Friday, September 13, 2013
Presumption of Regularity in the Performance of Official Function Accorded the Public Officials, (Elective or Appointive) Proves Anachronous Now and Must be Stricken Out.
For decades, this presumption has already proved to have outlived its application. Since we were plundered, and thrown into darkness for decades by the Marcos regime, where official abuses were rampant and committed openly with impunity, this presumption should have been overthrown by the judiciary.
While it may be argued that such is necessary for government efficiency, and to obviate the burden for public officials of having to substantiate the nature by which they performed their duty, experience had taught us that the entitled (public officials) have taken shield behind the presumption to commit corruption, exact oppression, and generally perpetrate injustice upon the public they ought to serve, more than the public has shown any penchant for harassing them with suits/complaint, against which the presumption could have come handy .
Seriously, ask yourself now: Do you honestly believe, as it stands now, that it promotes government efficiency? or as it looks now, has it been exploited by those it sought to protect? The intention is laudable, but the beneficiaries do not have the moral rectitude to wield it.
How would you react if public officials involved in the pork barrel scam claimed innocence to any wrongdoing invoking the presumption of regularity in the performance of their official function?
Wouldn’t you be gnashing your teeth in anger?
While the presumption disputable, it is an insult to the public that it is even afforded them in the face of their shameless and callous propensity for pillaging public coffers, while the rest of us, mockingly called the “bosses,” break our backs working just to get by.
Public officials should stand in the same footing as any Juan. If the presumption is any good, they must earn their entitlement to it.