Four appalling ideas being spread due to PNoy’s defiance of the SC ruling on #DAP

noynoy_aquinoAs expected by critics, president Benigno Simeon “BS” Aquino III would defend his government’s beloved Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) to the death. Back in his televised speech last October 2013, his main message was, “I am not a thief”, and it was one of the first times, if not the first, where he defended DAP and stood by its supposed benefits and legality.

Fast forward to July 2014, BS Aquino still stands by that controversial program despite it being recently declared unconstitutional by no less than the Supreme Court (SC). In the face of such kabuwisitan (according to BS Aquino’s point of view), he stands by it and insists that the DAP was used in “good faith”, and that the SC was wrong to declare it unconstitutional.

BS Aquino fancies himself as a man who can do no wrong in his own eyes, as well as a pious, morally upright, and righteous man to whom laws not of his making do not apply. Because many people are still unflinchingly loyal to the Aquino name for whatever reason – despite history showing that the Aquinos couldn’t really care less about the Filipinos in return – they are only too willing to help the Aquino propaganda machine propagate idiotic and downright wrong ideas to reinforce that family’s “infallibility”.

Subscribe to our Substack community GRP Insider to receive by email our in-depth free weekly newsletter. Opt into a paid subscription and you'll get premium insider briefs and insights from us.
Subscribe to our Substack newsletter, GRP Insider!
Learn more

The following ones below are currently being spread in light of BS Aquino’s defiance of the SC ruling:

1) “Have faith in good faith”

The SC has asked that “good faith” in the use of the DAP be proven – to be shown that the DAP was executed with sincere and honest intent.

What has been one of the underlying patterns of Malacañang’s response, in general? Ah basta! Have faith in us when we say it was done in good faith. Trust us.

The trouble is, it’s kind of hard to trust a leader like BS Aquino, and by extension his government, who has shown overwhelming ineptitude in the face of multiple opportunities it was given to prove itself up to the task. It’s kind of hard to trust a leader who addresses his “bosses” as if they’re idiots. It’s kind of hard to trust a leader who has a hard time keeping his promises, and it’s certainly hard to trust someone who will not readily admit to his mistakes.

It was implicit that BS Aquino and his government were trusted that their DAP execution abided by the Constitution. He misses the point when he claimed that the SC presumed the absence of good faith, and that “innocent until proven guilty” should be applied. The SC presumed that DAP was legal and constitutional, until they found it wasn’t; what part of that doesn’t he understand? Now it is his turn to prove something that he himself asserted AFTER the presumption of constitutionality did not hold.

It is very telling, indeed, that BS Aquino insists that people keep having faith in him and his “good intentions”, even though he has shown himself repeatedly to be totally unworthy of it.

In the absence of lasting and tangible accomplishments to show his “bosses”, that’s all he can do: ask them to have faith in him and his good intentions. Unfortunately, those things in your hands have a dismal track record, Mr. President.

2) Good intentions trump legality

Anybody can claim that he/she is doing something with good intentions. However, to borrow a quip from a friend, good intentions are like assholes; everybody’s got one.

Mass murders have been committed and wars started because some bozo thought that he or she was doing the human race a great favor. That is why we have courts and justice systems. You need a coherent framework to provide perspective that third parties can use to objectively evaluate the goodness or badness of your actions. Without that mechanism, everyone would have license to shoot anyone they personally deem not worthy of their place under the sky.

And that is the sort of thing that has been going on in Filipino society. And BS Aquino is, as it stands, yet another instigator and promoter of such self-righteous behavior. When people become either self-righteous or self-important instead of adhering to a greater good, like the law, then that becomes a recipe for disaster.

3) Unconstitutionality does not necessarily mean criminality

Actually, to give BS Aquino’s apologists credit, there might actually be some semblance of argument with this one.

The Constitution is a set of by-laws that is the basis for all other laws to be prescribed in a particular land. Criminal laws prescribe punishment for each set of offenses considered as crimes. The challenge, in the aftermath of the SC’s ruling, is to find a direct link that will explicitly indicate BS Aquino’s criminal liability for the execution of his DAP program. As fellow GRP author Hector Gamboa has pointed out, it is possible that instead of facing impeachment, he may get a fine instead.

But this does not change the fact that BS Aquino’s precious DAP was found to have violated the Constitution. And if one happens to violate this set of by-laws – which just happens to be the very basis of all other laws of the land – then at the very least one should face the consequences of doing so.

BS Aquino, upon assuming office as president of the Republic of the Philippines, took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. But it’s not the Constitution of the Philippines that he’s been defending these past few weeks; instead, it is that which keeps him from admitting that he is wrong, his ego.

Because BS Aquino is never wrong in his mind, he has set a bad example for understanding what separation of powers and respect for a co-equal branch of government mean. His defiance has propagated the preposterous notion that:

4) The Supreme Court can be overruled as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution

“The Supreme Court is not infallible.”

And nobody said it wasn’t. But as it stands, the Supreme Court IS designated as the final arbiter and interpreter of what abides by the Constitution. BS Aquino and his supporters would like us to believe that anybody can interpret the constitution the way he/she wants to, and that it would be valid.

BS Aquino and his supporters, of course, are no strangers to such kind of thinking. This kind of thinking, of course, assumes that the Constitution is some sort of self-evident edict – one that is above the context provided by human society and the government of institutions created around it. It’s the kind of moronic thinking not too different from that of fundamentalist sects of many organized religions in the way they hold up their respective holy scriptures as “ultimate” writs that are open for anyone — even those who hold extremist sentiments — to interpret.

Unfortunately, such emo thinking in an intellectually bankrupt society like the Philippines – especially with a leader at the helm who is both unnecessarily self-righteous and yet so incompetent at the same time – is, at the risk of repeating myself, a recipe for disaster.


It’s very obvious that BS Aquino and his supporters and apologists – whatever remains of them – still believe in two things:

That BS Aquino IS absolute and supreme, and;

That BS Aquino IS an honest man and is not corrupt.

That is the problem with a society that anchors itself to personalities instead of institutions; instead of going through the hard work of making the latter work for them – which involves thinking, being critical of them, and being vigilant about abuse of power – they prefer to go the easy route of rallying behind calls of those who easily pander to the emotions of the masses.

Keep people emotionally charged, and they are less likely to think. Not only that, invoke some nebulous notion of “the people’s will” by propagating a mob mentality, and you’ve got it made. No laws, no institutions, no thinking, just pure emotion and mob sentiment.

Filipino society is a con man’s wet dream, indeed.

When you can't admit your ignorance or your greed just say "in good faith".

When you can’t admit your ignorance or your greed just say “in good faith”.

37 Replies to “Four appalling ideas being spread due to PNoy’s defiance of the SC ruling on #DAP”

      1. History will remember Penoy Aquino and Barack Obama as two of the worst presidents ever to be elected. They will have left a legacy of fomenting class warfare for short term political gain and to have severely diminished the economies of their respective countries.

    1. Mr. Tom, how Mr. Obama become part of this issue? If you have your grievances to your president, Mr. Obama, why to have your thoughts in this issue? Do you want some attention? Here, I am giving you. If you were a Pilipino who had got an American citizenship, leave my country alone. You already abandoned my country so please just have your concerns to America.

  1. There are three separate powers in the government. They are co-equal. Aquino cannot understand this separation of powers. He is an idiot and a moron.

    He thinks himself, as self righteous, infallable and the Supreme Leader of the Filipino people.

    He has some YellowTard followers, who are more of idiotic mobs ( zombies). He has some loyalists in the Congress and Senate; whose only concern is tha their Pork Barrel Funds are taken away from them. These Pork Barrel Funds support their “Kleptomaniac” habit.

    Would you die for these Thieves? Whose only concern are themselves and their Bank accounts?

    You are a moron like them; if you follow these people , who are STEALING your taxmoney..

    1. Ok, I will accept to be a moron and idiot for believing to the capability of our president. But for me to accept your ideas, I will just become more idiot. For a person like you who can just say bad words to people who have less understanding about the situation, I think you cannot do any good to our country. I have an advice to you, have a moment to examine your core values because maybe to respect people is not one of it. If you love our country, start changing your self and maybe afterwards you can change other people by not telling them they are idiots and morons.

      1. @ beyts

        So your comment is based upon HT calling people idiots and morons. But you fail to counter his statement why such people should not be called idiots and morons, and even preferred you be included with the label since you still believe in PNoy’s “capabilities”, but still did not site reasons why you still “believe” in these “capabilities”. Basically, you do not have an argument other than whine about being called an idiot and a moron.

        You see, beyts, the country is in deep shit right now, that no amount of good words can penetrate the thick skulls of those preferring to see the country through rose-colored glasses. You even fail to see that PNoy is purposely dividing the country. Positive change in the country can only happen when filipinos start realizing that we do not need telebasura politics, but rather real performance from the government.

  2. “Good Faith” can be used in many ways to deceive people. Like: “I stole your money in good faith…” ; ” I swindled you in good faith…”; ” I extorted from you in good faith…” ; ” I stole from the DAP Fund in good faith…”.

    Yes, fellow thinking Filipinos…you can deceive anybody in good faith, and get away from any crime!!!

  3. Show the foreigner where in the RP Constitution that the SC is legally empowered to ‘interpret’ the Constitution,please(and declare anything ‘un-constitutional’).it is nowhere in the U.S.A. document, it is not!

    #3 happens to be correct…the rest of the list is fantasy.

    1. The Philippine constitution is constructed basically as the U.S. constitution is and based on 3 branches of government. Executive branch to execute laws, the legislative to make the laws and the judicial to interpret the laws in the context of the constitution.

      The executive that ignores the laws and the courts interpretation is nothing but a tyrant and a dictator and should be removed from office. Criminality is not the operative word in impeachment. It is only that the House finds violations of laws and then the hearing is held in the Senate to convict and remove.

      NOYNOY and Obama are both tyrant dictators who violate laws constantly and should be removed and imprisoned.

      This foreigner has watched you Noytard government for a while. He is no better than Marcos and in many aspects more dangerous and worse.

        1. People who love him; love to be swindled…love to be robbed blind…they are morons and idiots…

      1. Watched but never had the actual experience? Mr. The Foreign, if you are just getting your information from our media, your perception is just more of imagination. Our media is one of the best creative minds in destroying people, “crab mentality”. Also, it will be better for you to focus your attention to your president and not to our president. Your concerns are no use for us unless it is an act of kindness.

      2. @ THE FOREIGNER….the comment I posted asked specifically WHERE in the RP Constitution is it written that the SC ‘INTERPRETS’ the RPConstitution, not what the document is based on.

        Many U.S. citizens think that the SC is designated to ‘INTERPRET’ the U.S. Constitution, BUT IT IS NOT ANYWHERE in the document itself and the job of ‘INTERPRETATION’ of the document was first done by the U.S. Senate. Until SC CJ John Marshall, through a series of some seriously questionable moves, hijacked the job of ‘INTERPRETING’ the U.S. Constitution to the U.S. SC and it has remained that way since 1812.
        HOWEVER, nowhere in the document itself does the U.S. constitution say whose job it is to ‘INTERPRET’ it.

        1. @THOM

          Try researching Constitutional Law under the underlying principles of the constitution. This will enlighten you. Better yet, read up on the Baron de Montesquieu. Get a copy of the Philippine Constitution of 1987.

        2. @ T.J. ….U kno, THANKS seriously! but No thanks….I really don’t care what the Constitution of the Republic of the Fail-ippines says or doesn’t say.

          I do know what the USA constitution says though and in this case, as it applies to what it actually doesn’t say:
          Nowhere in the USA constitution is the job of ‘interpreting’ given to anyone. However, the job was first handled by the U.S. Senate.In 1812 the Supreme court, headed by John Marshall, hi-jacked the job and it has been that way ever since.

      Section 1.The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower
      courts as may be established by law.
      Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies
      involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine
      whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
      jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.

      1. it does not say who ‘interprets’ the constitution.Just as I suspected, it doesn’t.
        I am not all too familiar with the filippine document but I sure as fuck know that the U,S. Constitution does not say it either.

      2. Corrections to the misinformation being propagated by the willfully ignorant and supine incompetents on the matter of the Supreme Court:

        Even a cursory examination of the Philippine Constitution will establish what specific powers are vested in the three branches of the Philippine government. Article VIII, Section 1 (as ‘The Foreigner’ has already posted in a previous comment) states that the Judiciary, consisting of the Supreme Court, and the lower courts of justice, has the authority to to hear and decide justiciable (i.e. subject to trial in a court of law) cases and actions, and to interpret, and enforce or void, statutes when disputes arise over their scope or constitutionality:

        ‘The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.

        ‘Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.’

        The relevant portion is in Section 4, Paragraph 2:

        ‘All cases involving the CONSTITUTIONALITY of a treaty, international or executive agreement, or law, which shall be heard by the Supreme Court en banc, and all other cases which under the Rules of Court are required to be heard en banc, including those involving the CONSTITUTIONALITY, application, or operation of presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations, SHALL BE DECIDED with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.’

        This clearly specifies the authority of the Supreme Court, and its status as the final arbiter when deciding matters with respect to the constitutionality of laws that have been passed as well as any actions carried out by the President. Furthermore, Section 4 establishes the context and defines the limits of the Court’s decision-making process.

        This is clear and simple language. There really shouldn’t be any confusion regarding its intent. That fact makes the insistence that the powers, duties and responsibilities of the Supreme Court are somehow unclear or that these are not even set out in the Constitution somewhat more troubling. It is either the result of breathtaking stupidity, resulting in outright denial because of an inability to comprehend the document, or a deliberate effort to deceive the public.

        1. ,I DOESN’T SAY IT you jackass!!!)

          the singular point(so fuck you SAINT) I have been making in this and a few other articles here(actually TWO POINTS, the second being that I DONT GIVE A FUCK what the RP constitution says! it is a RAG, and that is proven, that can be used as toilet paper or sanitary napkin for it is useless anyway) is that the U.S. constitution doesn’t state who is tasked with the job of ‘interpretting’ the ‘CONSTITUTION’.(not the ‘constitutionality’ of any ‘act’ or ‘law’…THERE IS A DIFFER…OMG!!! I refuse to spell it out.)

          Interpretation and application can be and are different matters. An example (oh this is a funny one AND only idiotic filipino’s could make this shit up! “CHA-CHA”, there I said it, and even explained it!
          Oh and NOW, is the authority on all Constitutional matters, both local and international, going to educate us all on where in the U.S. Constitution it says who is tasked with the ‘INTERPRETATION’ of the “DOCUMENT”(not an act of an official. THE DOCUMENT YOU FUCKIN IDIOT!!! THE DOCUMENT ITSELF. ( show me where!!!!)
          Holy shit,Thick as a god damm brick.

          U kno, LOL!!!! walk into a store in the Filippines and ask:”Do you sell super-glue?”, “Yes,” says the store clerk.”Great”, says the customer “I’ll have two,OK?”, “No” says store clerk.”Why NO?”, says the customer.The filipino store clerk says (with absolutely no clue what a fuckin idiot he is)”Out of stock.”, just un fuckin believable. An African coconut is not as thick skulled/dense.

        2. The LIAR, Thom Hardy, said this:

          “Show the foreigner where in the RP Constitution that the SC is legally empowered to ‘interpret’ the Constitution…”

          Now, the LIAR, Thom Hardy, says he doesn’t “GIVE A FUCK what the RP constitution says!” Can’t even keep his side of the discussion straight. This isn’t difficult to comprehend. The LIAR asked where in the Philippine Constitution it states that the Supreme Court is vested with the authority to interpret the Constitution and to render judgments in matters where their scope and constitutionality is in question.

          The LIAR was directed to the relevant articles several times. These provisions specify the authority of the Supreme Court to interpret the laws of the land; this extends to the Constitution itself — the basic principles and primary framework of laws in the Philippines. The simple logic of it is that applying the provisions of the Constitution in cases involving law and equity, and in treaties or agreements, will necessarily require interpreting the letter and spirit of the law/Constitution.

          Yet for some reason, the LIAR does not want to accept any answer other than what the LIAR wants to hear. Even if, as the LIAR says repeatedly, the LIAR did not even bother to become acquainted with the Philippine Constitution in the first place, and is in no way competent to discuss it in any kind of forum.

          Also, for some inexplicable reason, the LIAR insists on referring to the deficiencies of the Constitution of the United States. A document that HAS NO BEARING on any legal decisions in the Philippines — a nation independent of the US Federal Courts.

          Then again, one should expect such narrow minded — even irrational — thinking and a very shallow understanding from the intellectually dishonest. Anything to avoid having their personal beliefs challenged.

        3. @ Saint, Calling me a liar? You get schooled and call me a liar.U make me laugh.Silly , low self esteem flip-tard…U really make me laugh!flip-tard.

          Whatta JACKASS!!!

        4. Yes Thom! I am. I have been calling you a fabulist for quite a while. Anyone reading your posts will come to the same conclusion. It’s a wonder it took even you this long to realise it.

        5. @ Saint, now there is a small step in the right direction..admitting you are a jackass. A small step in the process of enlightening oneself is to admit your jackassery! Way to go Saint. I am not proud of you and still think you are an ass-hat but hey,CONGRATULATIONS anyway.

          Your opinion on Obama is also up for questionong but it is tiring trying to correct you ALL the time.
          You see dense boy, I really do not care if you go thru the rest of your life as an idiotic mess, but others here need to see that your false statements are just that:False as the day is long.

    1. OMG!!!!

      One more time!!!! ‘APPLICATION’ is not the same as ‘INTERPRETATION’. To explain this really should not be necessary ……HOLY SHIT!!!

      A judge in a typical case, any case, looks at the charges brought in case and the law it is alleged to be in violation of and then APPLIES the law to the case to see if the law has been violated….GET IT NOW?????

      U kno, if you really don’t get it then it really is
      no wonder the people in that country are so fucked!


  4. There’s another idea that the President is spreading:

    That the SC was the one who caused DAP to be discontinued, when clearly it was the PNoy who put an end to it himself.

    Quoting from the DAP decision:
    “true that Sec. Abad manifested during the January 28, 2014 oral arguments that the DAP as a program had been meanwhile discontinued because it had fully served its purpose, saying: ‘In conclusion, Your Honors, may I inform the Court that because the DAP as already fully served its purpose, the Administration’s economic managers have recommended its termination to the President. xx x.'”

    The context of this statement is that the President wanted to have the complaint dismissed so he explained to the court that the program was stopped to make it fall under the “moot and academic” rule for dismissing a petition. Yet today he hounds us to no end claiming how much we need his DAP and how legal it was. Why would you discontinue the program then if you need it and it wasn’t illegal?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.