Transcript of Headstart Interview with Senate President Franklin M. Drilon by Karen Davila

Q: On the impeachment complaints vs. President Aquino in the House of Representatives

SPFMD: I do not want to pass judgment on that since we are at the Senate and they are at the House. But the matter is, the impeachment complaint is based on the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP). Do not forget that this case is the subject of a motion for reconsideration. Certainly the Supreme Court's decision on the DAP is based on its interpretation of the law that defines what savings is. Therefore there is nothing to prevent Congress from clearly defining the intent of what savings are all about.

What the Supreme Court did is interpret what they thought what savings meant under the General Appropriations Act. Thus we have the prerogative as the policy-making institution of the land, under a special law or under the General Appropriations Act, to define what exactly we mean by savings.

Q: Would this be in a way be an insult to the Supreme Court decision, given that they defined it already?

SPFMD: It is not an insult. It is part of our system of government. Remember that it is the law that defines what is not inconsistent, or that defines the act that are violative of the law. For example, today the law punishes libel as a criminal offense. A reporter is convicted by the Supreme Court. The day after the decision is rendered, the Congress decriminalized libel. Is that an insult? That is not, because Congress which defines what libels, and it is the Supreme Court who interprets what a "libelous utterance" is. After they convict in accordance with the criminal law, if Congress decriminalizes libel, then that conviction is taken off the books.

Q: Very interesting. To simplify, the Congress makes the law, the Supreme Court interprets it, and the Congress can change the law.

SPFMD: That's correct. Ganun kasimple. The common impression is that it was an insult. No. The Supreme Court does not legislate. It is the lawmakers who legislate. However, it is another matter if the Supreme Court declares a law or an act unconstitutional, which you cannot change, because that is the Constitution.

But here, what the court defined was "savings." For example, they said that we cannot impound, or reservice your project if it is not moving, the other project is not moving. So we will not continue this project, let's declare it as savings and put it for another project. The Supreme Court said, "No you can't do that, the act of declaring savings is not in line with the provisions of the law." Q: Coming on the Senate hearing on the DAP, DBM Sec. Butch Abad explained that they had withdrawn and declared as savings the money from agencies who were not able to implement the projects in the 1st half of the year. He said government agencies have a habit of executing projects in the 2nd or 3rd part of the year. He said the economy would have been slower, and the country would not have been at its best when we use money that way.

SPFMD: That's correct. In fact, the Supreme Court even recognized that the DAP helped the economy, and the Supreme Court cited the fact that 1.3% in the growth of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) could be attributed to the DAP. Now, however the Supreme Court gave a very literal and narrow definition of the word savings. They said you can't have projects at the start of the year, you have to wait. If we wait at the end, the appropriations ay nakatengga na.

Remember, if I recall my data correctly, 25% of our Gross Domestic Product are government expenditures. For every 100 peso of our economy, 20 to 25 pesos would come from government spending. That was how the DAP came into being. Because in the second half of 2010 when the Aquino administration came in, there were a lot of criticism - including those that came from us. We were saying that why are you not spending the money that is appropriated? They said that they were trying to plug the loopholes in the past, including the realignment of billions of peso. So there was a deceleration of spending.

Q: Some critics have said that it was the fault of the President because they were under spending. If they were spending properly, they wouldn't have need to create the DAP.

SPFMD: That is not a correct statement since the DAP was not first created by this administration. That is why what the Aquino administration did was follow what they thought was done under the law in the past, under so many names. In the past administration, they would impound at least 20%. If the budget is around P100 million, they can only spend P80 million. They used it in savings also, and used in other projects or augment other items in the budget. It is not as if this administration is the first one who thought of this.

Q: They did not impound di ba? The DAP functions differently.

SPFMD: Yes they did not impound. But impoundment was even worse. See Karen, for example, you bid out a project by March 31 of the year. The amount appropriated was P100 million, and then you bid it out for the amount of P75 million. The amount of P25 million available could be then savings already in the 1st quarter of the year. My question then is, do you have to wait for December 31 of the year before you consider that as savings, when you know that you have P 25 million which can be realigned to other insufficient items.

Q: Supreme Court Justice Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio said in his writing and I would like to know where you intend to correct the definition of savings. He said that funds for projects nearly suspended by the President are not considered as savings. Only funds remaining after the work activity or project has been discontinued or abandoned could constitute savings which the President could realign to insufficient items for the executive branch.

SPFMD: Right. We have no quarrel with that. The question is the part of the main decision where it was implied we have to wait until December.

Q: How would you know if it is finished before the end of the year?

SPFMD: Because when you bid at any project, you already know the final price. That is why you bid. If a P100 million is appropriated, when you bid you would know exactly how much is the total cost of the project. You can already how much is the project is.

For example, the Department of Health purchases medicine. In January, the suppliers only bid for P80 million. Is it not clear that you already have P20 million as savings by then?

Q: Isn't this giving the President, or future Presidents, too much power over the power of the purse, which belongs to Congress. You have to have an honest President in this system.

SPFMD: The audit system is supposed to keep the President always honest. When we craft the budget, we do not know how much a specific budget will actually cost? Starting this month, we are already going to talk about the budget in 2015. That's P2.6 trillion. In heaven's sake, you can't predict every single peso of the cost. So you have to estimate, and estimates can go beyond or become insufficient.

That is why the power to realign is given to the President, the Senate President, the House Speaker, to the Supreme Court Chief Justice and the constitutional commissioners. We have the power to realign items which prove to be insufficient.

Q: Secretary Abad in the Senate said that were only 2 cross-border transfers: one to the Congressional Library, where they added around P143 million, with the total cost of P 250 million. And they didn't have the money, so they needed he amount. The other is for COA, for their research, vehicles, etc. Given that the savings were pooled and you did not where they came from, would that be criminal in nature?

SPFMD: That would not be criminal in nature, because precisely 1.) you relied on the Administrative Code which is the implementing law as far as the Constitution is concerned. And the President under the pertinent provisions of the Administrative Code is allowed transfers. The Supreme Court declared that as unconstitutional, but the administration can claim good faith and the doctrine of operative fact. In other words, when you declare a law unconstitutional, the effects of the law is declared null and void. All the acts did under the law declared unconstitutional are erased and reversed, except for the doctrine of operative fact, because you cannot rewind everything. For example the medicine case I gave earlier, the P25 million to another item in the DOH budget, the fact is, if it's utilized, there were services rendered and paid, then you can not rewind those.

Q: Isn't that technical malversation?

SPFMD: No it is not. Because there were items in the budget that were augmented, and it is not as if you invented the item. So there is no technical malversation.

Q: There were good points raised in the Senate about the P149 billion DAP raised by Sen. Binay - Why was the funding for the airport removed and given to stem cell research, considering that it was an acceleration fund? Was that answered?

SPFMD: I can't remember that. But even assuming so, precisely you want to provide some flexibility. Hindi mo pwedeng sabihin na, "Hindi ka pwedeng lumagpas dito ah!"

The reality of budgeting is that you have to provide flexibility, and that flexibility is allowed by the Constitution when the heads of the executive to augment items in the budget, and that alone provides flexibility. So why did you transfer the funds for the airport to the stem cell research? Because that is precisely flexibility. You may criticize it, you may disagree with the policy, but that is a policy that was adopted by the government.

Q: Given that you are one of the heads of the Liberal Party, during the hearing some critics felt that you were lawyering for the executive on the DAP.

SPFMD: The difficulty is that when they attack the DAP it is ok. When we defend the DAP, then it is not. We need to present the other side - both sides- so that when we debate, we can do so with all the facts and laws fully explained to the people.

Q: It must be hard from where you were sitting, those who were quiet about the DAP and the PDAF were unaffected in their public ratings than those who were very vocal or had a legal opinion about it?

SPFMD: As the head of the institution, I would not hide from the media, from the people. I would not hide from Karen when she asks you to appear in Headstart. You have to appear and explain. The others have options available to them, I don't have many options. I have to appear and explain to the public. I am not worried about that. I know that we are arguing from a position of law, - a position that we feel that could and should be defended. We are criticized, and that is just fine.

Q: Do you think the President is being unfairly judged? They are being transparent where the funds went, and previous administrations did not receive this attention.

SPFMD: We take it as it comes. It can be that the previous administrations have better communication strategies. You do the best that you can.

Q: Tell me the truth: If they did not name it the DAP, just overall savings, do you think we would have a problem?

SPFMD: Probably not, you gave it a face. During the time of Gloria, I can say with my personal knowledge that they told us that "Maybe it will be better if reenact the budget." Because reenactment provides much more flexibility. They could use one appropriation to the other. They could use the appropriation for one item that was already spent for an item non existent at all. I could name examples for that. There was malice there. And they asked us to not pass the budget, because that would mean 100% flexibility.

Q. On the news that LP is keen on adopting VP Binay for 2016 elections SPFMD: All I can say is that the spin masters are having their day. There is no such thing. I am a member of the Executive Committee of the Liberal Party, and there has been no discussion on that. At the end of the day the party will be influenced in its decision by the decision of President Noynoy. The President being the chairman of our Party, would have a great say as to who the standard bearer would be, as to where the Party is going, and at this point there is no such talk.

Q: On whether a coalition is possible

SPFMD: You know, the moment I answer that question I do not know what the headlines will be tomorrow. Given that 2016 is just around the corner, all kinds of intrigues, this will be a rich source of intrigues, so I would rather not respond. Anything is possible under the sun.

Q: Right now you have Vice President Binay as the front runner, is it worth it to put up a competitor from LP?

SPFMD: The beauty with democracy is that you give people choices. You give the electorate the opportunity to choose who the next leader will be. If there is only one candidate, all of us will be in default, people will not forgive us for not presenting to them alternatives which they can choose from.

Q: So you believe LP should have its own candidate?

SPFMD: I believe that our system should provide the people with alternative choices. Not LP, LP is just an institution in our democratic system, but our system should allow anyone who feels that he should have the mandate to govern, to present himself to the people.

Q: Is LP open to having its front runner who is not an LP member? Let's say Senator Grace Poe?

SPFMD: They are not members, they ran under the LP-led ticket, I was the campaign manager and I worked hard for that, but they are not members. Is the LP open? You know that that is not being discussed at the moment, but it is still difficult to say yes or no.

Q: Shouldn't LP be preparing a standard bearer for 2016?

SPFMD: We are. Please wait, we are preparing.

Q: Is Secretary Roxas the standard bearer for now?

SPFMD: If Senator Mar makes finally his decision, yes, the party will support him. Q: Given that Binay has declared that he is running for President, do you think Secretary Mar or any other candidate still has a fighting chance?

SPFMD: Of course. One week is too long in politics.

Q: You really believe anything is possible?

SPFMD: Yes. Just look back at our recent political history and you will see the changes in the fortunes of the candidates in a week or a month's time.

Q: On the suspension of Senators Enrile, Estrada and Revilla

SPFMD: The Sandiganbayan has issued orders for the suspension of the three. Also, the orders were very clear that they will be suspended if the order is final and becomes executor, because they are given a period to file a motion for reconsideration which Senator Estrada already did, which Senator Enrile said he intends to file. This is a 90-day preventive suspension and this is authorized by the anti-graft law and the plunder law. It provides that those facing charges under the anti-graft and plunder law, upon motion of the Ombudsman, will be suspended from office.

Q: Do you have to implement it as the Senate President?

SPFMD: That is correct. Under the Constitution, only the Senate can punish its member, and under the Constitution, a Senator can be suspended for 60 days upon two-thirds vote of the Senate. However, questions have been raised. Why is it the Sandiganbayan the one suspending the members of the Senate? Because there is a basic difference. What the Sandiganbayan did is to impose a preventive suspension which is provided under the anti-graft and the plunder law. So there is a preventive suspension that is theoretically to prevent the accused from using his office to influence the result of the decision. That is why it is called preventive, it is not a penalty. On the other hand, what the Senate is empowered to do, is impose suspension as a penalty, as a punitive act. On the other hand, the Sandiganbayan has the power to impose a preventive suspension, and this distinction was explained in the Supreme Court in one case which involved also a public official, and the court explained that there is a difference between the preventive suspension which can be imposed by the Sandigan, and suspension as a penalty which only the Senate can impose.

Q: If the suspension is final, will you implement it?

SPFMD: Yes, we will implement it. We will follow the law, we will follow the order of the court.

Q: On the Senate's declining approval ratings

SPFMD: That is expected, given the very intense and very public investigation on the PDAF. That is expected. The disappointment of the people is expressed in that survey. Yes, we accept that, we listen to our people.

Q: On whether Senate President Drilon will run for President in 2016

SPFMD: Hindi po. At this point, if the people will still give me the mandate, I will run for re-election in 2016.

Q: On savings

SPFMD: Implementation to include the result of the bidding, if you bid out the project, and the bid amount is much less than the appropriation, the remainder is savings.

Q: Which part of the Constitution gives the President authority to appropriate savings for augmentation purposes?

SPFMD: Article 6, section 25, paragraph 5.

Q: Can the Senate recover?

SPFMD: Certainly, I have no doubt about that. As I said in my opening remarks when this Congress opened, we have a challenge before us, we have to show people that indeed, we are worth the trust and confidence that they deposed in the Senate as an institution and a democracy, and I told my colleagues, look, 2016 is around the corner and I know everybody is looking at that, the best way to prepare for 2016 is to work and to show to the people that you deserve to be given the mandate in 2016.

Q: When will the Senate work on redefining savings?

SPFMD: Shortly, in fact we have already discussed the timelines. Certainly, within the next three months, we will work on the budget. We have to revise the definition of savings and the budget will be passed before the year is over, including the definition of savings in the provisions of the budget.