EO 464: So Much for Transparency
Executive Order No. 464 violates the Constitution according to six groups who filed separate petitions before the Supreme Court. EO 464, which President Gloria Arroyo signed on 28 September 2005, bans officials from the executive, police, and the military from appearing in legislative inquiries without the President’s consent. It was signed after the media discovered the $75,000 Venable contract on 10 September 2005 and when Brig. Gen. Francisco Gudani and Lt. Col. Alexander Balutan testified at the Senate wiretapping inquiry on the alleged 2004 electoral fraud.
In September 2005, the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism reported that the Philippine government contracted US lobby firm Venable LLP to secure grants for projects and US Congressional support for the Charter change initiative. National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales signed the contract in behalf of the President. The Senate set a hearing on 21 September where Gonzales refused to answer questions. Senators cited him in contempt and ordered him detained in the Senate until he disclosed the identities of the funders of the Venable deal.
In Brig. Gen. Gudani and Col. Balutan’s case, Sen. Rodolfo Biazon said the two were not covered by the order because the hearing was in the morning while EO 464 was signed in the afternoon. AFP Chief of Staff Generoso Senga, however, said the two violated a direct order. He said Defense Secretary Avelino Cruz directed him to order the two to ask clearance from the President on the eve of the supposed day of issuance before testifying.
Gen. Senga, Lt. Gen. Hermogenes Esperon, Vice Adm. Mateo Dimayuga, among others, were also invited to the succeeding hearings but refused to attend, invoking EO 464. AFP Information Office chief Col. Tristan Kison also invoked EO 464 in barring ISAFP agents from appearing before the Senate.
In a September 2005 hearing on the North Rail project anomaly, while testifying before the Senate panel, Assistant Government Counsel Efren Gonzales said that his office had been padlocked, preventing him from entering his own office. Pressured by EO 464, former Agriculture Secretary Arthur Yap, former DA Assistant Secretary Ibarra Poliquit, and DA Undersecretary Belinda Gonzales also invoked the order in the Fertilizer Fund hearing on 2 February 2006.
Even Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye and DILG Undersecretary Marius Corpus failed to attend their own budget hearings on 8 February 2006, invoking EO 464. Secretary Eduardo Ermita said the President suspended Memorandum Order 192 because the Supreme Court was about to start its preliminary hearing on EO 464. MO 192 apparently allows government officials to appear only during confirmation and budget hearings until 30 June 2006. The latest to invoke EO 464 was PNP Chief Arturo Lomibao on 13 March at the second Senate hearing on Proclamation 1017.
Petitioners against EO 464 argue that it violates Article VI, Sections 21 and 22 of the Constitution, which “allows the Senate or House of Representatives to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation” and “heads of departments may be heard by such House on any matter pertaining to their departments.” Sen. Joker Arroyo said the gag order “emasculated and castrated” the legislative bodies. Critics claim that certain officials are using the order to hide clandestine deals. The Supreme Court is expected to render a decision after the petitioners filed their memorandum following the oral arguments on 21 February. Five of the pending petitions were filed in October 2005 and one was filed in February 2006.
Budget Hold-up
Is a re-enacted budget good or bad for government? Well, it depends on who you talk to. The government blames Congress for delaying the budget but critics say it actually gives President Gloria Arroyo discretion to realign funds. The government is now operating under a reenacted budget, but that’s nothing new. Last year, the budget was signed only on 15 March. In 2004, the entire 2003 budget was reenacted.
The Executive branch submitted a proposed P1.053 trillion budget for 2006 last 24 August 2005, a day past the deadline set by the Constitution (30 days from the opening of the regular session). The general appropriations bill must originate from the House before the Senate can start its deliberations. But to ensure speedy passage, the Senate constituted itself as a Committee of the Whole to begin simultaneous deliberations.
In its analysis of the President’s 2006 Budget, the Congressional Planning and Budget Department (CPBD) said that a reenacted budget would result in misallocated funds. CPBD’s report identified the following items that will be affected by a reenacted budget:
1) allocations for local government units, particularly the Internal Revenue Allotment;
2) funds for new teachers, textbooks and classrooms;
3) funds for construction and rehabilitation of airports and seaports as well as flood-control and highways; and
4) compensation and salary adjustment for government employees.
The IRA will be pegged at P151.6 billion, P14.9 billion short of the proposed P166 billion budget for 2006.
Education Undersecretary (on leave) Juan Miguel Luz estimated that DepEd is bound to lose P5.6 billion in new funds urgently needed to improve the public school system, including P1 billion to employ 10,000 teaching and non-teaching personnel. Likely to be affected also is a P1.6 billion fund for the feeding program for two million Grades 1 to 3 students. The CPBD, however, estimated a bigger loss in basic education, which includes P2.9 billion for 4,578 new classrooms, P2.7 billion for new teachers, and P2 billion for tuition subsidy to P475,000 high school students in private schools.
The Department of Public Works and Highways is supposed to get P62.3 billion for 2006, but a reenacted budget will give it only P49.5 billion. A reenacted budget could also delay projects funded through official development assistance (ODA) because these require counterpart funds from government, according to NEDA. These projects are commonly related to infrastructure upgrading and improvement.
On 28 February 2006, President Arroyo signed Administrative Order 144 to give P1,000 per month additional allowance to state employees, military and uniformed personnel starting 1 January 2006. It will take effect until Congress passes House Bill 5013, a supplemental budget which earmarks P13 billion or a P1,000 per month additional compensation for national government workers. Its Senate counterpart, however, seeks a P2,000 increase.
Malacañang’s call to immediately pass the supplemental budget was objected to by Sen. Manuel Villar, Jr. because that would indicate scrapping the proposed 2006 budget still pending in Congress. A chance of having a new budget is now becoming bleak.
What’s taking the Ombudsman so long to investigate the Comelec?
To date, there has been no conclusive report from the Ombudsman on the investigation of Commission on Elections (Comelec) commissioners involved in the bidding scam of the nullified contracts for Phase II of the Automated Election System to Mega Pacific Consortium (MPC).
Looking back, the Supreme Court stopped the Comelec from implementing the contract on 13 January 2004 and ordered then Ombudsman Simeon Marcelo to investigate and explore criminal liability of public officials (and conspiring private individuals) involved in the case. In February 2004, Marcelo issued a memorandum to determine whether Comelec commissioners must first be impeached before they face charges.
But by March 2004 Marcelo inhibited himself from the case (because Comelec Chair Abalos was a client of the law firm he used to work for) and turned it over to Deputy Ombudsman Victor Fernandez. A memo was released the following month stating that investigation on the criminal liability of Commissioners Luzviminda Tancangco and Ralph Lantion—who both retired—will continue.
In October 2004, Deputy Ombudsman Fernandez recommended a preliminary investigation to proceed with the criminal and administrative liability of those involved in the contract. Ombudsman Marcelo said in February 2005 that cases filed had been consolidated and investigations were on-going. Surprisingly, Marcelo resigned on 30 November 2005 without releasing a report and was replaced by Presidential Legal Counsel Merceditas Gutierrez.
Information Technology Foundation of the Philippines (ITFP) petitioned on 22 December 2005 the Supreme Court to direct the Ombudsman to give an update on its investigation. ITFP filed a supplemental motion on 20 January 2006 for the Court to ask the Ombudsman why it should not be cited in contempt of court for its failure to determine the criminal liability of those involved in the failed automation project. The Court directed the Ombudsman to reply.
The Ombudsman, however, replied that it could not be faulted nor held in contempt of court since it had fully acted on the referral. It stated that as a constitutionally independent body, the Ombudsman has no duty to render reports on the status, eventual outcome and completion of its investigation on the case; and that it had actually acted on the Court’s earlier directive by immediately conducting a series of investigations.
Since the Court stringently interprets it as a directive, the Ombudsman said it is then for their office to determine the criminal liability of COMELEC officials involved, “nothing more, nothing less”. And given that the issue is urgent and complicated, the Ombudsman said it cannot be both quick and thorough in its investigation to ensure a judicious resolution of the complaints. The last time an Ombudsman was cited in contempt was in February 1989, when acting Ombudsman (and now Secretary of Justice) Raul Gonzalez issued statements that constituted a frontal assault on the Supreme Court.
Critics have questioned the independence of Ombudsman Gutierrez, as she is known to be a close associate of the Arroyos. Many people are asking why she has not taken steps to establish her independence since she took office. Since December, she has not issued a disclosure or divestment to assure the public that she assumes her office free from conflict of interest and with a clean record, similar to what Ombudsman Marcelo did.
The Comelec case lies at the core of electoral reform and will have an impact on future elections. By failing to establish the criminal liability of retired and incumbent poll officials who entered into a contract grossly disadvantageous to the government will mean accountability means nothing to this government. The possibility also remains that three Commissioners involved in the Mega Pacific contract will oversee and implement a new automation project. It might cost us another P3.3 billion in taxpayer’s money.
When is a rebel a rebel?
The police filed rebellion charges against 16 persons, including House Representatives Satur Ocampo, Teodoro Casiño and Joel Virador (all of Bayan Muna), Rafael Mariano (Anakpawis) and Liza Maza (Gabriela), for their alleged involvement in a plot to overthrow President Arroyo on 24 February.
The five congresspersons (now known as the “Batasan 5”) are still under the protective custody granted by the House of Representatives under House Resolution No. 1169 on 28 February and upon the agreement of PNP Director General Arturo Lomibao and Speaker Jose de Venecia, Jr. HR 1169 provides protective custody for the duration of the preliminary investigation and until the issuance of a warrant of arrest.
Despite the threat of arrest, the party-list legislators asserted their right to a preliminary investigation and not to be subjected to or accept the validity of any inquest proceeding. They insisted that only a court could issue valid arrest warrants after charges had been filed in court.
Curiously enough, both Reps. Ocampo and Casiño admitted to meeting with then Vice-President Arroyo in 2000 in discussions surrounding the removal of then President Joseph Estrada. The legislators are now questioning the rebellion complaints against them, saying Arroyo was once guilty of conspiring against a president. Mrs. Arroyo even gamely posed with them with a banner shouting “Oust” prominently in the background. The President now says she regrets meeting with them.
|
