Seditious
- Written by Tribune Wires
- Monday, 25 August 2014 00:00
Why would President Aquino III seek
to weaken the Supreme Court? Has he gone mad? He already made Congress an
adjunct of the Presidency by usurping the congressional power of the
purse. Shouldn’t he be working for the strengthening of political
institutions as a way of making the country’s budding democracy stronger and
enduring?
If Mr. Aquino was truly committed to a system of government that is different from the authoritarian regime that the 1987 Constitution sought to replace, he should embrace, not fight, the Supreme Court decision that ruled his Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) unconstitutional.
The Philippine Constitutional Association (Philconsa) was right when it described as “seditious or treasonous” President Aquino’s motion for the Supreme Court to reconsider its unanimous ruling that the DAP is unconstitutional.
“To initiate or encourage any measure to subvert or undermine or spoil the enforcement of the unanimous decision of the Court applying and interpreting the Constitution is seditious or treasonous. It is a mutiny against the Constitution,” Philconsa warned.
Why should Mr. Aquino try to weaken the Judiciary, and consequently strengthen the Presidency, when the Philippine president is unquestionably already very powerful. In fact, the Philippine president is stronger than the President of the United States, the mightiest militarily and most democratic country on Planet Earth.
In a tripartite system of government – the Executive, the Legislature, and the Judiciary – the President, representing the Executive Department, is primus inter pares (a first among equals).
The President is the Commander-in-Chief of 129,780-strong armed forces of the Philippines. He commands a 196,245 police officers and men of the Philippine National Police. In most countries, peace and order is a local concern and thus implemented by local authorities. In the Philippines, the Philippine National Police is national in scope and hence under the direct
command and supervision of the President.
The President supervises all local government units – the 81 provinces, 144 cities, 1,490 municipalities, and 42,028 barangays.
The President is the country’s chief executive officer (CEO). He is the boss of some 1.2 million civil servants. Compare that with Congress’ 6,084 workers (one half of one percent of the entire bureaucracy, and with the Judiciary’s 25,247 justices and court employees, or about 2.1 percent of the entire bureaucracy.
The President commands an army and a national police. He controls the biggest chunk of government resources. Remember, he is just one individual exercising all these awesome powers. He can be a virtual dictator within the Executive Department. He can decide quickly and implement such decision promptly.
By contrast, the other co-equal branches of government – Congress and the Supreme Court – are collegial bodies. Decision-making is slow, oftentimes tedious, and decisions are arrived at through consensus. Notice, for example, how long it took the High Court to decide on the DAP issue.
Once a law is passed, Congress has no way of compelling the President to implement it; hence, the existence of many unfunded and unimplemented laws. Unless some concerned individuals or groups bring the case to the Supreme Court, there is no way such unimplemented laws may be enforced. Congress has no army of its own.
But even if the Supreme Court rules against the President, the High Court has no way of compelling the President to implement its decision. The Supreme Court, too, has no army of its own.
That is why honoring and respecting the rule of law is expected of all public officials. No less than the President has sworn to “uphold and defend” the Constitution of the Philippines.
Relative to the President, Congress is weaker because of its bicameral structure. In order to control Congress, all that the President has to do is control one of the two Houses of Congress. Mr. Aquino controls both Houses.
ON BUDGET MAKING AND IMPLEMENTATION, PHILIPPINE PRESIDENT IS MORE POWERFUL THAN THE US PRESIDENT
On budget making and implementation, the Philippine president is more powerful than the US president. First, the Philippine president has line-item veto power. Through it, the president may line out specific items in the General Appropriations Bill (GAB) and then sign the modified bill into law.
By comparison, the US President does not have line-item veto power. US Presidents have been asking for line-item veto power for a long time. It was in 1876, during President Grant’s term of office, that the line-item veto power was first raised before Congress. In 1996, the US Congress passed the Line Item Veto Act, which then President Clinton signed into law.
Several senators challenged it and raised the issue before the US Supreme Court, which found the law unconstitutional. The High Court ruled that the law violates the Presentment and Bicameral Clauses of the Constitution (Article I, Section 7, Clauses 2 and 3) that vests Congress with “all legislative powers.” Moreover, the “Non-delegation Doctrine” holds that one branch can’t transfer its constitutional powers to another branch or entity.
Second, in implementing the budget the Philippine president is not constrained by an Impoundment Control Act (ICA 1974), which the US president has to face. The ICA 1974 restricts the President’s power to impound appropriations.
The ICA 1974 gave the US President the power to both delay the expenditure of funds (deferral authority) and to cancel funds (rescission authority). But, to rescind funds, the President needs congressional concurrence within 45 days. In practice, Congress has ignored most Presidential requests to cancel funds.
Third, under existing Philippine budget rules, the budget of the previous year is automatically reenacted should Congress fail to approve the ensuing budget before the start of the fiscal year. Hence, there does not exist any threat that government operations will come to a halt should Congress delay the passage of a new general appropriations act.
In reality, Congress may not hold the President hostage by threatening to stall budget approval. In the US, the threat of stalling the approval of the budget (s) [since the US Congress approves several disparate budgets], and hence closing down part of government, is all too real. It has happened before and it could happen again in the future.
The US President is subject to ‘blackmail’ by an uncooperative Congress; the Philippine President is not since the Constitution provides for the automatic reenactment of the previous budget pending approval of a new budget.
All the foregoing discussions point to one indisputable fact: the powers of the Philippine President vis-à-vis Congress and the Judiciary are, right now, quite awesome.
The Philippine president’s budget formulation and implementation powers are even more formidable than those of the US President.
Hence, Mr. Aquino’s obsession to weaken the Supreme Court, and by implication strengthen the powers of the President, is at best, quizzical, and at worst, insane.
In his final days in Malacanang, Mr. Aquino should seek to rebuild and strengthen, rather than weaken, political institutions. In addition, he should spend his limited time solving the more crucial social and economic problems like hunger, poverty, unemployment, and the crumbling public infrastructure
If Mr. Aquino was truly committed to a system of government that is different from the authoritarian regime that the 1987 Constitution sought to replace, he should embrace, not fight, the Supreme Court decision that ruled his Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) unconstitutional.
The Philippine Constitutional Association (Philconsa) was right when it described as “seditious or treasonous” President Aquino’s motion for the Supreme Court to reconsider its unanimous ruling that the DAP is unconstitutional.
“To initiate or encourage any measure to subvert or undermine or spoil the enforcement of the unanimous decision of the Court applying and interpreting the Constitution is seditious or treasonous. It is a mutiny against the Constitution,” Philconsa warned.
Why should Mr. Aquino try to weaken the Judiciary, and consequently strengthen the Presidency, when the Philippine president is unquestionably already very powerful. In fact, the Philippine president is stronger than the President of the United States, the mightiest militarily and most democratic country on Planet Earth.
In a tripartite system of government – the Executive, the Legislature, and the Judiciary – the President, representing the Executive Department, is primus inter pares (a first among equals).
The President is the Commander-in-Chief of 129,780-strong armed forces of the Philippines. He commands a 196,245 police officers and men of the Philippine National Police. In most countries, peace and order is a local concern and thus implemented by local authorities. In the Philippines, the Philippine National Police is national in scope and hence under the direct
command and supervision of the President.
The President supervises all local government units – the 81 provinces, 144 cities, 1,490 municipalities, and 42,028 barangays.
The President is the country’s chief executive officer (CEO). He is the boss of some 1.2 million civil servants. Compare that with Congress’ 6,084 workers (one half of one percent of the entire bureaucracy, and with the Judiciary’s 25,247 justices and court employees, or about 2.1 percent of the entire bureaucracy.
The President commands an army and a national police. He controls the biggest chunk of government resources. Remember, he is just one individual exercising all these awesome powers. He can be a virtual dictator within the Executive Department. He can decide quickly and implement such decision promptly.
By contrast, the other co-equal branches of government – Congress and the Supreme Court – are collegial bodies. Decision-making is slow, oftentimes tedious, and decisions are arrived at through consensus. Notice, for example, how long it took the High Court to decide on the DAP issue.
Once a law is passed, Congress has no way of compelling the President to implement it; hence, the existence of many unfunded and unimplemented laws. Unless some concerned individuals or groups bring the case to the Supreme Court, there is no way such unimplemented laws may be enforced. Congress has no army of its own.
But even if the Supreme Court rules against the President, the High Court has no way of compelling the President to implement its decision. The Supreme Court, too, has no army of its own.
That is why honoring and respecting the rule of law is expected of all public officials. No less than the President has sworn to “uphold and defend” the Constitution of the Philippines.
Relative to the President, Congress is weaker because of its bicameral structure. In order to control Congress, all that the President has to do is control one of the two Houses of Congress. Mr. Aquino controls both Houses.
ON BUDGET MAKING AND IMPLEMENTATION, PHILIPPINE PRESIDENT IS MORE POWERFUL THAN THE US PRESIDENT
On budget making and implementation, the Philippine president is more powerful than the US president. First, the Philippine president has line-item veto power. Through it, the president may line out specific items in the General Appropriations Bill (GAB) and then sign the modified bill into law.
By comparison, the US President does not have line-item veto power. US Presidents have been asking for line-item veto power for a long time. It was in 1876, during President Grant’s term of office, that the line-item veto power was first raised before Congress. In 1996, the US Congress passed the Line Item Veto Act, which then President Clinton signed into law.
Several senators challenged it and raised the issue before the US Supreme Court, which found the law unconstitutional. The High Court ruled that the law violates the Presentment and Bicameral Clauses of the Constitution (Article I, Section 7, Clauses 2 and 3) that vests Congress with “all legislative powers.” Moreover, the “Non-delegation Doctrine” holds that one branch can’t transfer its constitutional powers to another branch or entity.
Second, in implementing the budget the Philippine president is not constrained by an Impoundment Control Act (ICA 1974), which the US president has to face. The ICA 1974 restricts the President’s power to impound appropriations.
The ICA 1974 gave the US President the power to both delay the expenditure of funds (deferral authority) and to cancel funds (rescission authority). But, to rescind funds, the President needs congressional concurrence within 45 days. In practice, Congress has ignored most Presidential requests to cancel funds.
Third, under existing Philippine budget rules, the budget of the previous year is automatically reenacted should Congress fail to approve the ensuing budget before the start of the fiscal year. Hence, there does not exist any threat that government operations will come to a halt should Congress delay the passage of a new general appropriations act.
In reality, Congress may not hold the President hostage by threatening to stall budget approval. In the US, the threat of stalling the approval of the budget (s) [since the US Congress approves several disparate budgets], and hence closing down part of government, is all too real. It has happened before and it could happen again in the future.
The US President is subject to ‘blackmail’ by an uncooperative Congress; the Philippine President is not since the Constitution provides for the automatic reenactment of the previous budget pending approval of a new budget.
All the foregoing discussions point to one indisputable fact: the powers of the Philippine President vis-à-vis Congress and the Judiciary are, right now, quite awesome.
The Philippine president’s budget formulation and implementation powers are even more formidable than those of the US President.
Hence, Mr. Aquino’s obsession to weaken the Supreme Court, and by implication strengthen the powers of the President, is at best, quizzical, and at worst, insane.
In his final days in Malacanang, Mr. Aquino should seek to rebuild and strengthen, rather than weaken, political institutions. In addition, he should spend his limited time solving the more crucial social and economic problems like hunger, poverty, unemployment, and the crumbling public infrastructure
.jpg)
.gif)
