Lessons to be learned

THE public outcry, the explanations and defenses made, the ruling of the Supreme Court on the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) and recently the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) should provide instructive lessons not only to our province’s local government leaders, from the governor to our mayors and barangay kapitans and legislators, but to us, their constituents.

For too long, many public officials have viewed the public office as the source for corruption and plunder. This was made possible through the decades of tolerance and indifference of the public largely in the belief that there is nothing anyone can do to stop them. This permissive and dismissive attitude consequently made vote-buying a permanent feature in our elections. See how the  “let-them-buy-our-votes-since-they-will-steal-our-money- anyway” thought has become pervasive in our society.

The time to reflect on how each of us contributed to our damaged political culture is here and now. Belated as it may seem, we are finally seeing senators being detained as suspects behind the plunder of the country’s wealth, local government officials being indicted by the ombudsman and jailed by the Sandiganbayan for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

These new and yes, totally unexpected developments were made possible by the continued vigilance of those who never gave up on the Filipino. If they can do it, so can we can in our own province and towns.

Pangasinan can definitely be a better place if only we learn the lessons of today well.

*          *          *          *          *          *

Constitutional or unconstitutional?

BUDGET Secretary Butch Abad told the Senate on July 24 that the DAP (Disbursement Acceleration Program) was not declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, that only some parts of the DAP were declared unconstitutional.  But what the SC clearly pointed out was that the P237.5-billion savings that was earmarked by President Aquino to accelerate growth was illegally disbursed by Malacanang because the savings’ release did not conform with Congress-approved laws.

Malacanang had filed a Motion for Reconsideration (MR) asking the Supreme Court to reverse its decision on the “unconstitutional portions” of the DAP.  Will all 13 justices who unanimously voted as unconstitutional “some portions” of the DAP make a 360-degree turn, let alone the majority of them making an about-face, to bow to Mr. Aquino’s MR?  But the more nagging question: If parts of DAP are unconstitutional, will that not mean, too, that the entire DAP itself becomes automatically unconstitutional?  Isn’t the act of either the left or right hand becomes the act of the entire body?

We wait with bated breath, again, the Supreme Court decision on the Palace appeal.

Back to Homepage

Share your Comments or Reactions

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments