6February2015

QUIZ #1 Inseven(7)lines,identifythefallacies(ifany)inthisspeech.Ifthere
arenofallacies,kindlypassyourblankpaperattheendofthequiz.
(Timegiven:45minutes)

Tomybelovedcountrymen,mybosses.

I asked for this opportunity to speak to you today, to explain a few points
regardingtheSupremeCourtdecisiononDAP.

Firstofall:Whatwasthesituationwhenwecamein?

When weassumedofficelastJune 2010,the 2010 budgetwasstillineffect,and

we likewise inherited the proposed 2011 budget. Of the 1.54 trillion pesos set
aside for the government for the whole of 2010, only 100 billionor 6.5
percentwas left for the remaining six months of the year. You really have to
wonder:Wheredidthemoneygo?

You may also remember anomalous projects like the dredging of LagunaLake,
where we were supposed to pay 18.7 billionpesosjusttoplay withmudorthe
GOCCsthatgaveawayexorbitantbonusestoitsofficialsandemployees,evenif
theywerealreadyoperatingataloss.

It is clear that corruption was endemic in the budgeting system of the past.We
madesuretoexciseallofthatwecancelledanomalousprojects,wecorrectedthe
governance of GOCCs, and we began to end all the sleight of hand with the
people's money.Through ZeroBasedBudgeting,onlyprograms thatwouldtruly
benefit citizens would be given funding. With thismethod, there isnoroomfor
continuing appropriations, which was one of the reasons we had such a
complicated bureaucracy why there were so many opportunitiesforcorruption
and why there were programs that fed the pockets of a few, thus depriving
benefitsfromtherestofthenation.

Although it wasn't our intention, fixing the budgeting process stalled the public
sector's contributions tothe economy.Becauseofunderspending,ourGDPwent
down.Ifwewereto lookatthis asanirrigationsystem:Wewereleftwithleaky
canals thatlettoomuch waterout.Wefirsthadtomakesuretosealthosecracks
inthesystemsowedonotwasteanymorewater,andmaketheentiremechanism

moreeffective.Andbecausetherewerejust toomanycracks inthechannels,we

couldn'tbringenoughwatertocertaincrops,watertheyneededtoflourish.

We carefully studied the situation. We discovered that there were departments

that were abletoimplementprojectsquicklyandefficientlyusingthefundsgiven
them, because they immediately streamlined their system. There were also
agencies that were in theprocessofexaminingtheirsystem,withaneyetoward
fixingflaws,toensurethatthepeople'smoneywouldn'tbewasted.But,naturally,
timedidn'tstopasallthiswasgoingontherewereagenciesthatunderstoodthat
they wouldn't be able to use funds appropriated for theyear towardprojectsfor
thepeople.Sothequestionthenwas:

Whatdowedowiththefundswehaven'tyettouched?

Allowmetoclarifythemeaningofsavingsingovernment.Athome,don'twesee
savings as something positive? For example, if you are able to buy meat at a
discount,thenyoucangetmoreingredients.

Inthecaseofgovernment,savingshasamuchmorecomplexmeaning.Attimes,
savings are welcome, such as in the caseofDPWH, where,throughcorrect and
stringent measures for bidding and procurement, we were able to save over 26
billion pesos. There are instances, however, when savings spell something
negative for our countrymen. Every year, the Executive branch submits to the
Legislature a list of priority programs, activities,andprojects thatneedfunding.
Once enacted into law, the budget must be spent within the year of allocation.
Andif fundsforcertain programsarenotspent,astheyshouldhavebeen,clearly
our countrymen did not gain what they should have. Did this not redound to a
disadvantage to our countrymen? What this means is that every time there are
savings such as this, every time funds remain unspent when they should have
beenspent,ourBossesaredeprivedofabenefit.

Without doubt, any good leader would want to implement projects that benefit
the public at the soonest possibletime. Idonotseeanyreasontodelaybenefits
forour countrymen,especiallybecausewehavethewherewithaltoalleviatetheir
plight. It is clear that if you delay the benefits due them, you prolong the
sufferingoftheFilipinopeople.

Our strategy to meet ourobligations: theDisbursementAccelerationProgramor

DAP.ThisisthesecondmatterthatIwishtodiscusstonight.


DAP is not a projectitisanefficientwayof spendingthebudgetitfollowsthe
law and adheres to themandategrantedtotheExecutiveBranch.Wedid thisto
properly allocate funds, and by so doing maximize the benefits that the people
mayreceive.

How did DAP start? Hours before delivering my SONA in 2011, Iwasgivena
progress report by all government departments. I was taken aback by certain
informationgiventous.

Forinstance:AccordingtoDepEd,outofthe8,oooschoolbuildingsthattheyhad
targeted to build, they were only abletocomplete18.Tobehonest, DepEdhad
tried its best, but they faced a number of concernsproblems with land,
assessment issues, as well as the complex processes in our bureaucracy.Thisis
why, weaskedthemdirectly:Canyoustillmeetyourtargetintheremainingfive
months of the year? They responded to this candidly:"Weare doingallthatwe
can,butwecanonlybuildthreetofourthousandclassroomsuntiltheyearcloses.
We will have to buildtheremaindernextyear."Thuswasthestory:Despitethe
many setbacks thattheagencyhadtoface,DepEd delivered.Andnow,wehave
eliminatedwhatweinheritedabacklogof66,800classrooms.

The sitio electrification program is another project that was successfully

implemented through the efficient use of savings. In 2012, our target was to
energize 4,053 sitios. The budget had allotted 3.87 billion pesos for this. And
because of the speedy and efficient implementation of this project,theNational
Electrification Administration requested more funds to light up an additional
2,110 sitios. Through DAP, in 2012, i.264 billion pesos weremadeavailable to
electrifyatotalof6,163sitiosoutofthe36,000thatweneedenergize.

Is it not right that funds that had been otherwise left unused were utilized for
programsthathadproven effective,sothattargetscanbemet andthebenefitsto
the people can ensue at the soonest possible time? Another advantage of this
system:Projectsthatweretemporarilysuspendedforagivenyearwouldnothave
tocompeteforfundingwiththeotherfinishedprojectsinthefollowingyear.This
isclearlyawinwinsituation.

Now, let's talk about agencies such as the National Irrigation Authority or the
NIA. When I spoke at their anniversary, they proudly stated that they had
doubled their performance in meeting targets for rehabilitation and

reconstruction. Looking at the numbers, however, we see that for the past ten
years, they've performed well below targettargets that they set for themselves.
We all know that it'smucheasiertohidecorruptionthroughrepairs,ratherthan
through new projects, wherethequestionsimply becomes:Isit there,orisn'tit?
Forexample:Canweseethenewirrigationcanals,orcan'twe?

The NIA's administrator back then also explained why, after achieving an 87
percent accomplishment rate for irrigation projectsin2011, theaccomplishment
rate droppedto65percent in2012.Theirexcuse:40percentoftheprojectswere
inMindanao,andwasthusaffected by TyphoonPablo.Letmeremindeveryone:
Typhoon Pablo hit Mindanao in the first week of December 2012. We asked,
what reasons did they have to push the completion of Mindanao projects tothe
last three weeksof2012?Ontopofthis,rememberthattherearefewerworkdays
duringChristmasandNewYear's. Incredible,isn'tit?Idon'tthinkanyonewould
agree with this style of management, and we can't let such attempts to fool us
pass.We'vesincereplacedthesaidNIAadministrator.

Our aim is to not prolong the implementation of projects. The Cabinet agreed,
regarding their respective funds: Use it or lose it. If you cannot use the funds
allotted for this year, clearly, those are savings. We are given the chance to
extend, atthesoonestpossibletime,thosebenefitsthathaveimmediateimpacton
our Bosses. In this way, benefits that may have been delayed are replaced by
otherbenefits.Letusalsorememberthatthe governmentisatadeficit:Wehave
toborrowfundsforour projects.Ifweallowfunds togounused,thenwewould
be payinginterestfornothing.Thepeopleclearly havenothing togainfromthis
setup.

The Supreme Court's decision questions our use of savings,andraisesconcerns

on when we can use unprogrammed funds. They want savings declared only at
the 31st of December of each year. If that were the case, when would the
government be free to utilize these funds? Following their logic on savings,
projectsthatcouldhavebeenfundedinthemiddleofthecurrentyearwouldhave
tobedelayeduntilthefollowingyear.

We also have a list of projects that would only be funded if government

experiencesawindfall inearnings,whicharereferredtoasunprogrammedfunds.
With the SupremeCourt'sdecision,benefitswouldbe delayed,because itwould
take until March of the following year to fulfill all the requirements regarding
thesefundsontopofthis,itwouldallthenhavetogothroughanotherfourtosix

months of bidding and procurement. Ifyou file a report in March, it would be

September of the following yearbythetimealloftheseprocessesaredone. All
in all, almost two years would have passed before the benefits of funds would
redoundtothepeople.

What are the implications of this? We have programs for the relocation of
informal settlers to safer places. In thesystemtheSupremeCourtisorderingus
tobringback,itmight taketwomorerainyseasonsbeforeweareabletorelocate
our countrymen. Let us remember: about twenty typhoons come our way each
year. Is it right to ask thoselivinginhazardousareastojustleaveeverythingto
prayer?

My conscience cannot bear this. I cannot accept that our countrymen will be
exposed to danger because I let the process of bringing them assistance be
prolonged.Letusremember:Thenation'scoffersbelongstoourcitizens.

Itisnotonly myconsciencethat dictates theefficientspendingoffundsvarious

provisions of the lawthatisourcountry'sAdministrativeCodeclearlyallowfor
the use of savings. For example, let us now read Book VI, Chapter 5,
Section39ofthe1987AdministrativeCodeofthePhilippines:

Exceptasotherwiseprovided inthe GeneralAppropriationsAct,anysavings

in the regular appropriations authorized in the General Appropriations Act for
programs and projects of any department, office or agency, may, with the
approval of the President, be used to cover a deficit in any other item of the
regularappropriations...

Asyoucansee,this lawopenlygivesthePresidentthepowertotransfersavings
tootherprojects.Itdoesnotlimitthetransfertoonlyonedepartmentorbranchof
government.Inotherwords:Wedidnottransgressthelawwhenweimplemented
DAP.

In fact, we were surprised to find that the Supreme Court decision did not take
into account our legal basis for DAP. How can they say that our spending
methods are unconstitutional when they did not look into our basis? Even until
now, Section 39 of the Administrative Code is in effect, along with its other
sections.

This becomes even more worrisome when we take into account the operative

fact doctrine, which the Supreme Court also mentioned in its decision. This is
simple. When a Supreme Court declares as unconstitutionalanylaw oredictby
the Executive, only those projects yet to be implemented under said law are
deemed prohibited. The declaration does not include completed projects if this
meansstrippingourcitizensofbenefits.Thisisonlynaturalbecauseitisnotright
to destroy bridges that have already been built, or to demolishhouses thathave
alreadybeenbestowedtofamiliesofinformalsettlers.

Likewise, thisdoctrinealsorecognizesthat implementorsdonothavetobeheld

accountable as long as the edict was carried out in good faith. But in their
decision,thejudgesimmediatelypresumetheabsenceofgoodfaith,whichwould
thenhaveto beproventhroughtrial.Whathappenedtotheprincipleofinnocent
untilprovenguilty?

TherearealsothosewhosaythatDAPandPDAFarethesamething.Excuseme.
DAP is different from PDAF. With PDAF, the corrupt funneled government
fundsintofakeNGOs,moneythenallegedlydividedamongthemselves.It'sclear
that withDAPthe people'smoneywasnever stolenthe fundswere usedfor the
benefit of Filipinos. And not for later,notsoonbutnow:Programsthatcould
be implemented immediately were implemented immediately. And didn't the
Supreme Court itself, the World Bankeven critics of DAPdidn't they all
admitthatDAPhelpedimproveoureconomy?

It is clear that the Supreme Court has much to consider that they may better
clarify their decision regarding DAP hopefully they will come to realize the
decision'snegativeeffectonthecountry.

We willappealtheSupremeCourt's decision. Wewill do thisbyfilingaMotion

for Reconsideration, which will allow them to more fully and more
conscientiouslyexaminethelaw.

There are those who say that this decision might be a personalvendetta against
methatIambeing daredtoactinthesamevindictivemanneragainstthem.All
I can sayas the President, as the father of this countryis that we need
temperanceandforbearancewemustcomplywithdueprocess.

Any lawyer we might speak to will caution against this move. The Supreme
Court voted 130 against DAP only one abstained. The mere hope that the
decision will be overturned is almost impossible.Wehad alsobeenwarnedthat

pushingthroughwiththismotionmightputusingreaterdanger.

My message to the Supreme Court: We do not want two equal branches of

governmenttogohead tohead,needingathirdbranchtostepintointervene.We
find it difficult to understand your decision. Youhaddone somethingsimilar in
thepast,andyoutriedtodoitagainthereareeventhoseoftheopinionthatwhat
you attempted to commit was graver, if we were to base it on your decision.
Abidingbythe principleofpresumptionofregularity,weassumedthatyoudid
the right thing after all, you are the ones who should ostensibly have a better
understanding of the law. Andnow,whenwe usethesamemechanismwhich,
you yourselves have admitted, benefit our countrymenwhy is it then that we
arewrong?

We believe that the majority of you, like us, want only the bestforthe Filipino
people. To the honorable justices of the Supreme Court: Help us help our
countrymen. We ask that you review your decision, this time taking into
consideration the points Ihave raised tonight. The nation hopes for your careful
deliberation and response. And I hope that once you've examined the
argumentsIwillsubmit,regardingthelawand aboutoureconomy, solidaritywill
ensuethus strengthening the entire government's capability to push for the
interestsofthenation.

Perhaps,noone willdaretodoubtthatwehavepushedforreformthesepastfour
years. And I must ask: What is expected from those of us who are advancing
reform?

We know that the system we inherited was one that did not help, or did notdo
enough to help, ourcountrymen.We arenowrighting thewrongsin thesystem,
so that it may worktowardsthisgoal:To upholdthe interestsofthepeople,our
Bosses who handed us our mandate. Thus, to the Supreme Court, our message:
Donotbarusfromdoingwhatwesworetodo.Shouldn'tyoubesidingwithusin
pushing for reform? Let us, therefore, end this vicious cycle that has taken our
peoplehostage.

On this note, allow me to share a text message I received in the last week. It
reads: The politicians are making fiesta regarding DAP but to our simple
nonlegalistic mind, it is like a motorist who parked in a no parking zone
because he had to rush to save the life of an accident victim, which has more
value. I'm praying hard that these people will see the good of the people rather

thantheirownambition.

TothisIreplied:Ithinkthesituationnowis similartowhatyou mentioned,and

itmightbeevenworse.Iamafterallbeingarrestedforparkinginanareathatup
tonowhasn'tyetbeendeclaredanoparkingzone.Isthisreasonable?

To my Bosses, in the coming days, I, along with my Cabinet as well as some

beneficiaries of DAP, will be providing more information about this important
topic.IencourageallofyoutoreadthedecisionoftheSupremeCourt,aswellas
theirconcurringanddissentingopinions,sothatyoumay betterunderstandwhat
I havesaidtonight.Forthoseconcernedregardingtheprogramsthathadreceived
funding but havebeen put on hold because we need to followthe decision
of the Supreme Court, do not worry. We will return to Congress to ask for a
supplementalbudgettoensurethatallbenefitsaredelivered.

Finally, let me impress upon everyone: DAP is good. Our intentions, our
processes, and the results were correct. Bosses, I promise you: I will not allow
your suffering to be prolongedespecially if wecoulddowhatwecanas early
asnow.

Thankyou,anditismyhopethatyounowbetterunderstandthesituation.