Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago. SENATE POOL FILE PHOTO
MANILA, Philippines–President Benigno Aquino III has allegedly committed an “impeachable” offense when he realigned public funds to support urgent projects through the controversial Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago said on Thursday.
But Santiago, in a phone patch interview with Senate reporters, said Aquino could not be impeached since he “controls” both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
“Well that would be culpable violation of the Constitution or bribery and in both cases he (Aquino) will become, in theory, impeachable,” she said of the DAP.
“But one, he can’t be impeached in practice because he controls all the House and the Senate. And remember that people who want him impeached would have to get one-third vote in the House and two-thirds vote in the Senate so that’s not going to be practical. It will only be theoretical,” she added.
Impeaching Aquino at this point, she said, was “practically in practice, impossible.”
Besides, Santiago said, the country does not need another “catastrophic” or “divisive scandal” just like what happened to then Chief Justice Renato Corona, who was impeached by Congress in May 2012.
She said the President is also immune from suit at least until his term ends in 2016.
“After 2016, then you can file a case against him for plunder… But right now, you can only remove him by impeachment,” the senator pointed out.
Santiago though insisted that the P50 million given to senators after Corona’s impeachment through the DAP was unconstitutional and illegal.
She pointed out that the money used for the DAP did not n come from government’s savings but from unfinished and slow-moving projects of some agencies.
“Savings in a constitutional contexts means that money was set aside for certain projects. The project was carried out and finished and yet there was money left. That’s savings. But if you look at the history of the DAP, there was no completion of any project,” she pointed out.
And since the issue was legal, Santiago suggested that it should be resolved by the Supreme Court.
“My humble opinion is that it’s unconstitutional. But first of all, let’s have the last word from the Supreme Court. Let’s not make this a political issue. For me this is a legal issue,” Santiago added.