Saguisag fully backs me on DAP and shares a

startling suspicion
July 14, 2014 213 Comments
And an SC Justice agrees with my interpretation of
Section 25 (5) of the Constitution
Exclusive by Rassa Robles
Boy, who would have thought such an esoteric, abstract article would stir up
so much commotion and interest? Its not about a sex scandal. Not a bomb blast or a
natural disaster. Theres no video, no sound, no music.
And yet my story, President Aquinos dead mom, President Cory, may yet save her son
from jail over DAP, seems to have kicked an anthill. No, several anthills. Which is strange,
because it has nothing but ideas in it no lurid pictures, even.
The article raised questions about the Supreme Court recent ruling on the Disbursement
Acceleration Program.
The reason it caused an uproar is that a lot of political and personal things are tied up with
the court ruling. The story validated or invalidated a persons support or non-support of
Aquino. Many people wanted to believe in him and his Matuwid na Daan. But the DAP ruling
messed up that belief.
Also, lets face it, Filipinos are legalistic and love any argument on laws.
Lets briefy go over that story, shall we?
The heart of the Supreme Court ruling was that Aquinos Disbursement Acceleration
Program (DAP) was partly unconstitutional because it violated Section 25 (5) Article VI of
the Constitution which states that:
(5) No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations; however, the President of
the Senate, the Speaker of the ouse of !epresentatives, the "hief #usti$e of the Supre%e "ourt,
and the heads of "onstitutional "o%%issions %ay, by law, be authorized to aug%ent any ite% in
the general appropriations law for their respe$tive offi$es fro% savings to other ite%s of the
respe$tive appropriations&'
The SC said the word respective in this section bars cross-border transfers of funds.
Cross-border means from one branch to another, for instance from the Executive to the
Legislative, or the Judiciary.
According to the High Court, the Executive branch headed by PNoy violated this ban
because it transferred appropriations beyond its executive border to at least two
independent bodies Congress (a co-equal and independent branch) and to the
Commission on Audit (an independent constitutional commission).
In my story , I raised the possibility that perhaps the Supreme Court could review its ruling
on DAP because DAP is based on two sections of the Administrative Code, which by
themselves have not been declared unconstitutional. Section 38, Chapter V of Book VI of
the Admin Code allows the President to stop or suspend expenditures on projects; Section
49 of the same chapter allows him to redirect the money from these projects into other
economic activities.
Specifcally, I noted that the fnding of unconstitutionality rested mainly on Section 25 (5),
Article VI of the Constitution. And I wrote:
(ut what if there already e)isted a law authorizing the President to go beyond the li%its set by
Se$tion *5 (5), +rti$le ,- of the "onstitution. -f you look at the wording of Se$tion *5 (5) / No
law shall be passed' / the ban is prospe$tive, not retrospe$tive&
0hat if the e)isting law happens to be the +d%inistrative "ode of 1234.
The SC was aware of the existence of the Administrative Code of 1987 which President
Corazon Aquino had legislated into law two days before the frst post-Martial Law Congress
convened. In its ruling on DAP, the court said Chapter 5, Section 38 of the Administrative
Code of 1987 which Budget Secretary Butch Abad had cited as one of the legal bases for
DAP did not give the President the power to pool funds into what they called the DAP.
I then posed the following argument:
The DAP is unconstitutional if you only look at the 1987 Constitution and Chapter 5,
Section 38 of the Administrative Code of 1987 which is what the justices did.
The DAP becomes constitutional if you look at the 1987 Constitution AND Sections
38 and 49 of Chapter 5 of the Administrative Code of 1987. Because Section 38 gives
the President the power to create savings and Section 49 gives the President the
power to pool those savings into a fund like DAP.
You need both Section 38 and Section 49, Chapter 5 of the Administrative Code to
make DAP LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL.
Without Section 49, DAP becomes illegal and unconstitutional.
Again, boy did I get it.
People I knew and didnt know were lining up, scrambling over each other to tell me
about the inadequacy of my knowledge of law and (by implication) the lofty superiority of
their mastery of said subject.
Someone who called himself killem_01 posted this remark on my website:
5he fatal error of the independent 6ournalist is that she assu%ed that the Se$& *5 of the
"onstitution will not apply to ad%in $ode and further, assu%ed that se$&73 and 82 authorized
gross boarder transfer
5hat assu%ption is $learly erroneous and %isleading& (ut what will you e)pe$t fro% a
independent 6ournalist9'
Ouch. Tell me, oh anonymous commenter killem01, what DO you expect?
A former classmate in college who went on to become a brilliant lawyer gently lectured me
on Facebook, saying:
-t:s understandable for a non;lawyer to think that the words no law shall be passed9' i%pa$t
or affe$t only laws ena$ted after 1234 when the "onstitution was ratified& -n fa$t, those words
have both retroa$tive and prospe$tive effe$t& 5hey i%pose an absolute prohibition, <ualified only
by the e)press e)$eptions that follow those words& 5o say that the +d%inistrative "ode of 1234
<ualifies the "onstitution %akes our whole nor%ative syste% stand on its head& 5he "onstitution,
as your father taught generations of law students in =P >aw, tru%ps all "ongressional
ena$t%ents or e)e$utive fiats&'
In case people are wondering, he was referring to my late father, Prof. Jose F. Espinosa,
who was once Dean of the evening law of the University of the Philippines College of Law.
He was a renowned terror professor.
Anyway, the negative reactions to my story can be broken down into three points:
(1) The Constitution is clear.
(2) The SC decision is unanimous.
(3) Im not a lawyer. Who am I to talk and how dare I PRESUME to question the Supreme
Court?
Theres actually a fourth point, how do you defne savings which Ill leave for another
story (its complicated and as long as this and I need to post illustrations).
Anyway, what can I say to the three points? This: at least they got one thing right Im not a
lawyer.
As for the other two? Lets get the ball rolling, shall we?
I should say frst of that in the course of the week I also happen to have gotten opinions
from quite a few lawyers who SUPPORT my position or fnd them legally tenable..
So, seeing as how Im not a lawyer, or, even married to one, why dont we listen to a couple
of people who happen to be lawyers? In fact pretty serious ones. Why dont we listen to
former senator Rene Saguisag and a sitting member of the Supreme Court?
Lets start with Supreme Court Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo, who submitted
a concurring and dissenting opinion on DAP.
I nearly fell of my seat when I reread del Castillos explanation of his vote fnding DAP partly
unconstitutional.
Recall that Section 25 (5) states [with my emphasis added]:
(5) No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations; however, the President
of the Senate, the Speaker of the ouse of !epresentatives, the "hief #usti$e of the Supre%e
"ourt, and the heads of "onstitutional "o%%issions %ay, by law, be authorized to aug%ent any
ite% in the general appropriations law for their respe$tive offi$es fro% savings to other ite%s of
the respe$tive appropriations&'
Recall that my critics have said the phrase no law shall be passed INCLUDES the
Administrative Code that came into efect two days before Congress convened. Therefore,
they said, Section 49 of the Administrative Code that allows cross-border transfer can be
considered revoked or voided by Section 25 (5) of the Constitution. Or reinterpreted in the
light of Section 25 (5).
My critics interpretation of the phrase no law shall be passed turned out to be wrong at
least, thats what Justice del Castillo said in his opinion on what Section 25 (5) of the
Constitution means.
He wrote on page 4 of his 56-page opinion [with my emphasis added]:
5he sub6e$t $onstitutional provision prohibits the transfer of appropriations&Congress cannot
pass a law authorizing such transfer& However, it is allowed to enact a law to authorize the
heads of offi$es to transfer savings fro% one ite% to another provided that the ite%s fall within
the appropriations of the sa%e offi$e? the President relative to the @)e$utive Aepart%ent, the
Senate President with respe$t to the Senate, the Speaker relative to the ouse of !epresentatives,
the "hief #usti$e with respe$t to the #udi$ial Aepart%ent, and the heads of the $onstitutional
bodies relative to their respe$tive offi$es&'
Notice that Del Castillo used the word Congress. In other words, Del Castillo limits the
constitutional prohibition only to all laws passed by Congress.
What does this mean? As even my lawyer-critics would concede, under the rules of
statutory construction (which simply means the manner of making laws and interpreting
them), if you negate only one specifc instance, then all other things of a similar nature are
allowed. A crude example: if a security guard tells you you cannot enter through this door
that does not mean hes banning you from entering through other doors, just not this door.
In short, while Congress cannot pass a law; President Corazon Aquino could and did, using
her legislative powers that were recognized by the 1987 Constitution. And her law is exempt
from the ban imposed on Section 25 (5) of the Constitution.
After all, it was her who directed the framing of a new Constitution using her powers under
the Freedom Constitution. It would have been absurd if the 1987 Constitution had duly
restricted her powers to legislate in the interim period between the constitutions ratifcation
and the convening of Congress. That would have left a dangerous vacuum.
The critics might then say but Del Castillo did not mention President Aquino.
And I would answer them this way. Del Castillo was the lone justice who bothered to explain
the relation between the Constitution, the General Appropriations Acts (or yearly national
budgets passed by Congress), and the Administrative Code of 1987.
He described the GAA as the implementing legislation of the constitutional provisions
pertaining to the budget. Then he said the GAA is at the same time governed by the
Administrative Code.
Here is what Justice del Castillo wrote on page 10 of his concurring and dissenting
opinion:
"onse<uently, $onsidering that the B++ (1) is the i%ple%enting legislation of the $onstitutional
provisions on the ena$t%ent of the national budget under +rti$le ,-, and (*) is governed by (ook
,- (National Bovern%ent (udgeting') of the +d%inistrative "ode9'
Note that Book VI contains Sections 38 and 49, which I alluded to.
Like the other justices, Del Castillo discussed the powers of the President on the budget
under Sec. 38, but not under Section 49 of the Administrative Code. I dont know why.
Section 38 gives the President the broad powers to suspend or stop all expenditures
except for salaries of permanent personnel:
Se$tion 73& Suspension of @)penditure of +ppropriations& / @)$ept as otherwise provided in the
Beneral +ppropriations +$t and whenever in his 6udg%ent the publi$ interest so re<uires, the
President, upon noti$e to the head of offi$e $on$erned, is authorized to suspend or otherwise stop
further e)penditure of funds allotted for any agen$y, or any other e)penditure authorized in the
Beneral +ppropriations +$t, e)$ept for personal servi$es appropriations used for per%anent
offi$ials and e%ployees&
But Section 49 extends the power of the President to use savings generated by the
stoppage of projects for a wide range of activities.
Here are the pertinent portions of Section 49:
S@"5-CN 82& +uthority to =se Savings for "ertain Purposes& D Savings in the appropriations
provided in the Beneral +ppropriations +$t %ay be used for the settle%ent of the following
obligations in$urred during a $urrent fis$al year or previous fis$al years as %ay be approved by
the Se$retary in a$$ordan$e with rules and pro$edures as %ay be approved by the President?
(2) Priority a$tivities that will pro%ote the e$ono%i$ well;being of the nation, in$luding food
produ$tion, agrarian refor%, energy develop%ent, disaster relief, and rehabilitation&
(1E) !epair, i%prove%ent and renovation of govern%ent buildings and infrastru$ture and other
$apital assets da%aged by natural $ala%ities;
I know, Justice Del Castillo is highly controversial for his ruling on the comfort women and
the allegations of plagiarism against him. But 10 of his colleagues dismissed the charge in
2010. Which means they trusted him and his judgment.
Another argument I would raise to show that the no law should be passed phrase
pertains to Congress alone came from @Baycas, one of the regular commenters on my
site. Baycas pointed out that Section 25 (5) appears under Article VI of the Constitution
which deals with the Legislative Department. Again, using statutory construction, we
should expect that all sections under Article VI would refer only to the powers of the
Legislative Department in relation to the other branches of government.
Now things get interesting. Some sources pointed out to me that Apparently, I had
missed another important section in the Administrative Code that Secretary Abad
had used as one of his legal bases to justify DAP.
This is Section 39.
I counter-checked by reading again the 92-page DAP ruling penned by Justice Lucas
Bersamin. The sources were right. On pages 43-47, Bersamin reprinted the entire National
Budget Circular No. 541 dated July 18, 2012 signed by Abad, and which the solicitor
general had submitted as part of the evidence.
The frst two paragraphs of Abads National Budget Circular No. 541 states the legal bases
for withdrawing funds and pooling these into a DAP [my emphasis added]:
5he A(F, as %andated by @)e$utive Crder (@C) No& *2* (+d%inistrative "ode of 1234),
periodi$ally reviews and evaluates the depart%entsGagen$ies: effi$ien$y and effe$tiveness in
utilizing budgeted funds for the delivery of servi$es and produ$tion of goods, $onsistent with the
govern%ent priorities&
-n the event that a %easure is ne$essary to further i%prove the operational effi$ien$y of the
govern%ent, the President is authorized to suspend or stop further use of funds allotted for any
agen$y or e)penditure authorized in the Beneral +ppropriations +$t& Withdrawal and pooling
of unutilized allotment releases can be effected by DBM based on authority of the
resident, as mandated under !ections "# and "$, Chapter %, Boo& '( of )* +$+&
I missed Section 39 earlier because I had looked at another legal document that Justice
Bersamin had alluded to as part of the submitted evidence on DAP.
Section 39 is important for the following reason.
The court ruled that the action by the executive department to undertake cross-border
transfers in order, for instance, to enable Congress to complete its e-library was
unconstitutional because this violated Section 25 (5) of Article VI of the Constitution. No
transfer of appropriations between independent branches of government.
But in the 2012 circular I cited, Abad justifed such cross-border transfers using Section 39,
Chapter 5, Book VI of the Administration Code (also known as Executive Order 292).
I had earlier glanced at Section 39 but dismissed it because I thought it only had to do with
defcit-spending by the national government.
It turns out that Section 39 gives a very narrow and plain meaning of defcit. It simply
means when funds run short to complete a project or kung nagkulang.
Here is Section 39 which Abad pointed to as the section that enabled him to pool funds [my
emphasis added]:
S@"5-CN 72& +uthority to =se Savings in +ppropriations to "over Aefi$its&D@)$ept as
otherwise provided in the Beneral +ppropriations +$t, any savings in the regular appropriations
authorized in the Beneral +ppropriations +$t for progra%s and pro6e$ts of any depart%ent, offi$e
or agen$y, %ay, with the approval of the President, be used to $over a defi$it in any other ite% of
the regular appropriations? Provided, that the $reation of new positions or in$rease of salaries
shall not be allowed to be funded fro% budgetary savings e)$ept when spe$ifi$ally authorized by
law? Provided, further, that whenever authorized positions are transferred fro% one progra% or
pro6e$t to another within the sa%e depart%ent, offi$e or agen$y, the $orresponding a%ounts
appropriated for personal servi$es are also dee%ed transferred, without, however in$reasing the
total outlay for personal servi$es of the depart%ent, offi$e or agen$y $on$erned&
This is the section of the Admin Code that justifed Abads giving Congress P43 million to
complete its e-library.
But apparently, even Abad forgot to stress this point when he was closely questioned on
cross-border transfers by Justice Bersamin.
Bersamin enclosed in the main ruling a portion where he had questioned Abad on cross-
border transfer:
,-!.(C) B)/!0M(N? +lright, the whole ti%e that you have been Se$retary of Aepart%ent of
(udget and Fanage%ent, did the @)e$utive Aepart%ent ever redire$t any part of savings of the
National Bovern%ent under your $ontrol $ross border to another depart%ent.
!)C/).0/1 0B0D? 0ell, in the Fe%os that we sub%itted to you, su$h an instan$e, Hour
onor
,-!.(C) B)/!0M(N? "an you tell %e two instan$es. - don:t re$all having read your
%aterial&
!)C/).0/1 0B0D? 0ell, the first instan$e had to do with a re<uest fro% the ouse of
!epresentatives& 5hey started building their e;library in *E1E and they had a budget for about
*E4 Fillion but they la$k about 87 Fillion to $o%plete its *5E Fillion re<uire%ents& Prior to
that, the "C+, in an audit observation infor%ed the Speaker that they had to $ontinue with that
$onstru$tion otherwise the whole building, as well as the e<uip%ents therein %ay suffer fro%
serious deterioration& +nd at that ti%e, sin$e the budget of the ouse of !epresentatives was not
enough to $o%plete *5E Fillion, they wrote to the President re<uesting for an aug%entation of
that parti$ular ite%, whi$h was granted, Hour onor& 5he se$ond instan$e in the Fe%os is a
re<uest fro% the "o%%ission on +udit& +t the ti%e they were pushing very strongly the good
governan$e progra%s of the govern%ent and therefore, part of that is a re<uire%ent to $ondu$t
audits as well as review finan$ial reports of %any agen$ies& +nd in the perfor%an$e of that
fun$tion, the "o%%ission on +udit needed infor%ation te$hnology e<uip%ent as well as hire
$onsultants and litigators to help the% with their audit work and for that they re<uested funds
fro% the @)e$utive and the President saw that it was i%portant for the "o%%ission to be
provided with those -5 e<uip%ents and litigators and $onsultants and the re<uest was granted,
Hour onor&
,-!.(C) B)/!0M(N? 5hese $ross border e)a%ples, $ross border aug%entations were not
supported by appropriations9
!)C/).0/1 0B0D? 5hey were, we were aug%enting e)isting ite%s within their9
(interrupted)
,-!.(C) B)/!0M(N? No, appropriations before you aug%ented be$ause this is a $ross border
and the tenor or te)t of the "onstitution is <uite $lear as far as - a% $on$erned& -t says here, 5he
power to aug%ent %ay only be %ade to in$rease any ite% in the Beneral +ppropriations >aw for
their respe$tive offi$es&' Aid you not feel $onstri$ted by this provision.
!)C/).0/1 0B0D? 0ell, as the "onstitution provides, the prohibition we felt was on the
transfer of appropriations, Hour onor& 0hat we thought we did was to transfer savings whi$h
was needed by the "o%%ission to address defi$ien$y in an e)isting ite% in both the "o%%ission
as well as in the ouse of !epresentatives; that:s how we saw9(interrupted)
,-!.(C) B)/!0M(N? So your position as Se$retary of (udget is that you $ould do that.
!)C/).0/1 0B0D? -n an e)tre%e instan$es be$ause9(interrupted)
,-!.(C) B)/!0M(N? No, no, in all instan$es, e)tre%e or not e)tre%e, you $ould do that,
that:s your feeling&
!)C/).0/1 0B0D? 0ell, in that parti$ular situation when the re<uest was %ade by the
"o%%ission and the ouse of !epresentatives, we felt that we needed to respond be$ause we
felt9(interrupted)&
In other words, Abad forgot that in his National Budget Circular No. 541 dated July 18, 2012
and signed by him he had cited Sections 38 and 39 of the Administrative Code as the
legal bases for such cross-border transfers.
Reading the 92-page Decision penned by Bersamin, I got the impression that he did
not think much of the presidential powers given by the Administrative Code of 1987.
Because on pages 51 to 54, Bersamin gave a history of the presidents power to transfer
funds starting with the year 1902. But he stopped with 1977 when then President Ferdinand
Marcos issued Presidential Decree No 1177, entitled Revising the budget process in order
to institutionalize the budgetary innovations of the New Society. Bersamin made no
mention at all of the Administration Code of 1987.
I had wondered why former Senator Joker Arroyo had called PNoy an evil genius
for using the Admin Code.
Joker Arroyo told DZBB recently:
"ory signed it (the +d%in "ode) in 1234 and yet up to the end of her ter% in 122*, she never
used it& 5he <uestion now lies, why P;Noy used it *5 years after it was signed.'
-t see%s that P;Noy and Far$os thought alike& "ory did not use it& - a% astounded why that
ad%in $ode was used&'
I am puzzled why Arroyo has never mentioned his role in the passage of the Admin Code,
through Executive Order No. 292 which he co-signed with Pres. Cory.
Out of curiosity, I decided to compare Marcos PD 1177 (issued on July 30, 1977) with
Chapter 5 of the Admin Code.
It turns out, PD 1177 was almost bodily inserted into the Admin Code as its Chapter 5.
In short, Sections 38, 39 and 49 of the Admin Code, which Abad used as legal bases, came
from PD 1177.
When Ex-Sen. Joker Arroyo called PNoy an evil genius, he did not explain why PD 1177
ended up inside the Admin Code.
The provisions of PD 1177 are all there in Chapter V of the Admin Code except for one
section. Section 44 of PD 1177 is missing in the Admin Code. Section 44 authorizes the
President to transfer any fund to anywhere for any reason. Here it is below:
Se$tion 88&+uthority to +pprove Iund 5ransfers& 5he President shall have the authority to
transfer any fund appropriated for the different depart%ents, bureaus, offi$es and agen$ies of the
@)e$utive Aepart%ent whi$h are in$luded in the Beneral +ppropriations +$t, to any progra%,
pro6e$t, or a$tivity of any depart%ent, bureau or offi$e in$luded in the Beneral +ppropriations
+$t or approved after its ena$t%ent&
5he President shall, likewise, have the authority to aug%ent any appropriation of the @)e$utive
Aepart%ent in the Beneral +ppropriations +$t, fro% savings in the appropriations of another
depart%ent, bureau, offi$e or agen$y within the @)e$utive (ran$h, pursuant to the provisions of
+rti$le ,---, Se$tion 1J (5) of the "onstitution&
Bersamins ruling on DAP indicated why Section 44 was not inserted into the Admin Code.
Bersamin said in 1987 the Supreme Court had struck down the frst paragraph of Section 44
for contravening Section 16(5) of the 1973 Constitution. Bersamin said, quoting the
Supreme Court ruling in the case of Demetria vs. Alba:
Paragraph 1 of Se$tion 88 of P&A& No& 1144 unduly over;e)tends the privilege granted under said
Se$tion 1J& -t e%powers the President to indis$ri%inately transfer funds fro% one depart%ent,
bureau, offi$e or agen$y of the @)e$utive Aepart%ent to any progra%, pro6e$t or a$tivity of any
depart%ent, bureau or offi$e in$luded in the Beneral +ppropriations +$t or approved after its
ena$t%ent, without regard as to whether or not the funds to be transferred are a$tually savings in
the ite% fro% whi$h the sa%e are to be taken, or whether or not the transfer is for the purpose of
aug%enting the ite% to whi$h said transfer is to be %ade& -t does not only $o%pletely disregard
the standards set in the funda%ental law, thereby a%ounting to an undue delegation of legislative
powers, but likewise goes beyond the tenor thereof& -ndeed, su$h $onstitutional infir%ities render
the provision in <uestion null and void&
-t is signifi$ant that Ae%etria was pro%ulgated *5 days after the ratifi$ation by the people of the
1234 "onstitution, whose Se$tion *5(5) of +rti$le ,- is identi$al to Se$tion 1J(5), +rti$le ,--- of
the 1247 "onstitution, to wit?
Se$tion *5& ) ) )
) ) ) )
5) No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations; however, the President, the
President of the Senate, the Speaker of the ouse of !epresentatives, the "hief #usti$e of the
Supre%e "ourt, and the heads of "onstitutional "o%%issions %ay, by law, be authorized to
aug%ent any ite% in the general appropriations law for their respe$tive offi$es fro% savings in
other ite%s of their respe$tive appropriations&
Does this mean then that all the rest of PD 1177 which were inserted into the Admin Code
of 1987 remain in efect and are part of the laws of the land? And therefore, when Abad and
PNoy used Sections 38, 29 and 49 of the Code to justify DAP, they were acting in a lawful
manner?
It is for this reason that I hope the Supreme Court would revisit its decision on DAP.
Not just on the constitutionality of Sections 38, 39, and 49 of Chapter 5, Book VI of the
Administrative Code. But also on how these sections afect the very defnition of what
constitutes savings and can these savings be pooled into a new fund for projects that were
not even mentioned in the General Appropriations Act.
In addition, the justices could perhaps revisit their comments on whether Abad and PNoy
acted on good faith when they used the Admin Code.
Now lets go to Saguisag
I would not have been able to write my frst piece if I did not have the opinion of a prominent
lawyer to back me up that my arguments were legally defensible.
A couple of those who read my piece suggested that perhaps, Saguisag told that to me
because he was just being polite.
Polite is the last thing I associate with the maverick ex-senator.
After my piece had come out, Saguisag sent me an email he had circulated to a group with
whom he discusses political happenings:
!aissa is not a lawyer as far as - $an tell but had a a very good lawyer for a father& She and hubby
are %akulit 6ournalists, fa$t;$he$kers, and have a passion for pre$ision in e)pression&
Persni$kety& +ng kulitK
5he kind we need in what is otherwise a 0ild 0ild Press validating that %edia is the plural of
%edio$re& / !o$ky (ridges&
Not the type who would see so%ething he does not understand and pro$eed to e)plain it& +rthur
oppe
He also told his e-mail group:
- know !aissa:s father, #oe @spinosa, who shared %y passion for S$holasti$ Philosophy& e was
with us in defending #oe (urgos L "o& in the 0e Ioru% trial (where - was $ited for $onte%pt
twi$e, first fined and then i%prisoned)&
0hen - wrote 0ho:s +fraid of Fary #ane.' in Fr& L Fs& in +ugust, 1237, #oe told %e his wife
was upset that - would espouse legalizing %ari6uana& (- $ould not tell whether he was Super;
5akusa like %e&)
- doubt that legal a%azon !aissa is a lawyer but she speaks below far better than attorneys (and
$ertain Senators, - 6ust heard one on 5, whose sub6e$ts and predi$ates <uarrelled)(-s hubby +lan
also a 5akusa.)
er presentation is what - e)pe$t of %y studes? gra%%ati$ally $orre$t, legally tenable,
intelle$tually respe$table and psy$hologi$ally satisfying& 5he Supre%e "ourt %ay shoot it down
but here we see why no one should pre6udge& So%e #usti$es should be told, wait a %inute,
instead of pre6udging and $onde%ning (ut$h&
0hen (obby 5anada and - were in the Pala$e last #uly 1, for @d$a, part of the %aterial given us
was pre$isely what !aissa dis$ussed below, whi$h - look at now %ore $arefully, rather than
$asually as - did then, be$ause of so%e IireK;+i%K;!eadyK pre6udg%ents and $o%plaints&
!aissa has $learly dis$ussed why a bona;fides assertion on tough legal issues will fly;high;blue;
eagle;fly&
When I wrote my piece, I was not aware that the presidential palace was following the same
legal track. I interviewed no one from there because I wanted to maintain my independence
as a journalist.
I am elated and humbled by what Saguisag has written about me and my DAP story.
But in the end, I would like to ask readers to judge my DAP stories on the basis of my
arguments.
Before I close this piece, let me share with you what Saguisag and I also talked about when
I asked him about the DAP.
When I asked him, Do you think my reading is correct or incorrect?
He said, its legally defensible.
I said, Can this be a ground for a motion for reconsideration?
Saguisag said, To me, its a respectable basis. But you cannot make 15 men and
women change their minds.
I asked him again just to make sure, So what I told you is defensible, about cross-
border transfers being legal under the Admin Code?
And Saguisag replied, Thats what the Supreme Court does with their Judiciary
Development Fund through the chief justice. Pag sinabing gagamitin lang yan for
local personnel benefts, pag ginamit mo sa kurtina at biyahe, thats another border
crossing.
Yep, he raises the possibility that the Supreme Court may have done exactly what it
declared to be unconstitutional.
Saguisag expressed suspicion that the Court might have engaged in cross-border transfers
in the past, but he conceded there was no proof.
It was only this weekend that I realized what could possibly, really change the mind of the
Supreme Court justices if someone comes up with proof that the Supreme Court had
done what the justices said in the ruling that the executive department cannot do. If the
court has even once accepted any cross-border funding from the executive branch at any
time in the last 27 years.
It would not be the fault of the sitting justices if this had happened before their time. It would
simply show that cross-border transfers are constitutional.
But then again, even without this, Im hoping that public opinion may persuade the court to
at least conduct a review of the constitutionality of Sections 38, 39 and 49 of the Admin
Code as the legal bases for the DAP. So that future presidents can be guided.
I am posting below the Supreme Court decision on the DAP, along with the concurring and
dissenting opinions.
To all those who think Im always on the side of President Aquino, theyve chosen to ignore
that to this day I am against, and have written extensively about two of the laws PNoy has
signed and which are now in efect:
The Cybercrime Prevention Law
The amendments to the Intellectual Property Code
I believe both laws diminish the rights of ordinary Filipinos and I will continue to fght against
both laws.
I am also FOR a law he has yet to fully back, namely the Freedom of Information Act. This I
believe will empower ordinary Filipinos.
_______________________________________
Here is a link to my previous story:
President Aquinos dead mom, President Cory, may yet save her son from jail over DAP
Below is the Decision penned by Justice Lucas Bersamin:
D0 main !upreme Court decision fro% raissarobles
Below is the concurring and dissenting opinion of Justice Mariano del
Castillo:
D0 2 ,ustice Mariano del Castillo, separate concurring opinion fro% raissarobles
Below is the separate opinion of Justice Antonio Carpio:
D0 2 ,ustice 0ntonio Carpio, separate concurring opinion fro% raissarobles
Below is the separate opinion of Justice Arturo Brion:
D0 2 ,ustice Brion, separate concurring opinion fro% raissarobles
Below is the concurring opinion of Justice Marvic Leonen:
D0 2 ,ustice Marvic 3eonen, separate concurring opinion fro% raissarobles
Below is the separate concurring opinion of Justice Estela erlas!Bernabe:
D0 2 ,ustice )stela erlas4Bernabe, separate concurring opinion fro% raissarobles
"ategories? Politi$s ; 5ags? +d%inistrative "ode of 1234, Aisburse%ent +$$elration, Ior%er
Senator !ene Saguisag, Presidential Ae$ree No& 1144, Supre%e "ourt +sso$iate #usti$e >u$as
(ersa%in,Supre%e "ourt +sso$iate #usti$e Fariano del "astillo
2! Responses to "Saguisag fully backs me on DAP and shares a startling
suspicion#
Read belo$ or add a comment%%%