PUBLIC FUNDS AND INCIDENTAL
RELIGIOUS BENEFIT: THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE
By
SENATOR MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO
(Statement at the public hearing on alleged PCSO anomalies
held by the blue ribbon committee on 13 July 2011)
Last part of report: .....
2. Does the law have the primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion?
Answer: No, the PCSO law does not even mention religion.
3. Does the law create an excessive entanglement between government and religion?
Answer: No, as I shall now explain.
The threefold test was laid down in the 1971 case of Lemon v. Kurtzman[2] decided by the US Supreme Court. It is not binding, but it is authoritative in our jurisdiction. In Lemon, the Court said that in determining whether a law involves excessive entanglement between government and religion, we must conduct the following analysis:
1. Consider the nature of the institution that received the benefit from the government.
2. Consider the nature of the aid that the government gave to the bishops.
3. Consider the resulting relationship between the government and the bishops.
The donations pass the threefold legal test under jurisprudence. However, during the hearing, PCSO management apparently admitted that it has not given similar donations to any other religion. If so, then PCSO management appears to be giving preference to the Catholic religion, and that would be a violation of the Establishment Clause.
Repeal the PCSO Charter
As chair of the Senate committee on revision of laws, I shall call a public hearing this August on a new PCSO charter, as well as a new Pagcor charter. Both the PCSO and Pagcor funds constitute the President's Social Fund, which has served as a black budget, meaning a budget insulated from public scrutiny, confined to the dark and insulated from sunshine, sneaked through the back door instead of undergoing the open process of congressional budgetary authorization.
Under existing law, PCSO generates revenues from the sale of sweepstakes and lotto tickets. The resulting revenues are allocated, as follows:
55% to the Prize Fund
30% to the Charity Fund
15% to the Operating Fund
The Charity Fund and the Operating Fund - or in other words, 45% of the revenues - are allocated by the PCSO Board, apparently with the approval of the President. According to the 2009 COA report, the total deposits to the bank's current account for the three Funds were in the aggregate amount of P7.603 BILLION.
To give to the PCSO Board the power to allocate the galactic sum of P7.603 BILLION A YEAR is to excavate a yawning democratic deficit. The present situation is feudal and contrary to best international practice. The best practice is the one-fund concept, under which all government revenues are remitted to the Treasury, and disbursed only as authorized by Congress. There should be no President's Social Fund, because the entire government budget is already his budget. This is why we call it the President's Budget.
The new law will repeal not only the PCSO charter, but also all the various republic acts that seek to allocate certain PCSO funds to alphabet-soup national programs. The new law will limit the PCSO Board only to the function of regulating and supervising sweepstakes and lotto operations.
The entire revenues for the year will be remitted to the national treasury. Only the President and Congress will prioritize and allocate the fund, except that 5% of the lotto earnings shall be given to local government units, and only 10% shall be allocated for administrative expenses. The PCSO bureaucracy shall be slashed, their allowances and privileges abolished, and the public relations budget removed.
And while this process of building on the ashes takes place, I respectfully move that this blue ribbon committee should immediately recommend to the Ombudsman the criminal prosecution of all PCSO officials responsible for depositing in 2009 with a private commercial bank the sum of P1.548 BILLION without the prior approval of the Department of Finance, as required under DOF Order No. 27-05.
By the process of lateral thinking, I respectfully move to investigate the source of the false report about the so-called "Pajero bishops," when it turns out that no Pajeros were involved. Who is this maleficent twisted genius? Was this media spin designed to cover up the crime of depositing without authorization in a private bank the sum of P1.548 BILLION? Was this media spin further designed to call public attention away from the annual sum of some P 7.603 BILLION made available to the sticky fingers of the PCSO Board?
Like the wanton world-class theft of public funds and conspicuous consumption generated by the road user's tax, the PCSO anomaly is bodaciously corrupt. Keep the bishops out of it.
READ MORE...
http://www.senate.gov.ph/press_release/2011/0713_santiago1.asp
Loading...
if senate will look on to the wealth and sex crimes of the priest ....its more horrible than you can imagine!
varonist 4 months ago
@AIKOAIKOSAN What a very amateur streak! Your comebacks are so weak, dickhead. gogogo? What's that. STFU. You're so trying hard in using English.
filomenamaracuy 5 months ago
@filomenamaracuy Lick it for me! gogogo! 3 hour licking nanny filomenamaracuy :-)
AIKOAIKOSAN 5 months ago
@AIKOAIKOSAN Get out of here. Go lick your twat. That fits you, beeyaatch!
filomenamaracuy 5 months ago
@filomenamaracuy HUH? I was just laughing, what are you bitching about? :-)
AIKOAIKOSAN 5 months ago
@AIKOAIKOSAN Make way, Moron! You don't simply get the point because you just can't. Poor boy...
filomenamaracuy 5 months ago
malayo na po ang narating sa iny0ng pinag'usapan. . .napunta na sa personal attacks. .bkit kaya ganyan tay0ng mga tao? mahilig tay0 sa destructive f0rmat ng pakikipagdiskusy0n? just w0ndering. .
aranflewen 5 months ago