The Performance of the Aquino Administration (2010-2016) Table VII.9. Ratings Given to the PNoy Administration PNoy Duterte Academe CSOs Media/ Admin Administration Social media Positive/ Positive/ Penalba MGG: Rappler.com: Favorable Favorable but (UP-CIDS Forum): Mixed- partially reforms need Perfect score of delivered/ follow through Positive/favorable 10 in governance undelivered, still but overall rating has a lot to do to Diokno was 5.93. deliver his 2010 (UP-NCPAG promises Forum): Ibon Foundation: Inquirer.com: Negative Negative Positive/favorable 12 kept, 9 not yet kept Huffington Post: Very positive/ favorable
Development Partners Konrad Adenauer Foundation: Negative World Bank: Worldwide Governance Indicators – positive : improving performance from 2010-2016 based on the indices in Corruption Perception except in 2015, Economic Freedom, Global Competitiveness, Ease of Doing Business
Twitter: Mixed sentiments The Guidon: Positive/favorable These groups commended some of the administration’s reform programs and initiatives such as the bottom-up budgeting, citizen participatory audit, ease in doing business, reforms in the budget process, and the filing of graft cases versus high-profile government officials. On the other hand, the following major challenges and issues that hounded the administration blot the good governance record of the PNoy administration: • human rights violations and extrajudicial killings of activists, peasants and minorities; • pork barrel system and the disbursement acceleration program which were both declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court; • non-passage of the bills on FOI and protection of whistleblowers; • Mamasapano massacre; • Luneta hostage crisis; • high toll of Yolanda supertyphoon casualties and slow relief operations and rehabilitation; • inequitable growth; • selective prosecution and patronage politics; • delayed delivery of services; and • worsening condition of public transportation. One of the major issues faced by the PNoy administration was the Pork Barrel Scandal, wherein some legislators were accused of misusing their Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF). Cases of plunder and malversation of public funds were filed against the legislators involved in the scam. The Supreme Court eventually ruled the PDAF as unconstitutional. A fallout from the scandal was the discovery of the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) devised and implemented by the DBM to accelerate disbursement and utilize savings without legislative approval. Like PDAF, DAP was also declared by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional.
203
