A standing ovation for Manong JPE!

Chief Presidential Legal Counsel Juan Ponce Enrile deserves a standing ovation and a salute for his lucid discussions on the differences among the 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions when he served as a resource person during the Senate hearing on amending the Constitution under Senator Robin Padilla, chairman of the Senate Committee on Constitutional Amendments.

Enrile pointed out that the phrase “imminent danger,” one of the grounds for the President to declare martial law was based on the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions. This phrase was excluded from the 1987 Constitution, thereby “weakening the country.”

Enrile believes the 1987 Constitution should be set aside.

So lucid was the discourse of Enrile that he sounded like a young professor, and to think that on 14 February, Valentine’s Day, he will be 100 years old made his performance even more fantastic.

What an honor for us, therefore, to greet in advance this living legend of our time who will celebrate a century of his life with us. 

Advance happy 100th birthday, Manong JPE! May you continue to enjoy the journey of life. May all your wants and desires come true.

Never again a dysfunctional Commission on Audit in this decade.

We hope the committee under Senator Padilla will consider this issue:

What audit system would best safeguard the accounts and financial operations of the government of the Philippines? Most especially at this time when half a trillion pesos was allotted under the 2024 national budget for dignified giving to the poor, to help them rise and stand on their own feet.

During the advent of “The New Philippines and the New Filipino,” it is imperative that serious consideration be given to the study of what audit system would best complement the national government’s effort to promote national development and progress.

During the last seven decades, after the Philippines gained its independence in 1946, there was no single 10-year period when the country did not experience a financial crisis due to huge irregularities in the disbursement of public funds, presumably due to some dysfunction in the audit system of the country.

The worst occurred during the decade 2010-2020. It would be best then to select this period for study on why the worst happened during this time.

This has been the system in the CoA, with three commissioners, one acting as chairman and chief executive officer, under the 1987 Constitution.

The three are appointed by the President with the consent of the Commission on Appointments or CA, for a term of seven years without reappointment. Of those appointed, the chairman shall hold office for seven years, one commissioner for five years, and the other commissioner for three years, without reappointment. 

Appointment to any vacancy shall only be for the unexpired portion of the term of the predecessor. In no case shall any member be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity.

It is the consent of the CA with its power of confirmation that caused the most serious dysfunction in the exercise by the auditor of his power to either allow or disallow disbursements.

A debt of gratitude owed by the officials of the CoA to the lawmakers for confirming their appointments distorts their sense of values and adversely affects the fair and honest exercise of their audit function.

Perhaps, CoA should adopt the process for the confirmation of justices of the courts who were appointed by the President.

The worst conflict of interest between the lawmaker-members of the Commission on Appointments and CoA commissioners was most obviously scandalous during the decade 2010-2020 when the chief state auditors reneged on their constitutional duty to disallow the DAP money received by lawmakers.

(To be continued)