CRITICISM IS A sign of a healthy democracy. However, it should never be used for sinister purposes like inducing the people to anarchy as a mechanism to topple the government.
Reacting to the latest round of criticisms hurled against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., civic organizations responded to allegations raised by a certain Arnedo Valera who claims to be an international human rights lawyer.
In an article posted on DZAR website, Valera made a sweeping claim that Marcos bears full responsibility for the budget scandal — which was aptly described as “a distortion of both the law and the truth.”
“To say the President alone is guilty of the budget mess is not just misleading but is a constitutional falsehood.” said Dr. Jose Antonio Goitia in his capacity as chairman emeritus of Alyansa ng Bantay sa Kapayapaan at Demokrasya (ABKD), People’s Alliance for Democracy and Reforms (PADER), Liga Independencia Pilipinas (LIPI), and Filipinos Do Not Yield (FDNY) Movement.
DISTORTED NOTION
“Let us not forget what the Constitution itself provides. Article VI, Section 24 is clear—all appropriation bills originate from the House of Representatives and as such, Congress crafts, debates and finalizes the budget, including every insertion,” Goitia pointed out.
“If there are questionable items, accountability begins with those who authored and approved them in the legislative process,” he added.
The civic leader added that to pin everything on the President “is not only inaccurate but also undermines the principle of separation of powers.”
“The veto is a shield, not a sword. It cannot turn the President into a super legislator. The Constitution designed it as a defensive mechanism, not a license to rewrite the budget entirely. Without clear legal grounds, vetoing billions would risk overreach and paralyze communities dependent on those projects. Prudence, not recklessness, defines responsible leadership,” he argued.
RESIGN OR IMPEACH
On suggestions that the budget controversy rises to the level of impeachment, Goitia categorically stated that “impeachment under Article XI is for grave abuse of power, culpable violation of the Constitution or betrayal of public trust, so, signing into law a budget passed through the proper legislative process does not meet this threshold.”
“If their logic was applied, then nearly every President since 1987 should have been impeached. That is not law, that is partisan fantasy,” he noted laughably.
And as for resignation, Goitia stressed that this is not a constitutional remedy but a personal choice since “resignation is not demanded by partisan outrage.”
“Our system provides only two lawful avenues: impeachment or elections. Anything outside of these weakens our democracy and destabilizes the Republic,” he enthused.
IN DEFENSE OF ICI
Goitia likewise defended the creation of the Independent Commission on Infrastructure by Malacañan stressing that “under the Administrative Code, the chief executive has the authority to establish fact finding bodies.
“These are not shields but instruments to investigate allegations and ensure findings that can stand in court. To reduce this to the phrase ‘investigating himself’ is a shallow soundbite. Transparency requires evidence, process, and structure, not political sloganeering,” he asserted.
In closing, Goitia emphasized that accountability in the budget process cannot be reduced to a single person.
“The budget is the product of an entire constitutional process. Congress authors it, the Executive reviews it, and the Judiciary is there to check abuses.”
To single out the President while ignoring legislative accountability is not only unfair, it is reckless. President Marcos has exercised his constitutional duties with restraint and stability. The real danger lies not in his leadership, but in those who weaponize deception to weaken the Republic,” he concluded.