Making of a dictator

PERRYSCOPE
Perry Diaz

Little did President Benigno “P-Noy” Aquino III know that after three years at the top of the world, reality seeped in and turned it upside down. And it happened just when he finished his longest State of the Nation Address (SONA) last July 2013 where he trumpeted his achievements in superlative terms. But since then, due to a series of unexpected events that threw his administration into disarray, P-Noy has been teetering on a tightrope of uncertainty about the future of his presidency.

After the quadruple whammy that hit him – pork barrel scam, earthquake in Bohol, super typhoon Yolanda/ Haiyan, and the Supreme Court decision on PDAF – it’s amazing that he is still standing up, which makes one wonder if he has the cojones to stay the course of his daang matuwid (straight path) that is beginning to look crooked after a series of scandals.

And there seems to be no end to it. It would appear that these setbacks had taken a huge toll on his ability to govern, which many believe may have been the reasons for the breakdown in leadership.

It did not then come as a surprise when Yolanda made landfall on Nov. 8 in the provinces of Samar and Leyte in the Central Visayas, the government was stricken with paralysis, unable to respond to the worst typhoon in recorded history.

Twenty-five-foot tidal waves struck at a speed of 195 miles per hour, obliterating coastal towns in minutes and deluging the interior with flash floods, and claiming more than 5,000 lives.

Had it not been for the timely assistance from other countries and international relief organizations, the destruction to lives and property could have been worse. But the big task ahead is the rehabilitation of the typhoon victims, which would require a great deal of time and lots and lots of money.

To deal with the cost of rehabilitation, P-Noy certified as urgent a P14.6-billion supplemental budget bill that would realign the legislators’ pork barrel allocations that have been suspended as a result of the Supreme Court’s ruling that the pork barrel system is unconstitutional.

And this brings to mind P-Noy’s discretionary funds – or presidential pork barrel — of P1.3 trillion that he could realign or redirect any which way he wants. He doesn’t need legislation to realign or redirect any portion of his pork barrel.

After the discovery of the pork barrel scam involving a number of legislators, there is now an inherent suspicion every time pork barrel funds are allocated. Where is the money going? Who is getting kickbacks? The scam’s enormity sparked a nationwide protest against the pork barrel system. And calls for its abolition may have influenced the Supreme Court to declare – on a 14-0 vote — the PDAF unconstitutional.

The high court’s ruling is a major setback for P-Noy who had seemingly used the pork barrel system as a tool in his “carrot and stick” approach in pursuing his legislative agenda. He can decrease or withhold the pork barrel of any legislator who opposed his bidding.

Indeed, the pork barrel system had become the linchpin of P-Noy’s administration. Since he took over the presidency in 2010, PDAF increased considerably. Department of Budget and Management (DBM) records show that in 2010, Gloria’s last budget year, PDAF was P6.9 billion.

The following year, with P-Noy having full control of the budget, PDAF allocations took a quantum leap. In 2011, PDAF more than tripled from 2010’s P6.9 billion to P22.3 billion! In 2012, it was increased to P24.89 billion. In 2013, it remained the same as 2012. In 2014, the PDAF would have been increased to a record P27 billion had the Supreme Court not ruled against it.

But this is not the end of patronage politics. The Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) works the same way as PDAF except that the money that funded DAP was taken from the “savings” in budget items. However, these “savings” may not be real savings but rather unused funds that were taken out of a budget item that was realigned, redirected, terminated prematurely or decreased in order to generate “savings.”

These “savings” can then be redirected to DAP, which P-Noy can then use just like the way he would dispense with PDAF funds. It’s his personal pork barrel that cannot be audited by the Commission on Audit (COA) or questioned by Congress.

For example, if Congress allocates a lump sum in the amount of $10 billion to budget item X, P-Noy can then realign P5 billion to budget item A, P3 billion to budget item B, and P2 billion to budget item C. Later on, P-Noy can terminate budget item A; thus, creating a “savings” of P5 billion, which he can then redirect to DAP. The same process can be used for budget items B and C. Ultimately, the original lump sum of P10 billion would end up in DAP. Call it slick, but it smacks of legerdemain.

There have been some reports that the Supreme Court would soon declare DAP constitutional. The latest report (Manila Bulletin, November 20, 2013) said that House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. was confident that the Supreme Court would proclaim DAP constitutional. He said that he sees nothing wrong with P-Noy exercising his power to use savings for other priority programs.

Meanwhile, the Philippine Star (November. 22, 2013) reported that Vice President Jejomar “Jojo” Binay said, “With the declaration [by the Supreme Court] of PDAF as unconstitutional, it is now very difficult not to also declare DAP as unconstitutional.”

But rumor has it that six of the 15 Supreme Court Justices are inclined to vote that DAP is constitutional. They are the following: the four P-Noy appointees, Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno and Justices Bienvenido Reyes, Estela Perlas-Bernabe, MarvicLeonen and Justices Mariano del Castillo and Presbitero Velasco Jr.

The question is: Why would Bernabe vote for the constitutionality of DAP when she was the one who penned the ruling that PDAF was unconstitutional? She can use against DAP some — if not most — of the arguments she used against PDAF. But the high court has been known to make rulings that don’t make any sense.

And this is where politics comes into play. Could it be that the high court rejected PDAF and then declare DAP constitutional as a favor to P-Noy? If the high court declares DAP unconstitutional, it would totally deprive P-Noy of funds in which he has sole discretion to spend in any program or project he wants. And the worst part is that without PDAF and DAP, P-Noy would be a lame duck for the rest of his term and he’d lose the loyalty of his allies in Congress.

On the other hand, if the high court rules that DAP were constitutional, it would change the way the government operates. DAP would make P-Noy a virtual dictator with the “power of the purse” exclusively his. And with the power to realign or redirect budget items without congressional authorization, P-Noy would have unlimited access to funds in the national budget and dispense them with no restrictions.

Within the next few weeks, the Supreme Court will issue a ruling on the constitutionality of DAP. If the high court rules that DAP is constitutional, the country would witness a spectacular event: the making of a dictator.(PerryDiaz@gmail.com)