Reducing the Executive Power to Appropriate Leads to a More Stable System of Checks and Balances

Funny, I was thinking of writing an article regarding this subject a couple of weeks ago; now it is in the news.

Nonetheless, I agree with Rep. Ma. Rachel Arenas.

But why should Congress takes its purse power back? What is the implication of delegating the power of the purse to the chief executive?

First, let me first establish the premise that without public funds, no government policy will take effect; public services will grind to a halt.

Without funds, even the most effective, ideal, and pressing legislation is useless. I will use the AFP modernization program as an example. There is concensus between congress and the executive branch that the Philippine military deserves the most advance equipment, tools, and weaponry. But reality dictates that without a reliable funding source, the primary duty of the government in terms of securing the stability of the state, that is, the security and welfare of its people, will have to be set aside until sufficient funding becomes available.

Simply put, money makes the world go around; well, at least as far as public policy goes. This leads one to state that whoever possesses the most visible and extensive appropriation powers has a greater chance of convincing the citizenry to decide which government branch is the most useful to them; hence, whom the people would greatly empower.

Since the citizens vote for those who benefits them, it is important that the House of the Representatives and the Senate virtually take back all governmental powers relating to the disbursement of the people's money, that is, If both houses of Congress wish to stay in the good graces and positive view of the Filipino people. For to be fruitful in their legislative endeavours, in addition to the all-important duty of limiting potential executive and judicial excesses, the Philippine Congress must take the initiative to take back its exclusive prerogative; there is no question that it has the power and authority to do so. The danger of being irrelevant is indeed related to inaction.

But unless the two houses combine their efforts into an overriding congressional action and stick with their traditional belongings, I admit I find it impossible for the national legislature to successfuly engage the veto-wielding chief executive.

If Congress remains indifferent to the unceasing presidential publicity and flaunting of appropriating public funds, especially since the Philippine media is quite used to the notion that the Office of the President appropriated, gave, provided, and released such money, then Congress has itself to blame for encouraging the perpetuation of a strong presidency, courtesy of congressional inaction to take back a stolen prerogative as a result of a Marcos era perversion of the separation of powers among the co-equal branches of the government.

Article VI, Section 29 of the Philippine Constitution stipulates that:

No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law.

As the making of laws is the turf of the legislative branch of government, Congress must further exert its appropriation and oversight role in government spending or lose its position and relevance in the most important political arena - the court of public opinion. With such constitutional provision, it is up to the Philippine Congress to take back this essential legislative prerogative; it must, once and for all, decide whether it is worthy of being delegated the power of appropriating the money of the sovereign Filipino people.

It is time to bring balance to the separation of powers, which is the essence of a stable republican government, at least by a congressional act to take back what is in essence an exclusive congressional authority.

Set Free the Wings of Learning

I do not need to say what is beneficial in terms of this free public service.

But if LGUs do care to extend the knowledge of young Filipinos, I hope they would avail the first online public e-library.

Information is power. The right of each individual to free information must be guaranteed as a fundamental liberty not only for individual success, but also for the common good of the entire community.

A responsible citizen is a citizen informed of the issues that affect the local community and the larger society where he or she belongs.

Let the wings of learning soar towards a brighter future.

Trapo: Local Officials Acting as Fief Lords

Here is another example of traditional politics run amok.

Just because the said senator belongs to the opposition within the Philippine Senate, it does not mean he is not to be welcomed in the native province of the Chief Executive. After all, they both claim belonging to the province.

It is also the impertinence of any local official to unwelcome the said senator by pressuring school principals just because Her excellency has graced the said town as her own.

It is not known whether such town was graced with magnanimous amount of pork barrel spending from you-know-who; but the action of the mayor, if it is true, seems to convey the same nonetheless.

To be a statesmen and to be a politician are indeed two different concept of public persons. One strives to do his best for God, people, and country and will strive for the truth regardless of any high wall to scale while the other cower to their political masters and please them by acting in a manner contrary to common sense and decency.

If it were true that such mayor affected the decision of school officials to invite the said senator for a commencement address, perhaps the senator ought to consider reevaluating the pertinent Local Government Code of the Philippines, which designates local officials as ex officio members of the local school board, that is, to curtail the power of local elected officials to influence local school officials in this regard.

Such audacity ought to teach local elected officials acting as powerful local barons to mind the limits of their own capacity to influence the decision of local school officials.

It would do the local elected official well to be reminded that the Philippines is a unitary republic. Hence, all local powers emanate from the central government. To abuse such delegated powers reminds me of and reverberates memories of the past where local incumbents where indeed local warlords of their own fiefs, with their own private armies.

All must discourage those who want to go back to that time and hold accountable elected officials who tend to abuse their powers.

Legislating Good Behavior - Bawal ang Gaya-Gaya/ Manggaya

Granted. An individual has the right to be free from any harm, including remarks that degrade the dignity his dignity.

But a legislation that bans mimicking or any other form of expression that offends the identity of a person will surely be controversial.

The Philippine Constitution guarantees freedom of expression and speech plus conduct must be curtailed only when it is harmful to civil rights guaranteed under by the Philippine Constitution, national security, and the general health and well-being of the national community. The passage of House Bill 948, which makes mimicking illegal, has serious implications when it comes to the right of indivuduals to express their grievances in a manner which they consider appropriate and effective.

Not only can the bill restrict comedians, political commentators or even ordinary citizens to exercise freedom of expression through an informal or even outrageous manner; the bill also seeks to limit the number of ways in which individuals can legally express their opinion.

There is no question that the bill might help alleviate the suffering of individuals caused by prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination based upon outright falsehood.

Nonetheless, one must note that medicine, regardless of whether it is the appropriate medicine, can turn into poison if used in improper dosage.

The disadvantage of legislating good moral behavior is not found in the results, but in its inherent side effects. One must be careful not to infringe upon established constitutional rights of individuals for the sake of conforming to political correctness or acceptable social behavior.

Instead of seeking relief through the laws to punish bad behavior, why not destroy ignorance through education?