Speech

of
His Excellency Benigno S. Aquino III
President of the Philippines
At the celebration of the 150th birth anniversary of Apolinario Mabini
Today, as we commemorate the 150th birth anniversary of Apolinario Mabini, it is only proper
for us to recognize his invaluable contributions to building our nation. Indeed: Mabini
embodies the intelligence of the Filipino peoplean intelligence that he poured into forging
the very principles and systems that shaped the being of this free nation.
As such, it is important for us to remember today three principles and ideas that Mabini lived
out in his lifeideas that we strive to realize in our actions to this very day.
First, Mabini emphasized the importance of a legitimate mandate as the foundation of any
government. The strength of the state emanates from its citizens. That is why, under the
leadership and guidance of Apolinario Mabini, the very frst local elections in our country
were held in August 1898. Furthermore, it was Mabini himself who led the organization of the
frst national assembly in Malolos in September of that same year; it was this assembly that
elected Aguinaldo in January 1899, thus replacing the revolutionary government that
declared our countrys sovereignty in Kawit on June 12, 1898.
Second: Mabini instilled the idea of public service in our national consciousness. He
believed: If power comes from the people, then it is only just that this power be used to
uphold their interest and welfare.[1] Mabini embodied this conviction even after the revolution
against Spain. In the early days of our Republic, the nation was immediately asked to face
another war, this time with the Americans. The legislature back then asked: Where will we
get the funds for this war? In answer, some members of Congress suggested: We have
money, which we can lend to government. Mabini did not agree with this. Was this rightthat
the very persons who would decide whether government could borrow money in order to
fnance a war would be the same persons who would earn interest from these loans? Was
this not a confict of interest? Thus, Mabini insisted: No one in a position of power has the
right to proft from serving in government.
The third principle held by Mabini is this: Public institutions are established for the sake of
the people; thus, it is not right for these very same institutions to obstruct the delivery of
benefts to the people. Before the Malolos Congress, Mabini made clear the need for the
executive branch to act in a swift, responsive, and sometimes bold manner, precisely
because it is tasked with responding to the needs of the people in the soonest possible time.
He also called on the legislature: Let us help one another; let us not tie the hands of the
executive, so that no opportunity to quickly improve the lot of our people will be wasted.
By refecting on our history, we see how the tenets held by Mabini resonate with the present.
These past few weeks, there have been heated discussions resulting from the Supreme
Courts decision on the Disbursement Acceleration Program.
Let me point out once more: DAPs objective was to deliver the benefts due our countrymen
in a fast and correct way. Through this policy, we maximized the use of public funds, so that
the sufering of our people would not prolong.
Under DAP, funds were directed to projects that have benefted and continue to beneft our
countrymen; this is true, even though the program itself has been terminated. For instance,
in TESDA: Under DAP, 1.6 billion pesos was allocated and used for the training of 223,615
technical education graduates. This means that government invested 7,155 pesos on
average for each graduateand 66 percent of these graduates, or 146,731 Filipinos, have
jobs today. The remaining 34 percent are now being assisted and continue to be assisted by
TESDA in fnding employment. All the pertinent details of these graduatesincluding names,
addresses, and contact numbersare well-documented and open to the public; anyone can
freely examine and investigate them.
To give another example: The benefts of the DREAM-LiDAR project under Project NOAH,
which was also funded under DAP, are also undeniable. Now, the water level information we
are able to gather during typhoons has become more reliable and exact. Warnings are given
no less than six hours before calamity strikes, which gives efcient LGUs, such as those led
by Governor Joey Salceda, enough time to evacuate their people from the path of the storm.
In fact, in Governor Salcedas province of Albay, there was no recorded casualty after the
most recent storm that challenged our country, Typhoon Glenda.
In the tourism sector: Out of 202 roads built leading to priority destinations in our country, 66
were funded under DAP in 2012, to the tune of 5 billion pesos. These roads will ensureand
in fact some of them are already ensuringease of travel and convenience for our tourists.
Furthermore: the completion of these roads and, consequently, the arrival of these tourists in
key destinations directly beneft our countrymen who make a living through tourism.
To tell you the truth, undertaking DAP was not a haphazard decision on our part. We did not
simply make it up; we based it on laws, most prominently the Administrative Code of 1987,
which we believe is in accordance with our Constitution. Apart from this, we are all the more
convinced that DAP is legal because the Supreme Court itself has agreed with this type of
mechanism.
You may ask why. These are the examples. In July of 2012, the Supreme Court had savings
amounting to 1.865 billion pesos. This amount was earmarked to augment the fund meant
for the construction of the Manila Hall of Justice. In fact, in August of that year, they already
held a groundbreaking event for the building. The problem was that the item in the budget for
this project was under the Department of Justice. It is clear then: the Judiciarys money was
earmarked for a project that was supposed to be undertaken by the Executive.
This leads me to a second example. In 2012, the DOJ had 100 million pesos for the Manila
Hall of Justice. We received a letter of request from the Supreme Court. Let me read a
portion lifted directly from their resolution:
Wherefore, the court hereby requests the Department of Budget and Management to
approve the transfer of the amount of One Hundred Million Pesos which was included in the
DOJ-JUSIP for Fiscal Year 2012 budget for the Manila Hall of Justice to the budget of the
judiciary, subject to existing policies and procedures, to be used for the construction of the
Malabon Hall of Justice.
They were asking us to transfer to themthe judiciary, a separate branch of government
the funds that were supposed to be used in the construction of buildings that will house the
courts. We see nothing wrong with this, since we know that it would only hasten the
dispensation of justice in our country. However, the Supreme Court withdrew their request in
December 2013, when the discussions surrounding DAP had intensifed. Even from these
examples alone, it is clear that they intended to do a cross-border transfer, or a transfer of
funds from one branch of government to another.
You might notice that, in all these examples, the executive branch did not initiate or ofer
anything. We never wished to involve ourselves in the jurisdiction or exclusive responsibilities
of other branches of government; we never asked for anything in return. The only question
we asked ourselves was: Would this beneft our people? If it would help, why should we
oppose an opportunity to hasten the delivery of services to our Bosses?
Allow me to emphasize: When we undertook DAP, we already had Sections 38, 39, and 49
of the Administrative Code as basis. The method we used has likewise been used by
previous administrations. And seeing that the Supreme Court itselfthe institution with the
expertise and the sole mandate to interpret the lawdid it as well, we became more
confdent that our method was correct.
In fact, given the clamor and noise surrounding this issue, it seems as if the true meanings of
some concepts are being obscured. The frst such concept is that of good faith. Indeed: in
ordinary situations, good faith is used to describe actions driven by good intentions.
However, when we speak of good faith in terms of the law, it takes on a deeper meaning,
which is: If your actions, whether in the past or present, have a legal basis in existing laws,
then you acted in good faith. To add to this: Even if those laws are declared invalid or
unconstitutional in the future, it still cannot be said that you acted in bad faith.
With their decision, it seems as if the Supreme Court changed both the rules and this long-
established understanding of good faithand in so doing, brought about serious implications
on the work of all those in government. We all recognize: Each member of the executive
branch must make decisions every day. With this fact, we are reminded of Abraham Lincolns
saying, You can please some of the people some of the time; all of the people some of the
time; some of the people all of the time; but you can never please all the people all the time.
It is only natural that, in the course of service, there are times when our actions are
questioned. In the system that prevails in our country, should someone accuse us of any
crime or wrongdoing, it is his obligation to provide proof of this very wrongdoing. For those in
government, if you fulflled your mandate as prescribed by law, and in accordance with the
presumption of regularity, then you have nothing to fear. However, with the recent Supreme
Court decision, whenever the actions of any government employee are questioned, this
employee now has the obligation to prove that he is innocent of any wrongdoing. For
example, in the process of bidding out projects, only one bidder can win. Naturally, there are
others who loseand what if these individuals look for loopholes with which to fle cases
against government ofcials involved in the bidding process? The unfortunate ofcial who
makes the decision to award the bid now has to defend himself from lawsuits. How can you
work efciently if you constantly have to face cases?
Might I ask: Is there anyone who can live up to standards that have yet to be set? How can
you work, when, with each step you take, you worry about the possibility of imprisonment
because you are presumed guilty until proven innocent? Today, because of the Supreme
Court decision, each government ofcial must play a guessing game in predicting if his right
actions will be considered unconstitutional in the future. Decision making in the executive
becomes disincentivized, and with this hesitance comes a delay in the delivery of benefts to
the Filipino people. This is the chilling efect that the Supreme Court decision will have on
government. I must emphasize: What we call the retroactive efect will truly have a chilling
efect because the standard you were following today, when changed in the future, will result
in the new standards becoming the basis on which you will be judged: How can you be
expected to follow a standard that is yet to be determined?
When it comes to the law, the Supreme Court has the fnal word. We have no plans of
defying rulings. In truth, we are following not only the primary points in the decision; we are
also acting in consideration of all the opinions that accompanied it.
Even then, we must never forget that, just as Apolinario Mabini said, whatever power held by
any leader in any branch of government comes from the people. Thus, we are all asked to
push for any and all actions that redound to the beneft of our Bosses. This principle is why
the executive branch has fled a Motion for Reconsideration, which includes all the
arguments I have outlined today and in the past. This is a course of action our laws and
systems allow us to take. This is a chance to ensure that each and every argument is
evaluated carefully, so that we can avoid decisions that may adversely afect our people. The
motion for reconsideration is a just act, one that follows due process. It provides a good
opportunity to once again lay down all the facts on the tableensuring that those rendering
decisions have the chance to appreciate the points that may have been overlooked in the
past, and the well-reasoned arguments that will strengthen all sides.
I have to admit: there are times when I envy those who can focus their full attention on a
single advocacy. Sometimes, I envy my colleagues in government, who are entrusted with a
mandate for only one aspect of society. As the father of our nation, I am obliged to consider
the wholethe big pictureat all times, because my decisions on one sector invariably
afect others as well. It is likewise my obligation to shed light on this issue, and help our
honorable justices understand, especially because their decision has grave implications not
only in the executive, judicial, or legislative branch, but also and more importantly on the
entire country. It is my obligation to help my Bosses achieve clarity of thought, and impart to
them the necessary information, so that all can see what is right and what is just. This is how
we choose to follow the example set by Apolinario Mabinihe who said, We are bound by
one fate, by the same joys and sorrows, and by common aspirations and interests.[2]
Thank you, and good day.