The blamer is being blamed, too

Batas Mauricio

NOW, the shoe is on the other foot. Whereas during the six years he was president, Benigno Aquino III concerned himself with nothing but endless blaming of his predecessor perhaps as a tactical move to cover-up his own failings and shortcomings as chief executive, he is now himself at the receiving end of blames from incoming President Rodrigo Duterte.

In a late night-early morning interview with media on May 25-26, 2016 in Davao City, Duterte sarcastically lamented the “total absence of government” on the matter of education, underscoring the lack of tangible programs to promote the education of the Filipino youth in the past six years that Aquino led the nation.

This lack of program for the education of the young was, of course, undeniable, but, as the whole country witnessed rather ruefully, there was really an absence of government not only in education under Aquino, but also in many other areas of day to day living–economics, peace and order, graft and corruption, crime and criminality, smuggling, illegal drugs and gambling, among many others.

Indeed, if we talk about what legacy the Aquino government will be leaving behind by June 30, 2016, the only honest answer that can be given, even by the most rabid supporters of President Aquino, is that, it is a legacy of failures, of broken election promises, and of governing senselessly and without any direction.

Even now, his veto of the law enacted by both houses of Congress to increase the monthly pension of retired members of the Social Security System by as little as P2,000 a month, is headed for another failure as it is being challenged by lawmakers who, at one point in his term, literally were his puppets, ready to do his bidding, and lick the soles of his feet, if there was a need for such sycophancy.

That our lawmakers are moving to override Aquino’s veto even while he is still in office shows that he egregiously failed, yet again, to truly impress upon his erstwhile legislative allies the importance of rejecting the pension hikes for SSS members because that would ultimately deplete SSS funds, leading to the collapse of the SSS program.

The fact is that, Aquino even failed to enforce or truly implement quite a minor, yet long-standing, ban on trucks on Metro Manila roads between six o’clock in the morning 10 am Mondays to Fridays. Before Aquino, there was compliance with that ban. During Aquino, there was literally a ban on the ban, pardon the pun.

If Aquino’s presidency and government were unable to enforce a very minor rule on road traffic, the question that necessarily presents itself for resolution in the mind of right-thinking Filipinos is this: what other rules, regulations, or laws of the country did Aquino fail to enforce? Again, I am glad I did not vote for him in 2010.

• •

Whoever started calling Davao Mayor Rodrigo Duterte as the “presumptive president” surely did his sleuthing well on his choice of the word “presumptive.” A check with Google on what “presumptive” actually means gives rise to the conclusion that, indeed, the proper way to address Duterte at this point is “presumptive president.”

First, Duterte has not been proclaimed yet, even if partial and unofficial vote tallies show him to be leading by the proverbial mile against his rivals. And because he has not been proclaimed yet, he could not be properly called “president elect.” A “president elect” is someone who has not assumed office yet, although he had already been proclaimed the winner.

On the other hand, “presumptive” means “having a good reason to believe that something is true” (see www.vocabulary.com) or “based on a presumption” or “presumed” (see www.thefreedictionary.com) or “based on probability or presumption” (see www.meriam-webster.com). In short, a “presumptive president” is a person who, like Duterte, could be presumed or believed to be the next president, based on unofficial election results, although he is not proclaimed yet.

• •

Here is a reminder to the candidates in the just-concluded May 9, 2016 elections, whether they won or lost: you must file a “statement of contributions and expenditures” not later than 30 days after the day of election, pursuant to Section 14, Republic Act No. 7166.

You are facing possible perpetual disqualification from holding any public office if you failed to do so, in at least two elections. What is more important is this: if the candidate won, he may not be allowed to assume the office in which he got elected.

The law says: “No person elected to any public office shall enter upon the duties of his office until he has filed the statement of contributions and expenditures required herein within the period prescribed by this act.” These parts of RA 7166 could prove to be effective weapons against political rivals. This could prevent a candidate from proceeding with his candidacy, and a winner from assuming his post.

• •

Aquino and Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV are in danger of facing the death penalty for their alleged complicity in the take-over of Scarborough Shoal in the West Philippine Sea by China, which happened, according to Mayor Duterte, after Trillanes visited Chinese officials 16 times during the presidency of Aquino.

Duterte told media in May 16 that Trillanes could have committed treason. “Trillanes went to China 16 times and, after the 16th visit, we lost the Scarborough Shoal. To me, it’s treason,” Duterte was quoted as saying. His supporters sued Aquino and Trillanes with treason before the Ombudsman before the elections.

The Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, under its Art. 114,  defined “treason as follows: “Any person who, owing allegiance to the Government of the Philippine Islands, not being a foreigner, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort within the Philippine Islands or elsewhere, shall be punished by reclusion temporal to death…” Death penalty, however, is suspended as of the moment.

E-mail: batasmauricio@yahoo.com