Press Release
July 25, 2014

Interview with Sen. Francis Guevara Escudero (FGE)
Program: ANC's Headstart
Anchor: Karen Davila

DAVILA: Joining us in the studio, chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance, looking into the DAP controversy, Sen. Francis "Chiz" Escudero is with us this morning. Welcome to Hotcopy, Sen. Chiz.

FGE: Good morning Karen. Mainit e.

DAVILA: Oo mainit.

DAVILA: Alright. First, how would you describe yesterday's hearing? Because critics have called it a deodorizer?

FGE: Well, una sa lahat Karen, hindi namin pwedeng piliin at diktahan ang senador kung ano ang itatanong nila. Kung kakampi sila. Bubulyawan nila. We cannot limit and control that. Ang importante kahapon, nabigyan ng tsansang sumagot at mapakinggan ng publiko at ma-require sila Sec. Abad na mag-submit ng dokumento sa media. In fact, doon pa lang nya sinabing ipo-post na nila sa website. I think, that's the important part.

DAVILA: Alright. Now, were you satisfied with Sec. Abad's first opening statement on the justification for the DAP?

FGE: Para sa akin Karen, water under the bridge na yun. Tapos na yun e. Nagdesisyon na yung korte. Whether he disagrees with it, gaano man katama sila, gaano man sa tingin nila kamali ang korte, nagdesisyon na yung korte e. Ang tanong, moving on, moving forward, "Ano na yung gagawin natin? Alin-alin ba doon sa DAP ang lumabag sa Saligang Batas as pen by the Supreme Court decision? Alin-alin ba doon ang hindi? Ano na ngayon ang gagawin natin para ma-rectify yung desisyon na yun? Itutuloy pa ba yung project? Babayaran ba yung contractor? In the 2015 budget, how will we address this and be compliant with the Supreme Court decision?"

DAVILA: But are you done with the 2015 budget? Not yet?

FGE: Not yet. We haven't even started.

DAVILA: Okay. Alright. Now, let's discuss first, okay, specific points discussed in the Senate hearing yesterday. Number 1, the issue of how do they determine where to put the funds?

FGE: According to Sec. Abad, it goes through a cabinet cluster, deliberation, the inputs of the secretaries, but at the end of the day, it's the President that decides.

DAVILA: Okay.

FGE: Alin ba ang popondohan at sa magkano?

DAVILA: Okay, but then, isn't that the job of congressmen?

FGE: Yes Karen, that's what the Supreme Court said. In fact, the Supreme Court, in its decision affirmed the power of Congress over the purse. Ika nga ng Supreme Court, " Two heads are better than one." Gaano man katalino, gaano man kagaling ang isang tao, pangulo man sya, iba pa rin yung marami ang nag-uusap-usap kung papaano gagastusin yung pondo at kaban ng bayan.

DAVILA: Okay. Now, if that's the case Sen. Chiz, you're an expert in budgeting, in taxes as well, how did the other presidents do it? You have Abad saying that in Cory, in Erap's time, there was the reserved control account. And then, during GMA, she just named it over-all savings. May ginawa ba talaga silang mali or ang kasalanan nila pinangalanan lang nila ng DAP?

FGE: Actually mas malala pa yung dati kung tutuusin mo Karen. In fact, the Supreme Court said, "Impoundment should not be allowed." But that's exactly what the other presidents did. In-impound nila.

DAVILA: Talk about impoundment first, how do you define it?

FGE: Meaning to say, may P1-M na project para sa kalye. Ang ire-release ng DBM at that time, imposing reserve and savings of 25%, P750,000 lang. Yung P250,000 impounded na yun.

DAVILA: Tingi-tingi?

FGE: Hindi, sa kanila na yun, kasi baka daw magka-financial crisis at kulang yung koleksyon sa dulo ng taon. Kaya hino-hold nila yun. But, there is no obligation whatsoever, under PD 1177 in the administrative code. Naibalik nila yun sa parehong project na pinagkunan nila even if they actually meet their collection target.

DAVILA: So, this is what impoundment means?

FGE: Yes. During Erap's time, hindi nila ginawa yun. Tama si Sec. Diokno roon, kasi marami pang sobra noong panahon ni dating Pang. Ramos. Hindi pa naubos. I think over P38-B pa ang naipasa at naiwan sa kanya, so, hindi sila nag-impound.

DAVILA: Okay.

FGE: Hindi nila ginawa yun. Kaya nga di ba sabi ni Sec. Diokno, ni Pres. Estrada noon, "What you see is what you get in the budget," because that a departure from how Pres. Ramos did it during his time, but his term was shortlived, so, hindi nila naubos yung P38-B, so, hindi nila kinailangang gawin yun at that time.

DAVILA: Okay. Alright. Now, when you impound, for example, you impound P250,000 of a P1-M road project, where will the President spend the P250,000.

FGE: Yun yung Karen kapag pumunta ang Presidente sa isang lugar at tinamaan ng bagyo o biglang may nag-request ng kalye o tulay na hindi naman nila alam. Doon nya huhugutin yung, "Pagawa natin yung tulay. Pagawa natin yung.." Yan, saan galing yun? Hindi naman alam ng Kongresong masisira yun bago nagpunta ang Pangulo doon.

DAVILA: Okay. So, you feel impoundment is worst than what this administration did?

FGE: Yes Karen. Let me clarify, the provisions being sited my Sec. Abad is an off-shoot of PD 1177. Since I became a congressman...

DAVILA: What is this? 8889? Admin 88 ba 'to 89?

FGE: Executive Order No. 292.

DAVILA: Ah 292.

FGE: And PD 1177.

DAVILA: Okay okay.

FGE: Ever since I entered Congress, I've always filed a bill to repeal that law, principally, to restore the power of the purse back to Congress. Unang congressman pa lang ako finile ko na yan hanggang ngayon fina-file ko yung bill na yun, na ma-repeal yan, believing that this should be Congress that should be deciding these things.

DAVILA: Okay. Alright. Now, the other issue that was discussed is how do you determine savings. The president clearly said that there was a use it lose it program? Can you do that? That would mean re-defining savings.

FGE: Yes, in a way that was the Supreme Court said. Because under the General Appropriations Act, savings is defined only as number 1, na kumpleto yung project pero may sukli. Number 2, yung improved systems and therefore spent less and therefore you have savings. Or number 3, the project can no longer be completed or pursued or the funds allocated for DAP project is excessive. Dun lamang magkaka savings. What came out from the hearing yesterday for example, Karen was almost the entire capital outlay budget of DOTC for 2 years, 2012 and 2013 was withdrawn upon the request of the DOTC. DAVILA: Why? That would be how much? P14-billion?

FGE: About P14-billion.

DAVILA: Why would, explain that?

FGE: According to Sec. Abaya, I won't explain, let them explain. Sec. Abaya, kasi daw yung sa NAIA, P1.6-billion, one of the poorest airport in the world, ire-repair dapat. May P1.6-billion na nilagay ang Kongreso. Sabi nila kailangan daw yun kaya inaprubahan namin. Only to be withdrawn in the middle of the year by saying na kailangan palang tignan yung structure, kailangan palang may test, we need to hire expert first. So we can't implement it in that year, might as well withdraw it and use for some other purpose.

DAVILA: That's what I mean. Now were going to something specific, the airport which was brought up by the way by Sen. Binay. You have Congress allotting P1.6-billion for NAIA Terminal 1. You have a secretary of the DOTC which was then Sec. Mar Roxas deciding. 'Okay we cannot use the P1.6-billion because you need to fix this, next year nalang.' Then they withdraw it. Can any secretary do that? When Congress allotted the funds?

FGE: Well in this particular instance they did. And according to the Supreme Court, what they should have done was go to Congress and asked for supplemental budget.

DAVILA: Dapat hindi yun tinanggal.

FGE: Hindi. Kung hindi talaga maimplement, okay lang yun pero sa dulo ng taon dapat ginawang savings yun. And if they want it to use within the year they should have done to Congress, told Congress that hindi na namin magagamit ito ngayong taon na ito dahil may kailangang gawing ibang bagay. Pwede ba itong P1.6-billion dito nalang namin gastusin. That's what should have been done according to the Supreme Court.

DAVILA: Now Sen. Chiz, is this the first administration that has actually withdrawn allocations midyear?

FGE: I don't think so Karen because in previous administration, matagal ko nang dinedebate yung mga secretaries nun pero ngayon ko lang nagawan ng paraan noong naging finance chairman ako. Pero hindi pa rin kumpleto. Like teachers, each year, every administrations since I was a congressman in 1998 proposed that they will hire 8,000, 10,000, 15,000 teachers. But they really don't do that, they only hire 3,000 or 5,000 either because walang makuhang teacher o ayaw nilang gawin talaga para may savings talaga. In 2014 budget, tinanong ko sila 15,000 teachers ang iha-hire nyo, kinompute ko bakit yung sweldo from January 1 to December 31 for 15,000 teachers in 2014? Question, are you already beginning your hiring procedures? They will actually start working on January 1, therefore you are allocating salaries for them for 12 months? No. Yung iba daw maha-hire na nila ng May, March, yung iba October pa. So, why asked money from us for 15,000 teachers and salary for 12 months, 13months pa nga kasama yung 13 month pay. So we have to drastically reduced and re-compute the whole thing.

DAVILA: But why do they do that? To have savings?

FGE: To have savings Karen basically. To have the flexibility to fund other items to other projects to be fair that they may not yet know about when they proposed the budget but which they might need in the course of the year.

DAVILA: Okay. Alright now what about the airport situation where Sen. Nancy Binay said, P546-million or something has withdrawn?

FGE: Aside from the P1.6-billion may 500 plus million para sa rehabilitaion ng mga CR, fifty thousand teachers and salary for twelve months, thirteen months pa nga kasama yung thirteenth month pay. So, we have to drastically reduce it and re-compute the whole thing.

DAVILA: But why do they do that, to have savings? FGE: To have savings, Karen, we have the flexibility to fund other items, other projects to be fair that they may not yet know about when they propose the budget but which they might need in the course of the year.

DAVILA: Okay, now what about the airport situation where Sen. Nancy Binay said, P546-Million or something was withdrawn?

FGE: Aside from the 1.6-Billion...

DAVILA: Yes.

FGE: ...may 500 plus million para sa rehabilitation ng mga CR.

DAVILA: Oo.

FGE: Hindi rin Karen, may mas importanteng nakaligtaan nga doon na sabihin. Yung X-rays, ang tagal ng sira ng X-ray ng napakarami nating airport. E, paano magiging secure yung mga airport at paliparan natin kung yung X-ray ay sira? Papahabain mo't patatagalin mo yung pila, kakapkapan mo bawat isa at sisilipin mo kada bag? Basic reason was ang daming arte tsetseburetse at kung anuman na hindi nila ma-implement yung project.

DAVILA: Oo, now clearly the airport is a basic question on everyone's mind...

FGE: Definitely.

DAVILA: ...and not only that, if you want to accelerate the airport is one thing.

FGE: Definitely Karen, in fact maraming nag-aalala sa July 31 bubuksan mo na ang terminal three sa limang international airlines. E, ngayon pa nga lang ang sikip na e.

DAVILA: Hindi lang 'yon, walang CCTV 'yun sa labas ha?

FGE: Oo, hanggang ngayon wala pa yatang CCTV 'yon.

DAVILA: Yea, but now the question on good faith comes in with what the Supreme Court said because it makes you wonder why certain decisions were made, like paying the customs loan?

FGE: Agree, in fact that was questioned also yesterday by Senators Recto and Osmeña. Bakit mo babayaran 'yon even the central bank? Why forty billion, why not twenty, why not twenty-five, why not sixty, why not ten? Why forty, paying the loan? Why pay it full, it's been there for the longest time anyway? Why all of a sudden decide to pay it in full? All of these decisions at the end of the day were shouldered by the President.

DAVILA: Okay, but aren't they enough to justify let's say good credit rating standings?

FGE: Nandoon lahat 'yon Karen but if you engage them in a debate especially those speaking in media or social media right now, there will always be something that's more ideal that should've been spent on, that they should've spent on. Parang sinasabi ni Sen. Binay kahapon, bakit hindi hospital bed? Bakit stem cell? The debate would be endless Karen kasi palaging mayroong mas higit pa roon. I can even name ten others that we should spend on instead of hospital beds. I mean ang dami, the list will go on and on and on. But that's why those go through Congress, more heads are better than one and if you put it to a vote even if there are those who disagree, majority wins. DAVILA: Okay, now I think Sen. Nancy Binay had said it amounted to was it 19-Billion?

FGE: Which one?

DAVILA: It went through to legislators or identified by legislators?

FGE: No, not that much. I think nine if I recall correctly.

DAVILA: Because sa DPWH Sen. Chiz, Sec. Rogelio Singson told me of their 33-Billion Pesos in savings, 14-Billion was for local projects, identified by legislators.

FGE: Probably Karen, I do not know but understand... for example DPWH or DepEd is coming from. They do not have the mechanisms and the vehicles and the logistics to actually visit each and every baranggay. It's the Mayor, it's the Governor, it's the Congressman that actually visit each and every baranggay and who would know what these people need. Wala naman silang gasolina, service vehicle to visit regularly all of these places. So, they get inputs from these elected officials, ang tanong parin dapat nagastos ba ng tama and at the end of the day that's what matters.

DAVILA: Now, Prof. Briones calls this extra PDAF or Pork Barrel. She said that mas mabilis ba kapag ang legislator ang nag-identify kaysa sa ahensiya pinadadaan?

FGE: Hindi ko alam, I wouldn't know only DBM can answer that. But ever since the Supreme Court came out with its decision with PDAF, now everything is evaluated by the agency.

DAVILA: but ito for example, you were able to identify projects amounting to 50-Million, am I correct?

FGE: Ninety-nine actually Karen.

DAVILA: 99-Million that allegedly you did not know them were from the DAP.

FGE: It came from public funds but the program they used to find it...

DAVILA: Hindi mo na alam pero kasi dumaan daw iyan sa Senate Finance Committee?

FGE: Sabi ni Sec Abad inanounce niya daw yun, binaggit niya na nasa records daw sabi ni Sen. Drilon when he was the Chairman at that time na binaggit yung DAP very much like the media clipping session binaggit daw.

DAVILA: Now, where did you put your funds because you have said palengke what else?

FGE: We had public markets and medical assistance to indigenous patients.

DAVILA: Okay, for the public to understand dumaan ba ang pera sayo?

FGE: Hindi, that's why this is not cross-border Karen, hindi dumaan sa kamay ng legislators dahil legislator ang nagpropose. Ang nagimplement ay DPWH or LGU. Ang nagimplement ng medical assistance ay DOH in the regional hospitals. DAVILA: Now, did you choose a contractor or were the legislators allowed to choose a contractor like the way it was with PDAF?

FGE: I can only speak for myself Karen, it's 1,400 municipalities. You can ask any of the 1,400 mayors if we did told them who will implement the contract. Mahirap naman siguro itago iyan sa dami ng kausap kasi wala kaming pili.

DAVILA: So what you just did is identify ang ginagawa ng mga legislator, okay I want repair ng mga palengke, aayusin yung palengke that's it?

FGE: To augment their funds and walang pili ito Karen meaning all, kakilala ko man o hindi, kalaban man o dinala man o hindi walang pinipili ito. We allocated funds to all municipalities nationwide.

DAVILA: Now another one, when you said for indigents for medical assistance. Let's say I went to PGH, kapag ba magpunta doon sasabihin ba nila tulong ito galing kay Sen. Chiz or nagbibigay ka pa ba ng papel?

FGE: Bago mag-isyu ng PDAF ruling ang court, oo. The COA requires that the Congressman or Senator who proposed the funds should write kasi otherwise baka ubusin ng hospital ma-coCOA sila. In fact, nagkaproblema nga yung PDAF nung sinabi ng Supreme Court na illegal iyan bawala na iyan. May mga pondo pa sa PGH na for example, I still have funds sa PGH that was unutilized. Namomoroblema ang PGH sabi ko gastusin niyo na hindi pwede sabi ng COA dahil ikaw yung naglagay ng pondo dito you should be the one who write. I said I cannot write and I will not write because the Supreme Court prohibited it.

DAVILA: Paano na yun? What happened to the funds?

FGE: Nag-uusap pa din ang COA at ang PGH hanggang ngayon It should be used by PGH already we already told them.

DAVILA: Now Briones said that Senators who received the DAP should not have been involved in the hearing.

FGE: Yes and no Karen, why? Kung hindi kami nagpatawag ng hearing, I was the Chairman and sasabihin na naman nila pinagtatakpan namin at kung anu-ano yung hinehearing namin, pagdating sa ganito ayaw namin. Pangalawa, I think each senator should be judged according to his/her actions yesterday individually and not collectively. Sa pitong oras nga halos hindi na ako nakapagtanong dahil sa haba ng tanong ng iba, pinauna ko na dahil as Chairman that's how it should be. Parliamentary practice dictates they should be allowed questions in accordance with the order of their arrival kaya walang pili kung sino ang magtatanong.

DAVILA: Ano pala yun, accordance to their arrival?

FGE: Except for the author...

DAVILA: which is Sen. JV

FGE: and the Senate President. The Senate President can ask anytime. That's one of his privileges and the Chairman can interject anytime but I choose not para makabuwelo yung mga members ng senado DAVILA: Alright, we'll be right back with Sen. Chiz Escudero. What happens now with DAP and how would this affect the President?

[COMMERCIAL BREAK]

DAVILA: Welcome back to Hotcopy, still with us Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. Conducting the DAP probe, Senator Chiz Escudero is with us. Now, critics have slammed, I know I asked you this in the beginning. Let me ask again...

FGE: Ang mga nega...

DAVILA: Critics have slammed the Senate that what the hearing turned-out to be was a deodorizer. In other words, pampabango sa administrasyon.

FGE: Well, ang hine-headline ng bawat media organization yung interpellation ni Senator Binay. Na tinitira ay yung ilang probisyon ng DAP. Dagdag pa si siguro dun-I cannot control, Karen what senators will ask. Kung ano ang itatanong nila. Gusto ba nila pagsabihan ko sila ng ganito-ganito ah, that cannot be done. Each senators should be judged according to what he or she did or did not do. But on the part of the House, magrereklamo ang mga Kongresman sa hearing sa ginawa ng Senado. Tanong, nagsagawa ba sila ng hearing, nagpatawag ba man sila ng hearing. At least sa parte ng Senado, we compelled Sec. Abad to attend, we compelled him to submit certain documents and we compelled him to explain.

DAVILA: Now, critics have also asked things it seems that only Senator Nancy Binay asked the really hard questions.

FGE: Yes and no. Yes and no. Some also asked difficult questions such as Senator Serge (Osmena) but later on na yun at baka mo na napanuod yun. Senator Recto, I took the cudgel in the part for Senator Binay in certain parts of our interpolation. Senator JV also asked some questions. Senator Marcos also asked some questions.

DAVILA: So, hindi naman.

FGE: Hindi naman siguro.

DAVILA: Now, number 1 Secretary Abad was out with power point presentation. I think this is the shocker of all. Saying look what's the big deal, I presented the DAP to the Senate and the media covered the DAP. Wala naman reklamo nuon.

FGE: Wala naman talaga reklamo nuon, Karen. Hindi pa naman ilegal nuon. Naging ilegal lang naman yun pagkatapos magdesisyon ang Korte at pagkatapos kwestyunin sa Korte, dun lang napansin at pinansin ang ng marami.

DAVILA: Another question from ANC. You would mentioned earlier it was not President Aquino was the first to declare savings mid-year. Sino ang nauna?

FGE: Hindi ko alam sino nauna, Karen. But it was done-I have been in the government since 1998. So, during the time of then President Erap, wala silang ginawang ganun. Dahil marami pa ngang sobra kay Pangulong Ramos.

DAVILA: Not only with that who short-lived.

FGE: Short-lived. Now, during the time of GMA, on several occasions Karen. Not even at the time of the beginning of the year, nakakatawa looking back. We were played in a position-we were fiscalizing on the budget, you know, interpolating and asking them difficult questions in their proposed budget. Delay yung budget, yun pala ang gusto nila ma-re-enact yung budget.

DAVILA: But the re-enact what does that mean?

FGE: Pagne-re-enact yung budget tulad sa US na magsasara ang gobyerno. Tayo paghindi napasa ang budget at the end of the year, re-enacted yung previous years ng budget. Now, since nagawa na yung kalye, nagawa na yung school building...

DAVILA: I have said this so many times...

FGE: ...lahat yun savings na. Kaya nung pine-resent ni Sec. Abad kahapon 800bilyon ang savings ni Pangulong Arroyo kasi halos kasi ng buong budget savings and that happened in the time about three or four years during GMA's time. Kaya kami nung nasa oposisyon nuon, hindi namin alam kung ano ang gagawin. Mag-i-interpolate ba kami sa budget kasi pag tumagal na naman ito gagamitin na naman ng dahilan na re-enact uli ang budget. Savings na naman yun.

DAVILA: And I think the implications, when the budget is enacted. So, you are funding a project that's been finished...

FGE: Completed...

DAVILA: ...completed. Now, who has the power over let say for example P800B savings on how to spend?

FGE: Only the President. Pursuant to E.O.292, the Admin. Code of 1997 and pursuant to PD 1177. And again Karen, those two lost that had been trying amend and repeal for the longest time. There were many Congressmen and Senators too to who would want that repealed kaya lang hindi talaga pumapasa. And its not a coincidence that PD 1177 was then passed by President Marcos by his virtue law-making powers. E.O.292 was also passed by former President Aquino by virtue for her law-making powers before the constitution was beginning effective...

DAVILA: Yeah, rectified...

FGE: So, Congress never passed such laws. It is a law but Congress never passed such laws to dilute the power of Congress over the purse.

DAVILA: So, what should the Supreme Court do first? People have said that the Supreme Court should first strike this down?

FGE: Unfortunately they did not Karen.

DAVILA: Yeah.

FGE: That's the...

DAVILA: That's the basis...

FGE: Actually Sec. Abad had a point there yesterday.

DAVILA: Yeah, he said, the Supreme Court should strike those purse down.

FGE: That the provisions of law are still valid. It was not struck down. They merely declared as an constitutional certain acts as violative of Article 6 Section 25 of the Constitution but did not say that these provisions of law relied upon by the executive, by the Aquino administration are unconstitutional. Yun medyo - I hope, that will be clarified in the subsequent ruling of the court on this issue.

DAVILA: Now, I wanna ask you Sen. Chiz, in the end, do you believe the DAP actually helped the economy? What's it necessary to do it?

FGE: Huwag na ako Karen. Let me site as basis the Supreme Court decision itself. Remember, the Supreme Court struck down the DAP. In the same decision they said, it actually helped the economy. As if to say, "The end does not justify the means," pero korte mismo, inamin. It's in a decision of the court, that it actually helped the economy. So, don't take word for it. Don't take the word of Sec. Balisacan. The court itself, which is against DAP, at least 13 of them, said it actually helped the economy.

DAVILA: Now, what can happen to Sec. Butch Abad? Look at this, he did admit to 2 instances of cross-border transfer. Only 2 he said. You have the building in Congress. They gave additional P40-M. And number 2 is the COA.

FGE: Even the Supreme Court Karen, it's not DAP, even rather the COMELEC. It's DAP according to him but it's still cross-border. What will happen to him? I do not know. It depends if the case will be filed against him. I guess, he would have to answer these cases. Sen. Ejercito mentioned that it might be technical malversation, that the court decides if indeed it is technical malversation, because unlike malversation Karen, technical malversation means you still spend it for a public purpose. You didn't pocket it. You didn't take it for your own personal benefit. You spend it for another public purpose. That's technical malversation under the law, whether it constitutes that, I would not know. I would not be in the position to...

DAVILA: Now, you have Sec. Abad also saying that after the Supreme Court decision, it can affect the progress and the gains already done by this administration. Do you believe that?

FGE: No, because we can do things. We can correct and rectify things. Certain processes can still be implemented to hasten and facilitate the implemention of projects without violating the Supreme Court decision. All they have to do is to adjust, to be more transparent and to go through longer processes perhaps. But if they start with it early, they will get it early too.

DAVILA: Alright, now, moving forward, what do you think should be done to limit the powers of the President when it comes to the purse? I mean, even if they say the power of the purse is with Congress, history has shown that there are ways to go around it, clearly.

FGE: We have to balance it Karen. On the one hand, there must be limitations on the power of the President because as they say, "Power corrupts an absolute power. Power corrupts absolutely." But on the other hand, the executive must all set a certain level of flexibility.

DAVILA: Dapat rin?

FGE: Dapat rin, kasi kapag masyadong tali naman ang kamay ng executive, ang hirap at ang tagal nilang gumalaw kung kada sitwasyon, babalik sila sa Kongreso. It takes about a month to a month and a half at best to a pass a law, a supplemental budget for example.

DAVILA: Hindi rin pwede yun?

FGE: Dapat may flexibility, ang importante lang transparent. Ang importante, maliwanag yung accountabilities. At ang importante, kapag may nagtatanong, sasagot, magpapaliwanag at ilalahad nila yung kasagutan.

DAVILA: About reenacting the budget, would you want to strike that out as - because in the US it's not allowed?

FGE: It's not allowed Karen but it's scary. If we do that at ma-delay yung passage ng budget - it's only under the Aquino administration na palaging pasado on time ang budget. In previous administrations, sometimes, they falter. If that happens, can you imagine kung gaano - magulo na nga yung bansa natin, mas gugulo yan kapag walang sweldo ang sundalo, ang teacher, ang ordinaryong clerk, ang pulis, tulad ng nangyari sa Amerika. Kaya nagka-shut down sila. Mas malaking kaguluhan yung kapalit nun sa ating bansa. Siguro ang pwede nating gawin, reenacted yung PS. Reenacted yung MOE.

DAVILA: What's PS?

FGE: Personal Services, yung MOE, reenactment din.

DAVILA: Reenactment yun.

FGE: Pero yung CO, hindi.

DAVILA: Ang CO ay?

FGE: Dapat hindi.

DAVILA: Ano meaning ng CO? It's ery technical.

FGE: Capital outlay.

DAVILA: Capital Outlay...

FGE: May capital outlay, dapat hindi. Yung kalyeng nagawa na, hindi biglang savings yun na pwede nilang gastusin kung saan-saan. Hindi dapat yun.

DAVILA: Alright. Now clearly good faith is the catchphrase.

FGE: The words of God, the phrase of God.

DAVILA: It's the catchphrase I think of teh month is assuming good faith. Why is it a big deal to the cabinet members that the operative fact, not assuming good faith in terms of the proposed, the proponents, implementors and authors, why does it matters to them?

FGE: I think the court let me clarify Karen, the court removed the presumption of good faith but the court did not say that they are in bad faith. Let me clarify because Sec. Abad said yesterday that they are in bad faith. No. The court said, we are removing the presumption of good faith, you must prove it. But the court did not say that you are in bad faith unless you prove that you're in good faith. No, that's a big different.

DAVILA: Very interesting. You have to be a lawyer to see that.

FGE: But there's a big difference. All the court said was you're not presumed to be in good faith because it's a basic presumption in evidence. You're presumed to be in good faith. They applied the general rule which says he who alleges must prove the same. So if you're alleging as a defense that you have good faith, you must prove it. But generally that should be assumed and it's the prosecutors who should prove that you're in bad faith. Ito tinaggal nila. Parang on even putting ngayon, in good faith and bad faith, that's one. Second, I think what's hurting them is sabi ng Korte in the very last paragraph before the dispositive portion, the authors, proponents and implementors of DAP, not of the projects, not of a programs and activities of DAP, the program, they must prove good faith in a case, in a civil criminal or administrative case that will be brought against them or that may be brought against them. Short of saying na...

DAVILA: ...Kakasuhan kayo?

FGE: Kasuhan nyo na to.

DAVILA: Oo.

FGE: Short of saying that. Yun ang masakit na parte na desisyon para sa mga cabinet members.

DAVILA: So DPWH Sec.Singson for example would be considered an implementor? Techincally?

FGE: I don't know how far it will go.

DAVILA: See..

FGE: ...But clearly kasi tinanong si Sec. Abad kahapon, sino ba ang nag imbento nito? Ang sagot nya kahapon DBCC. Sino-sino ba ang DBCC? Sinabi nya, sya, Sec. Purisima, BSP, basically the economic team headed by the executive secretary. (laughs) So sila immediately clearly, sila if ever yung...

DAVILA: ...Ano yun? Proponent?

FGE: Proponent, author. Ngayon yung implementor...

DAVILA: That's the question.

FGE: Because like Comelec, I don't know if Chairman Brillantes knew that this was DAP.

DAVILA: The reason I asked this is Sec. Singson is the perfect example. Here's a guy who want to run the DPWH properly, people say he's running it well. He says I got P33-billion and pulled savings since July 2010, sagot nya I don't know where that came from. That's a classic example.

FGE: Its public funds. Meaning, kasi ang intindi ng tao Karen pag sinabi namin o ni Sec. Singson na hindi ko alam kung saan galing yan. Ano ka ba, imposibleng hindi mo alam P33-billion.

DAVILA: Meaning, hindi alam kung anong ahensya?

FGE: Hindi nya alam kung paano hinugot, saan hinugot, anong programa. Pero alam nyang public funds yun. We should take care of it as public fund. But how it was pulled, what program they called it to pull it, ibang usapan yun.

DAVILA: That's what he said. Would he still be considered an implementor? Even if you are innocent you did not know, like yun ang tanong ko, senators, congressman, who were asked to identify projects. Put it in a bigger scale, you did not know it was DAP.

FGE: We didn't even implement the project. We didn't even know that it was DAP that time. So sasabihin nila hugas kamay yan, inaabswelto namin yung sarili namin. But that's my definition of moving on and moving forward. Let's now implement the decision. Ano ngayon yung ibig sabihin nun? Aling projects ang unconstitutional, alin yung hindi. According to Sec. Abad, each and every release under DAP had an item. Sa apat okay na yun. Pero alin dun ang cross-border? Inamin nya kahapon tatlo dun sa Congress, sa COA, Comelec.

DAVILA: Naimplement na...

FGE: Pero operative fact yun. Hindi na babawiin yung building, hindi nababawiin yung sweldo ng empleyado, hindi na babawiin yung PCOS machine, dun na yun. Pero alin yung hinugot sa unprogrammed funds? Alin yung winithdraw yung obligation kamukha nung sa DOTC and nilagay sa iba. Because those would be illegal and if none of those have been implemented yet, hold na yun.

DAVILA: Alright, very quick question before the Twitter followers. One of the comments I heard yesterday was no one seemed to on the alleged P10-billion that was spent for Tarlac or allotted for Tarlac.

DAVILA: ...for Tarlac or allotted for Tarlac. FGE: Two.

DAVILA: Two for infra.

FGE: Two for infra.

DAVILA: According to Sen. Serge, it went as high as ten or that's inaccurate? He wasn't sure.

FGE: According to Sec. Singson, it was two below and they enumerated the projects Karen.

DAVILA: Okay, I'm just curious... nothing was questionable to any senators on that?

FGE: Kasi Karen, nung pangulo si Pangulong Marcos, binuhusan ng buong semento ang buong Ilocandia.

DAVILA: That's true.

FGE: Nung pangulo si Pangulong Arroyo, ang Pampanga o yung kanyang rehiyon. Nung pangulo naman si Pangulong Ramos, Pangasinan. I mean, presidents do that because I guess their province expects them na 'hoy, tiga-dito ka naman, ano ba naman na maramdaman naming yung pagka-presidente mo.' Now, what was not asked of Sec. Singson was magkano din ba yung binigay sa iba? Because I'm sure there are some provinces na mas malaki ang binigay dahil mas malaki yung populasyon at mas malaki ang pangangailangan. For example, for Metro Manila, I'm sure mas malaki yung nabigay sa Metro Manila kaysa sa Tarlac. So siguro we should be able to compare once they submit to us all the documents.

DAVILA: Well actually a part of Samar I think was 1.5-Billion if my memory serves me right.

FGE: Yes, 1.5-Billion.

DAVILA: Okay.

FGE: Pero Karen, at the end of the day again if you tell me why to Tarlac, why not in Nueva Ecija? Palaging may ganon and that's where the President exercised his discretion but since he decided it himself, he did not go through to Congress... yun ang rason kung bakit binabalikat din nila ito ngayon because hindi dumaan sa consultative process ng Kongreso. Kung dumaan sana sa Kongreso, edi lahat kami binabatan ngayon kung bakit nilagyan ng ganon kalaki yung Tarlac, halimbawa.

DAVILA: Okay, our twitter followers are asking: Sen. Chiz, after the hearing yesterday, do you think Abad should step down? Do we have that in graphics to show that it was really a twitter follower not prepared for graphics, go... should Sec. Abad step down?

FGE: After he explains everything probably that would be the best time to do it but not in the middle of the controversy and leave the President to answer and fend off all of these attacks. I am of the belief that cabinet members should always shield the President from criticisms and shoulder any and all problems, for and behalf of the President but what's happening now is the reverse. It's the President that's taking the not the cabinet members.

DAVILA: Well, the President seems to wanna be on attack mode to. I mean it's also personality thing, I'm thinking... you know what I mean?

FGE: Well yes kasi iniisip niya siya yung Ama, siya yung Tatay ng mga cabinet members niya so pinagtatanggol niya yung cabinet members niya.

DAVILA: And it's a decision he agreed on e, he gave it a go.

FGE: Yes, but Karen, may nagtatanong nga 'was he ill advised?'.

DAVILA: Was he?

FGE: That's unfair for the President na hindi niya alam ang ginagawa niya unless advisan siya ng ganito-ganyan. The President was well aware of what he is doing that's why he is defending it to himself because he came from Congress, he was a member of the Senate...

DAVILA: That's true.

FGE: ...he knows how things run and the frustrations of running government perhaps got to him that's why they decided and with all good intentions to implement the program such as this.

DAVILA: Would it have been different if there was no name, be honest with me. Let's say, DAP the name did not exist in any of the files.

FGE: Definitely Karen.

DAVILA: O see and ang pangalan lang nila savings stimulus, yun lang.

FGE: Diba nga nung panahon ni GMA, sampung taon yan Karen ha? Simple savings.

DAVILA: Yun lang e no?

FGE: Overall savings, yun lang ang tawag. Kasi mahilig silang mag-slogan, mag-slogan hearing at mag-slogan e. Pati yung PDAF binago ng CDF ginawang PDAF, mahilig sa mga pangalan kasi.

DAVILA: Alright, Phillip asks: do you think Abad is liable for technical malversation?

FGE: Not for me to say. Let the courts decide that, if at all. But if the Supreme Court did not mention technical malversation, they merely said criminal, proper criminal, civil or administrative cases.

DAVILA: Alright, Domeng Dela Cruz wants to know: aside from filing a bail, why didn't you file a case in court to declare admin code 87 unconstitutional?

FGE: Because I was a member of Congress and it was a law. Our remedy as a member of Congress, as a legislator would be to seek ... amendment.

DAVILA: Alright, moving forward first of all, can the president still get out of this? When I say get out of it I mean, I'm saying it in a very figurative sense of the word, you know what I mean?

FGE: Before that, I remembered something. Ngayon, may kakaibang nangyayari kasi where in the court is not at the point that they can call the administration. To answer the twitter or twitter follower question, noon kasi kung sinoman ang presidente pansin mo? Rarely at all the Supreme Court rule against the administration, palaging kampi yon pero ito for the first time we're seeing actually the Supreme Court coming up with rulings against the administration but to answer your question, yung...

DAVILA: Can the presidente get out of this?

FGE: ...I think it's.

DAVILA: Politically, let's talk about 2016. Alright, Phillip asks do you think Abad is liable for technical malversation?

FGE: It's not for me to say. Let the court decide on that of it all but if the Supreme Court did not mention a technical malversation they may said criminal proper, criminal civil or administrative cases.

DAVILA: Alright, Domeng dela Cruz wants to know, aside from filing a bill, why didn't you file a case in court to determine admin code ET7 unconstitutional?

FGE: Because I was a member of Congress, it is a law. Our remedy as a member of Congress and as a legislator would be to seek its appeal or amendment.

DAVILA: Alright, moving forward first of all, can the president still get out of this? When I say get out of it, I'm saying it in the very figurative sense of the word, you know what I mean?

FGE: I remembered something. Ngayon may kakaibang nangyayari kasi when the court is not at the beckon call of the administration. To answer the twitter follower's question, noon kasi kung sino man yung presidente, pansin mo, rarely rule against the admisntration, pero ito for the first time that we are seeing the Supreme Court coming up with rulings against administration. Ano yung twitter question?

DAVILA: Can the president get out of this? Periodically, let's talk about the 2016, how does this affect the 2016?

FGE: One, the president will not seek re-election. Two, they start on the move-on mode and not the MR mode because I think they would be able to overcome this sooner.

DAVILA: I like that. They should start with move-on mood not the MR mode.

FGE: Well of course the MR is expected...

DAVILA: It's a given.

FGE: But they should also start planning life after the DAP decision of the court. Ano na ba yung gagawin natin? Hindi naman kasi pwedeng mali kayo, tama kami. You can believe that all you want but at the end of the day, you should still follow the decision of the court and that's a mode that they should be preparing already knowing that it's already budget season soon.

DAVILA: Would the best proof of moving on and before President Aquno steps down is NAIA terminal 1 is rehabilitated? It's 6 years and that's the first thing the president promised, NAIA terminal 1. FGE: I think it is frustrating with no end. We had three DOTC secretaries and ganun pa din yung sitwasyon hanggang ngayon and it is such a simple thing as an airport. In fact, magandang ikumpara yung cost ng PPP ng mga airports. Ang layong mura ginagawa ng mga private sector kaysa kapag gobyerno ang gumagawa. We should take a close look on that kung bakit hindi nagagawa at magkano talaga yung dapat gastusin para diyan.

DAVILA: On that note is there a hearing number two?

FGE: Depends on the documents they will submit. If it is necessary, especially if the author asks for it, we will call another hearing.

DAVILA: Alright, that sched ends today, thank you Sen. Chiz Escudero. I'm Karen Davila we play at 6 pm and weekend replay as well. Be informed and stay on ANC.

News Latest News Feed