Abad not yet off the hook
Butch Abad seemingly wants to impress the public that good faith is an excuse for spending billions of pesos for government projects even if the manner of doing so violates the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has declared the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) unconstitutional, but it invoked the doctrine of operative fact which, as a matter of equity and fair play, leaves undisturbed the effects of the unconstitutional DAP prior to its being declared null. To rule otherwise would be like separating the cream from the coffee, which only God can do.
Abad and his cohorts can go around partying, but it’s too soon. The Supreme Court has contextually declared that progenitors, instigators and implementers of the scheme that gobbled up government funds in the name of the DAP are not yet off the hook. Appropriate charges against those believed to be liable are forthcoming, and we are watching the audit of all DAP-related projects and what follows thereafter.
The flip side of good faith is bad faith. Was Abad exercising bad faith in the implementation of the DAP? Yes. Bad faith can be in a form of failure to observe a degree of care in doing an act especially if such act pertains to a job entailing enormous fiduciary responsibilities, as when one is charged with overseeing the national budget.
Public duty demands faithfulness at every turn. Abad’s job demands that his conduct must be consistent with good faith, and must not be contrary to public policy. Knowingly mismanaging the national budget is contrary to public policy and is inconsistent with good faith, but, on the other hand, is consistent with bad faith.
Bad faith does not require that an act be dishonest or fraudulent; it is enough that a conduct is unacceptable, improper and unconscionable, and the person doing it has an inkling, discernment or consciousness that his acts are such.
Honest mistakes, laudable purposes, noble intentions and beneficial results are not legal justifications. Bad faith can be willful rendering of an imperfect performance of an official duty resulting in gross negligence, neglect of duty or grave abuse of discretion.
Bad faith is not a simple bad judgment; rather it is the conscious doing of a wrong which is not expected from a man who is a lawyer and a hardened politician, and is financially savvy.
When Abad wildly abused his discretionary power and authorized the disbursement of public funds in his care as if it were his, he crossed the line and his conduct can be deemed “arbitrary, capricious and irrational”—all of which are indices of bad faith.
He “had reason to know” and “should have known”—the two standards of mens rea (guilty mind).
His apology is fully appreciated, but not enough.
—MANUEL BIASON,
