spot_img
27.7 C
Philippines
Friday, March 29, 2024

An absurd law

- Advertisement -

I recently cautioned against encouraging defiance of the courts in the matter of temporary against government infrastructure projects.  I did acknowledge though that TROs could be, as they are in fact, abused, particularly by losing bidders and their wily lawyers who make use of every provision of the law to frustrate the prosecution of government projects.

But President Digong would have been right to rant against the law itself—Republic Act No. 9184 that governs government procurements.  It is a law written on the assumption that everyone in government is a thief.  That is already unfair, but, more deleteriously to the government, it makes immediate action, timely responses and prompt relief all but impossible. With the numbers the President commands in the Legislature, it should be no problem for him asking his party-mates to repeal the law and craft a more rational substitute.

Here is an example of one absurdity: The whole rigmarole starts with the “Purchase Request” by the end-user, and it is required that the PR be “as specific as possible”—so that the costs may be properly estimated and it can be determined but the budgetary ceiling should be.  And yet—and here it becomes funny, really, if it were not so detrimental to government operations—the user is forbidden from mentioning brands.  So one who needs a MacBook because of its resistance to virus attacks will write what? “A computer that works with exactly the features of a MacBook but need not be so”?

Then there is the requirement of at least three quotations.  So, to replace a glass door leading to a government office, one has to send a “request for quotations”—and the law decrees that suppliers be given no less than three days within which to respond!  And so, how does one shut the door while the required period is not yet up?  Unfortunately, R.A. 9184 is quick to point out how dishonesty is to be avoided— but does not offer solutions to real, true-to-life problems that it creates!

This is overkill.  There is an independent constitutional commission—the Commission on Audit—that is tasked by the fundamental law to determine whether any expenditure of public funds has been wasteful, illegal, improper or unconscionable.  So, why not allow government officers and executives to make decisions about procurements in their best lights, respond promptly to exigencies, and then be accountable to the Commission on Audit?

- Advertisement -

The salvation, for now, will be found in the application of relevant canons of construction.  One relevant principle surely is that the law never intends what is absurd.  So, when one is charged with having violated the law on procurement, one should be able to argue that a literal—fundamentalist—adherence to the law would have resulted in an absurdity.  Another useful canon will be to apply the law according to its intendment—and it will not do to counter this defense by pointing to the clarity of the provisions of this absurd law.  Even when the provisions of a law are sententially clear, if, when applied to a concrete case, the result is absurd or unconscionable, then the law is “resultantly ambiguous”—calling for an application of sound principles of construal.

But let us get rid of this clearly dim-witted piece of legislation —and be more thoughtful.  After all, honesty in government is never brought about by enacting more laws, but in choosing better people for public office!

rannie_aquino@csu.edu.ph

rannie_aquino@sanbeda.edu.ph

rannie_aquino@outlook.com

- Advertisement -

LATEST NEWS

Popular Articles