actually put to the witness.  It cannot be claimed at any other time.  It does not give a witness the right to disregard a subpoena, decline to appear before the court at the time appointed, or to refuse to testify altogether.  The witness receiving a subpoena must obey it, appear as required, take the stand, be sworn and answer questions.  It is only when a particular question is addressed to which may incriminate himself for some offense that he may refuse to answer on the strength of the constitutional guaranty.[57]

As to an accused in a criminal case, it is settled that he can refuse outright to take the stand as a witness.  In People v. Ayson,[58] this Court clarified the rights of an accused in the matter of giving testimony or refusing to do so.  We said:

An accused “occupies a different tier of protection from an ordinary witness.”  Under the Rules of Court, in all criminal prosecutions the defendant is entitled among others—

1) to be exempt from being a witness against himself, and

2) to testify as witness in his own behalf; but if he offers himself as a witness he may be cross-examined as any other witness; however, his neglect or refusal to be a witness shall not in any manner prejudice or be used against him.

            The right of the defendant in a criminal case “to be exempt from being a witness against himself” signifies that he cannot be compelled to testify or produce evidence in the criminal case in which he is the accused, or one of the accused.  He cannot be compelled to do so even by subpoena or other process or order of the Court.  He cannot be required to be a witness either for the prosecution, or for a co-accused, or even for himself.  In other words – unlike an ordinary witness (or a party in a civil action) who may be compelled to testify by subpoena, having only the right to refuse to answer a particular incriminatory question at the time it is put to him – the defendant in a criminal action can refuse to testify altogether.  He can refuse to take the witness stand, be sworn, answer any question. Xx x (Underscoring supplied.)                

It is clear, therefore, that only an accused in a criminal case can refuse to take the witness stand.  The right to refuse to take the stand does not generally apply to parties in administrative cases or proceedings. The parties thereto can only refuse to answer if incriminating questions are propounded.  This Court applied the exception – a party who is not an accused in a criminal case is allowed not to take the witness stand – in administrative cases/proceedings that partook of the nature of a criminal proceeding or analogous to a criminal proceeding.[59]  It is likewise the opinion of the Court that said exception applies to parties in civil actions which are criminal in nature.  As long as the suit is criminal in nature, the party thereto can altogether decline to take the witness stand.  It is not the character of the suit involved but the nature of the proceedings that controls.[60]        

In the Ayson case, it is evident that the Court treats a party in a civil case as an ordinary witness, who can invoke the right against self-incrimination only when the incriminating question is propounded.  Thus, for a party in a civil case to possess the right to refuse to take the witness stand, the civil case must also partake of the nature of a criminal proceeding.

In the present controversy, the case is civil it being a suit for Annulment, Specific Performance with Damages.  In order for petitioners to exercise the right to refuse to take the witness stand and to give their depositions, the case must partake of the nature of a criminal proceeding.  The case on hand certainly cannot be categorized as such.  The fact that there are two criminal cases pending which are allegedly based on the same set of facts as that of the civil case will not give them the right to refuse to take the witness stand and to give their depositions. They are not facing criminal charges in the civil case.  Like an ordinary witness, they can invoke the right against self-incrimination only when the incriminating question is actually asked of them.  Only if and when incriminating questions are thrown their way can they refuse to answer on the ground of their right against self-incrimination.

x x x."

Rethinking the functions of Congress | Inquirer Opinion

see - Rethinking the functions of Congress | Inquirer Opinion


"x x x.

Seeing how closely our congressmen and senators guard their power to recommend projects for their districts and constituencies, I wonder if the pork barrel issue is not mainly a problem of expectations about the functions of Congress. It appears that a good majority of the members of Congress do in fact see their role primarily in terms of how they can maximize their share of the pork barrel. In turn, voters tend to assess the performance of lawmakers mostly on the basis of how much in direct material benefits they can deliver.

It looks to me that this mindset is what permits our political leaders, including President Aquino himself, to argue that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF). What is wrong, they say, is the diversion of these public funds into the private pockets of lawmakers and their partners. Thus, what is derisively called patronage politics is not necessarily bad. It is just the way politics is conducted, given the realities of our society.

This view of our political system overlooks two things. The first is that this is not how the legislature’s function is described in the Constitution. The 1987 Constitution, like the ones that came before it, is remarkable in its modernity. It carefully differentiates the various functions of government and assigns these to separate and autonomous branches, thus creating a system of checks and balances. Accordingly, Congress passes laws, the Executive administers and enforces the laws, and the Judiciary resolves conflicts by issuing binding interpretations of the laws.

It is, of course, foolish to think that a constitution is self-executing. We have seen how the clearest constitutional provisions can be differently interpreted at different times by political leaders and magistrates alike. Some parts of a constitution may sometimes appear too advanced for the kind of society that exists, posing problems of incompatibility. Still, it is useful to think of a constitution as a set of guidelines and aspirations that a nation has to keep in mind if it is to stabilize its internal and external relationships. It is not unusual for a society, in the course of its evolution, to find itself becoming more faithful to its constitution. This is particularly true in countries that borrowed their institutions from their former colonial masters.

I think we have precisely come to that point where citizens feel they should not need the mediation of patrons to access public goods and services. I believe Filipinos have begun to see that the culture of patronage is an obstacle to democracy. Nowadays we see our people falling in line and patiently waiting for their turn. They protest when others jump the line or demand undue exemption from the rules. On this view, the PDAF is emblematic of that “datu-sakop” culture that treated the individual as unworthy of attention unless he/she was somehow connected to a chieftain.

But the second thing that the defenders of the PDAF cannot seem to understand is that the pork barrel system has become so vulnerable to abuse that it has become practically synonymous to corruption. How and when did this happen?

I think this happened more or less at the same time that the political order opened its doors to players from outside the traditional governing classes. The ethic of delicadeza or personal honor that constrained leaders in traditional society vanished almost overnight. New politicians saw public office as a lucrative occupation rather than as a vocation, spending huge sums of money to win positions whose functions they knew nothing about.

From being merely a tool of patronage, the pork barrel quickly morphed into a bottomless source of corruption. As electoral runs became more costly, the siphoning of public funds from pork barrel allocations became more vicious. Syndicates, like the nongovernment organizations linked to Janet Lim-Napoles that specialized in the systematic conversion of the PDAF into cash, proliferated. They bribed their way through the control system of the bureaucracy. They were untouchable because their principal clients—congressmen and senators—did not hesitate to deploy their considerable influence and powers to subdue any effort to audit them.

This system has long become dysfunctional as a means of delivering goods and services to remote communities and underserved constituencies. It has outlived its usefulness and cannot be reformed.

If public pressure against the pork barrel system is sustained, two good things can happen. The first is the more careful crafting of the national budget, entailing an expanded bottom-up-budgeting process that engages the various development councils and stakeholders at all levels of government. Hand in hand with this would be the empowerment of professional civil servants and their insulation from political interference.

The second desired outcome is perhaps more important. And that is the long overdue redefinition of the legislative function. Between a Congress that acts primarily as a dispenser of patronage and a Congress that styles itself as a deliberative body answering to a higher rationality, there is room for a legislature whose lawmaking and oversight function closely follows the day-to-day administration of government and its impact on the public. To me, the main function of such a Congress is to ensure the political system’s adequacy to the growing complexity of its environment.

This is serious, demanding work, not a part-time job for boxers, movie actors, TV hosts, and businessmen.

public.lives@gmail.com

x x x."

Read more: http://opinion.inquirer.net/64361/rethinking-the-functions-of-congress#ixzz2jvl0LCCr
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

Aquino ‘likely to face ouster over special fund’

see - Aquino ‘likely to face ouster over special fund’


"x x x.

President Benigno Aquino may have had noble intentions when he approved the implementation of the Disbursement Acceleration Programme (DAP) but the controversial scheme may yet lead to his downfall, according to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).


Vicente Joyas, IBP president, yesterday said that if the Supreme Court (SC) declares DAP unconstitutional, the president may be held liable for technical malversation, a solid ground for impeachment.


“That (technical malversation) is a ground for impeachment. They may be prosecuted for technical malversation and COA (Commission on Audit) shall require the return of the funds (released through DAP),” Joyas told Manila Times.


Last month, the IBP filed the fifth petition against DAP and asked the SC to order COA to conduct an immediate audit of the programme and disallow all public money spent through it.


Other petitions were separately filed by former Iloilo representative Augusto Syjuco, Manuelito Luna, Jose Malvar Villegas and the Philippine Constitution Association (Philconsa). Militant groups also filed a similar case before the High Court.


Joyas clarified that the IBP is not one of the proponents of the People’s Initiative campaign for the enactment of a budget reform law being pushed by former chief justice Reynato Puno. He said his group is more inclined at present to try out the judicial route to having DAP scrapped and declared illegal.


A magistrate of the High Court confirmed that criminal charges can be filed against Aquino, Budget Secretary Florencio “Butch” Abad, Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa and Senate President Franklin Drilon over DAP.


The Justice, who spoke on condition of anonymity, claimed that due to the strength of the arguments in various petitions against DAP, the government officials may face charges of malversation or even plunder.


However, he said that the ruling of the SC en banc will determine the fate of Aquino and his men and whether or not they should be held criminally liable.


The magistrate said that the transfer of funds from one branch of government to another is illegal “per se.”


“The president is empowered under the 1987 Constitution to realign funds. But the big question is can he transfer it from the Executive Department to the Legislative Department?” the justice asked.


He explained that a government official who is accountable for keeping public funds may be found guilty of technical malversation once he or she transfers the funds from one office or one purpose to another.


“An ordinary government official who shall transfer funds from one hand to another is clearly committing technical malversation,” he told Manila Times.


The SC is set to deliberate on November 11, 2013, whether or not it will issue a temporary restraining order stopping the implementation of DAP.


Malacanang had admitted that it has released 9% of the total DAP budget to legislators, but maintained that there was no misuse of funds.


In 1977, the High Court nullified a similar budget programme introduced by former President Ferdinand Marcos. The tribunal voided a portion of Presidential Decree 1177 that gave Marcos leeway in realigning government funds because it “allows the president to override the safeguards, form and procedures prescribed by the Constitution in approving appropriations.”


“The nation has not recovered from the shock, and worse, the economic destitution brought about by the plundering of the Treasury by the deposed dictator and his cohorts. A provision which allows even the slightest possibility of a repetition of this sad experience cannot remain written in our statute books,” the Court en banc, then led by the late chief justice Claudio Teehankee Sr, said. But Joyas said DAP can be nullified even without a precedent case.


“DAP can be voided for being unconstitutional not on the basis of (any) case . . .” he said.


Former Budget secretary Benjamin Diokno described the petition being pushed by the IBP and other groups before the SC as “the first best hope” to win the battle against DAP.


Anti-DAP petitioners argued that funds used for DAP officially contained in the National Budget Circular of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) cannot be considered as savings because “there could not be savings in the middle of a fiscal year, especially if the projects or programmes for which these funds were allocated by law, have not been completed, discontinued or abandoned.”


“The appropriations law becomes the law of the land, a product of the collective effort of the representatives of the people and the different government agencies. Not even Congress who passed it can alter the same, without undergoing the same tedious process of enacting a law. Such is the wisdom of our Constitution,” the petitioners said.


Records showed that fund releases through DAP also breached the P130bn mark as of last month.
“These funds that the DAP and the DBM 541 call as ‘savings’—the unreleased appropriations and unobligated allotments—are not actually savings following the strict formulation of the General Appropriation Laws passed by Congress through the years,” the petitioners added.


Besides Aquino, Ochoa and Abad were named as respondents in the petition which also sought a temporary restraining order on the DAP while their petition is being heard.


Malacanang previously said DAP was created in October 2011 to gather “savings” from slow-moving projects and use them for more important ones. Officials said DAP can be likened to the stimulus fund during the previous administrations which were used to spur economic growth. Election lawyer Romulo Macalintal also said DAP is unconstitutional because it is not in the General Appropriations Act, unlike the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF).

x x x.