President Aquino’s speech last week defending the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) was a landmark in the abuse of the bully pulpit privilege of the presidency in setting the agenda for public debate on contentious national issues.
The speech was hastily set up purportedly to give the President the platform to address the nation urgently to clarify the issues surrounding the scandal over the disbursements of the congressional pork barrel fund that have rocked the nation over the past four months.
Lending an atmosphere of crisis, Mr. Aquino wrapped up in 12 minutes flat his arguments on why the DAP is the answer to end once and for all the misuse of the congressional pork barrel, except that of the President’s, a point made clear as the speech unfolded on TV prime time.
As Mr. Aquino breezed through the speech, two forms of abuse crystallized—first, abuse in the disbursement of pork barrel funds at the hands of both the legislative and executive branches, feeding on taxpayer money; and second, the abuse of the so-called bully pulpit, a platform available only to the President to defend his policies, programs and decisions, and even bully and terrorize his political opponents and critics in the private sectors.
Virtual monopoly
The President has a virtual monopoly of the use of this platform to define the issues of any controversy involving public interest. When he uses this pulpit, there is no dialogue, only a monologue.
No other public institution designed to exercise check-and-balance functions in Philippine democracy has such a platform—neither the Supreme Court, Congress nor the press, whose freedom is protected by the Constitution, has it.
The privilege speech of legislators is nothing compared to the President’s bully pulpit. Legislators enjoy certain immunities from suits stemming from their privilege speeches.
But the immunity from suits enjoyed by the President is far broader in scope than congressional immunities, which, records show, have often been abused to promote their personal interests and denounce their enemies. Presidents offended by press criticisms can sue—and have indeed sued— newspapers and journalists for libel.
We can’t sue the President for anything, including for misuse of public funds, such as granting additional pork barrel to senators who voted to convict Chief Justice Renato Corona for dishonesty in declaring his assets, liabilities and net worth.
Foremost news maker
The President’s exclusive access to the bully pulpit is founded on the dynamic of media news reporting embodied in the concept that the head of the unitary and highly centralized state is the foremost news maker in our democratic system.
Whatever he says and does—and fails to do, which is often the case—is news that can’t be ignored. When the President sneezes, the entire country catches the cold. If the President is lazy, the indolence has dire consequences for economic growth.
When Mr. Aquino delivered his speech last week, the pulpit was all his. The media didn’t interdict him. The result was the President defined the pork barrel issues narrowly according to his perspective of regime survival, assailed by plunging popularity ratings in public opinion surveys.
The real issue in the speech was not whether he had stolen from public coffers, as he had put it erroneously.
Rather, the issue has transformed to whether the DAP, a mechanism his administration has invented to replace the discredited Priority Development Assistance Fund, would ensure the abolition of the pork barrel system or eliminate the corruption embedded in the system.
Question of trust
Another key issue raised by the speech was whether Mr. Aquino can be trusted to handle the equitable distribution of budgetary funds through the DAP, which increases his patronage resources and powers.
Put differently, can he be trusted not to abuse or misuse the growing monopoly by the presidency of patronage distribution, at the expense of an emasculated power of Congress?
A perusal of the speech fails to show it addresses these issues. How much homework may be expected from a hurriedly patched-up speech, composed in a last-minute cramming, driven by impulse to halt the nosedive of popularity ratings?
The speech was not meant or expected to be contradicted. There was nothing of substance in policy terms in the speech.
It was delivered against the background of Mr. Aquino’s falling popularity ratings as questions were raised about the misuse of public funds, squandering the political capital invested in the bully pulpit as an agenda-setting mechanism for reforms or political change.
Where is the change in policy direction? Where are the new initiatives in the speech?
Divisive approach
Clarity was shortchanged in a speech intended to clear up the confusion sowed by detractors of the DAP. Clarity, the President said, starts with determining who are those with the administration or against it on the issue of the DAP.
Those who are opposing the DAP are not only “corrupt officials” who would lose opportunities for graft.
They also embrace citizens who clamor on the streets for the abolition of the pork barrel, without exception.
This is a divisive approach that can only erode more deeply the waning popularity of the administration.
It took only 12 minutes to turn the tide of fickle public opinion.
RELATED STORY: