Rumors of coup defy logic

Coup rumors swept Metro Manila last week side by side with calls generated in social media by sources identified with the Aquino administration for extending the President’s term.

Why certain unnamed groups in the Armed Forces of the Philippines are plotting to topple the Aquino regime, while others in the political sector are seeking a term extension are contradictory tendencies that defy logic. They can’t coexist.

There are no reasons for the mainstream military to be disgruntled with the regime that has lavished both the AFP and the Philippine National Police with resources for their respective modernization programs.

Rather than be hotbeds of coup plots, the budgetary endowments for their assets should make them loyal bulwarks against destabilizing conspiracies.

The coup rumors started from Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV, who was reported by a major TV news network that former generals associated with the previous administration were plotting to overthrow the Aquino regime. Trillanes didn’t name the plotters.

Neither did he disclose details, beyond saying that the ex-generals were still trying to persuade active duty generals to join their destabilization move and that their effort has not gone further.

It is important to recall that Trillanes was a ring leader of the failed mutiny at the Oakwood business complex during the Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo administration.

The coup rumor has not appeared to rattle the Aquino administration, but since Trillanes has not produced any evidence that such a cabal of coup plotters and plot exist, it’s absolute waste of the public’s time to give the rumors any attention.

The only thing that this rumor-mongering serves is to fuel a loyalty check of the military and police establishments.

Flogging a dead horse

Arroyo has been thoroughly discredited, and politically demolished, and is under detention, facing charges of plunder and graft. She is no threat to this administration.

It is absolutely pointless flogging a dead horse just to prove this administration’s endless protestations, reminding the public that it virtually has a monopoly of the virtues of clean governance in the disbursements of public funds.

This claim has come under a cloud of doubt after the Supreme Court recently struck down as unconstitutional the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) as the President’s own pork barrel fund in a power grab against the congressional power of the purse.

After undermining the autonomy of the legislature, the President is on a war mode with the Supreme Court in retaliation for its decision to curb the executive’s abuse in the disbursements of pork barrel funds.

The President’s cohorts in the House of Representatives, which is controlled by a coalition of parties led by his Liberal Party, have threatened to impeach Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno after she rebuffed a House “invitation” to explain the alleged misuse of the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF).

The Supreme Court employees defended the JDF as a source of allowances that they said came from the collection of fees and the bulk sale of excess copies of court documents in junk shops.

The Judiciary Employees Association said the impeachment threat seemed to be aimed at influencing the high court or putting pressure on the Chief Justice to influence how she will decide on the motion for reconsideration by Malacañang of the court’s decision on the DAP.

No one above law

Several lawmakers have said Sereno could be held accountable for corrupt practices and betrayal of public trust in connection with alleged questionable disbursements, including purchases of motorcycles, computers and handguns. Malacañang was forced to disclaim it had anything to do with the impeachment threat.

The high court found qualified support from Sen. Francis Escudero, who said the impeachment threat “could be part” of the administration’s retaliation against it.

Still, the senator said there was “no excuse” for Sereno and the justices not to explain the alleged misuse of the JDF. He said the timing of the move was “bad.”

“Although that appears to be a retaliatory act, if there’s an issue that should be explained. After all, no one is above the law,” Escudero said. “The issues and the principles of accountability and transparency apply to all, even to the Supreme Court, even to the Chief Justice as it does to the President and all of us.”

In a letter to Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr., Sereno said it “might be premature and inappropriate” for her to be at the House hearing, reminding it of judicial independence and what is supposed to be a harmonious relationship between coequal branches.