Aquino’s DAP-is-not-PDAF speech summed up: Leave it to me

I read with much interest Randy David’s summation of President Aquino’s Oct. 30  address (Opinion, 11/3/13).

His comments tread the same direction as many other views on the matter, like those of Amando Doronila (Front Page, 11/4/13), noting that the speech left a lot of questions unanswered. To be sure, Doronila sounded harshly emphatic, though the harshest cut came from the BPO Industry Employees Network (“We are not stupid,” Front Page, 11/1/13).

Hearing the speech for the first time, I thought the same thing as well—about unanswered questions. But pondering the nature and scope of its main subjects, I concluded that at another time, perhaps in another medium, a more detailed treatise would satisfy the curiosity of the electorate. This is probably why the speech seemed limp; it was impossible to discuss the subjects thoroughly.

Well, President Aquino tried separating the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) from the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF)—which sounded more like a strained justification rather than an enlightener. P-Noy should have stayed away from

rattling off statistics. After all, he is not Ferdinand E. Marcos.

Other than that, my own appreciation was that the speech was straightforward and delivered in a language and manner most Filipinos easily understood. But I thought all it said was “Leave it to me,” though he spiced it with his signature tart (though inappropriate) style that we saw in the Corona impeachment. (“Tila sinunod… ang payo ng isang matandang pulitiko… Kung hindi mo kayang ipaliwanag, palabuin… Kung hindi mo kayang bumango… pabahuin mo na lang ang lahat…” A direct reference to “Tanda,” “Sexy” at “Pogi” who were referred to by Benhur Luy in his testimony.)

Five years ago, P-Noy saying “Leave it to me” would have come off ridiculous. Not anymore. His uneventful tenures as congressman and senator are of the past. Today, he stands as head of state.

Some say it may not be P-Noy but his alter egos in the different departments that have made people nervous about where taxpayer money goes. And why shouldn’t they be? Almost half of their salaries go to taxes (33 percent on income, plus 12 percent as VAT). Customs Commissioner Ruffy Biazon and Agriculture Secretary Proceso Alcala may not be the best examples to show the quality of P-Noy’s choices, but then I trust he studies his options before he chooses.

Corruption is not an easy thing to stop. The breakdown of the check-and-balance mechanism that David said the Commission on Audit (or is it The Omission of Audit?) has admitted is I think the result of the breakdown of delicadeza. Look at the people lording it over the political landscape. A number of them were with the Marcos regime when laws were not worth the paper they were written on. Corruption would be difficult to eradicate, but P-Noy says, “Leave it to him”?

—BENIGNO T. CALANTUAN III, [email protected]