SC: 3 DAP schemes unconstitutional

(3rd UPDATE) The High Court declares specific acts under the Disbursement Acceleration
Program unconstitutional, among them, the cross-border transfers of savings of the executive
department to offices outside it
MANILA, Philippines (3rd UPDATE) The Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday, July 1, declared 3
specific acts associated with the administration-backed Disbursement Acceleration Program
(DAP) unconstitutional.
The High Tribunal declared the following schemes under the DAP unconstitutional:
The withdrawal of unobligated allotments from the implementing agencies and the
declaration of the withdrawn unobligated allotments and unreleased appropriations as
savings prior to the end of the fiscal year and without complying with the statutory
definition of savings contained in the General Appropriations Act
Cross-border transfers of savings of the executive department to offices outside the
executive department
Funding of projects, activities, programs not covered by appropriations in the General
Appropriations Act
SC spokesman Theodore Te in a press briefing, said, "The court also declares void the
use of unprogrammed funds despite the absence of a certification by the National
Treasurer that the revenue collections exceeded the revenue targets or non-compliance
with the conditions provided in the relevant General Appropriations Act."
In effect, the Supreme Court declared as unconstitutional the creation of savings prior to
the end of the fiscal year and the withdrawal of these funds for implementing agencies;
the cross-border transfers of the savings from one department to another; and the
allotment of funds for projects, activities, and programs not outlined in the General p
Appropriations Act.
The petitioners alleged that the 3 acts struck down by the High Court essentially voided
the program. 9 petitioners assailed DAP before the SC in late 2013. But other court
insiders said it was an "over-simplification."
The justices of the High Court voted 13-0-1, excluding retired justice Roberto Abad.*
Justice Teresita de Castro inhibited from the voting. Justice Presbitero Velasco was on
official leave but gave his vote to Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno.
The court has yet to release its decision.
Exact accountability
Anti-DAP groups however said the SC decision falls short of holding the administration
officials responsible for the DAP accountable for implementing an illegal program.
"Ang malaking hamon ngayon para sa korte at para sa atin ay yung pagpapanagot. Kung
illegal ang DAP, kung merong maling ginawa, hindi naman uubra na walang mananagot
dito," said Bayan Secretary-General Nato Reyes.
(The big challenge today for the court and for us is holding [officials] accountable. If the
DAP is illegal, if there is something wrong done, it cannot be that no one will be
accountable for it.)
DAP is a program initiated in 2011 to transfer savings and unused funds from slow-
disbursing programs of one department to fast-moving projects of another.
It became controversial after the now-indicted plunderer and opposition senator Jose
"Jinggoy" Estrada delivered a privilege speech alleging that huge sums through the
program were distributed to senators for the impeachment of former Chief Justice Renato
Corona.
Earlier, on June 10, the SC was expected to vote on the constitutionality of DAP but
justices deferred voting.
Necessary
President Benigno Aquino III and Department of Budget and Management (DBM)
Secretary Butch Abad have defended the initiative, saying it was necessary to fast-track
growth in the economy.
During earlier oral arguments, SC justices already pointed out that the cross-border
transfer of funds from one branch of government to another was not permitted by the
Constitution.
Justice Antonio Carpio was categorical. Rappler columnist Marites Vitug wrote earlier
that savings, as defined by the General Appropriations Act, are excess funds from
completed projects, discontinued projects, and those from finally abandoned projects. But
the life span of operating expenses and capital outlay, as prescribed by the GAA, is two
years, Carpio had pointed out.
This means that the government can only abandon an infrastructure project when the
second year is about to end. Definitely, according to Carpio, the budget department
cannot declare these as savings in the first year of the GAA.
The absence of written authority from the President, in 2011 and 2013, to realign funds
was worse, Vitug, quoting Carpio, wrote. This cannot be delegated to the executive
secretary, he pointed out. The budget circular on DAP was issued in 2012 and it
regularized the disbursements in 2011.
Petitioners also further argued that it gave the executive department power to legislate
fund allocations, which is within the duties of the legislative department when it passes
the General Appropriations Act.
The administration, they said, went beyond its jurisdiction and overstepped its bounds.
It can be recalled that a similar argument was used to declare void the Priority
Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), a lump sum distributed to lawmakers to fund
projects at their discretion. In declaring its unconstitutionality, the SC said the PDAF
gave the legislative branch powers to implement programs post-enactment.
Rappler.com
*Editor's Note: The Supreme Court corrected its previous count of 14-0 to 13-0-1.

SC: DAP violates Constitution


Details
Category: Top News
01 Jul 2014
Written by Joel R. San Juan
THE Supreme Court, voting 13-0 on Tuesday, declared President Aquinos controversial Disbursement
Acceleration Program (DAP) as unconstitutional.
The 15-man High Tribunal reached the decision during its regular en banc session, where it also declared
void the use of unprogrammed funds by the Executive branch despite the absence of a certification by
the National Treasurer that the revenue collections exceeded the targets, for noncompliance with the
conditions provided in the General Appropriations Act (GAA).
SC Spokesman Theodore Te said the magistrates held that the respondents, led by President Aquino,
violated Section 25 (5) Article VI of the Constitution and the doctrine of separation of powers in
implementing DAP, as well as the National Budget Circular 541 and other related issuances.
Article VI, Section 25 (5) of the Constitution authorizes the President and heads of other branches of
government and constitutional commissions to augment any item in the GAA for their respective offices
from savings in other items of their respective appropriations.
The Court cited the three specific acts of the President and his co-respondents that are unconstitutional,
namely: The withdrawal of unobligated allotments from the implementing agencies, and the
declaration of the withdrawn unobligated allotments and unreleased appropriations as savings prior to
the end of the fiscal year and without complying with the statutory definition of savings contained in the
GAA; the cross-border transfers of the savings of the Executive to augment the appropriations of other
offices outside the Executive; and the funding of projects, activities and programs that were not covered
by any appropriation in the GAA.
The decision was penned by Associate Justice Lucas Bersamin. Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo-de
Castro inhibited from the case. Te said Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr., who is on official leave,
left his vote on the issue with Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno.
Subject to the views expressed by some justices in their separate opinions, the Court en banc voting
unanimously...partially granted the petitions for certiorari and prohibition challenging the DAP, Te said.
The ruling stemmed from the nine petitions filed before the Court assailing the constitutionality of DAP.
The nine petitions against the DAP were filed last year by losing senatorial candidate Greco Belgica,
former Iloilo Rep. Augusto Syjuco, lawyers Jose Malvar Villegas Jr. and Manuelito Luna; the Philippine
Constitution Association; Integrated Bar of the Philippines; the militant Bayan Muna, Kabataan and
Gabriela party-list groups; Confederation for Unity, Recognition and Advancement of Government
Employees; and the Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption.
The case was heard over a three-part oral arguments in January and February.
Solicitor General Francis Jardeleza, in its reply to the petitions, has described DAP as a mechanism of
public expenditure designed to fast-track public spending for priority programs, activities and projects
with the use of savings and the Unprogrammed Fund.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) also insisted that there is no law required for the creation of
DAP since the President has the constitutional authority to create policies in the execution of laws.
The OSG added that the Constitution provides that the President...may, by law, be authorized to
augment any item in the general appropriations law for [his] office from savings in other items of [his]
appropriations.
Jardeleza said the legislative authorization for the Presidents exercise of his augmentation power is
found in the GAA, the Administrative Code and the Budget Reform Decree of 1977. The petitioners
alleged that the discretionary fund of the President violates the exclusive power of Congress to
appropriate funds just like in the Priority Development Assistance Fund.
They said the use of the DAP violated Section 29 (1), Article VI of the Constitution, which requires that
no money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law.
They also argued that the Constitution prohibits transfer of funds between branches of government
without the necessary law. They cited Section 24, Article XXV and Section 25, Article VI of the
Constitution in questioning the legality of DAP.
The first provision gives Congress exclusive power of the purse, while the second requires a law in
transferring appropriations from one government branch to another. Petitioners also argued that the
constitution restricts the augmentation of budgets of the Offices of the President, the President of the
Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the
heads of Constitutional Commissions by their respective savings.
Aside from the President, also named respondents in the petitions were Budget Secretary Florencio
Abad, Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa and the Senate and Q` House of Representatives.
Gabriela Womens Party Rep. Emmi de Jesus, who is one of the petitioners, said they would consult their
lawyers to determine what legal actions can be taken against those responsible for the misuse of
government funds through DAP.
With the SC finally deciding that the DAP is unconstitutional, Kabataan Partylist Rep. Terry Ridon and the
Youth Act Now said they have already begun drafting legal charges against President Aquino Abad for
inventing and abusing the DAP.
Ridon said the Executive department has bypassed so many laws and abused its power gravely in
implementing the controversial program.
Ridon said following the SC decision, they will push through with the impeachment raps against Aquino
and malversation charges against Abad.
(With Kevin Valdez, Jovee Marie dela Cruz and Marvyn Benaning)
Manila Standard Today
SC justices vote 13-0 vs funds use by the Executive
THE Supreme Court on Tuesday declared several actions taken under President Aquinos
Disbursement Acceleration Program unconstitutional, saying they violated the doctrine of
separation of powers.
Voting 13-0, the justices ruled that the respondents, led by President Beningo Aquino III,
violated Article IV, Section 25 (5) of the Constitution and voided the use of unprogrammed
funds by the Executive branch, Court spokesman Theodore Te said.
Article VI, Section 25 (5) of the Constitution authorizes the President and heads of other
branches of government and constitutional commissions to augment any item in General
Appropriations Act for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective
appropriations.
The Court cited three specific acts of the President and his co-respondents as being
unconstitutional:
The withdrawal of unobligated allotments from the implementing agencies, and the declaration
of the withdrawn unobligated allotments and unreleased appropriations as savings prior to the
end of the fiscal year and without complying with the statutory definition of savings contained in
the GAA; the cross-border transfers of the savings of the Executive to augment the
appropriations of other offices outside the Executive; and the funding of projects, activities and
programs that were not covered by any appropriation in the GAA.
Associate Justice Lucas Bersamin wrote the decision, while Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo-
de Castro inhibited herself from the case.
Although Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco was not present during the voting, he left his vote
with Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno.
Subject to the views expressed by some justices in their separate opinions, the Court en banc
voting unanimously... partially granted the petitions for certiorari and prohibition challenging the
Disbursement Acceleration Program, Te said.
In particular, the Court declared acts under the DAP, National Budget Circular No. 541 and
related executive issuances as unconstitutional.
The Courts decision came after nine petitions challenging the DAP were filed last year by losing
senatorial candidate Greco Belgica, former Iloilo Rep. Augusto Syjuco, lawyers Jose Malvar
Villegas Jr. and ManuelitoLuna; the Philippine Constitution Association (Philconsa); Integrated
Bar of the Philippines, Bayan Muna, Kabataan and Gabriela party-list groups; Confederation for
Unity, Recognition and
Advancement of Government Employees; and the Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption.
The case was heard in three-part oral arguments last January and February.
Malacanang through Solicitor General Francis Jardeleza defended the legality of the DAP,
describing it as a mechanism of public expenditure designed to speed up public spending for
priority programs, activities and projects with the use of savings and unprogrammed funds.
Jardeleza said there is no law required for the creation of DAP since the President has the
constitutional authority to create policies in the execution of laws.
But the petitioners alleged that the discretionary fund of the President violates the exclusive
power of Congress to appropriate fundsjust like the Priority Development Assistance Fund
(PDAF) or pork barrel.
They said the use of the DAP violated Section 29 (1), Article VI of the Constitution, which
requires that no money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation
made by law.
They also argued that the Constitution prohibits transfer of funds between branches of
government without necessary law.
They cited Section 24, Article XXV and Section 25, Article VI of the Constitution in questioning
the legality of DAP.
The first provision gives Congress exclusive power of the purse while the second requires a
law in transferring appropriations from one government branch to another.
Petitioners also argued that the Constitution restricts augmentation of budgets of offices of the
President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of Constitutional Commissions by their respective
savings.
Aside from the President, also named respondents in the petitions were Budget Secretary
Florencio Abad, Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa and the Senate and House of
Representatives.
Malacaang declined to comment on the Supreme Courts unanimous decision declaring several
acts under the Disbursement Acceleration Program as unconstitutional.
We will defer comment until weve read the full text of the decision, deputy presidential
spokesperson Abigail Valte said.
Valte said the Palace will leave it up to the Office of the Solicitor General to determine whether
to file a motion for reconsideration.
Earlier, the Palace said it will abide by whatever decision the Supreme Court may reach on the
issue of the legality of the DAP, through which the administration disbursed P137.3 billion.
Of the total DAP funds that were used for 116 projects, 9 percent or about P12.357 billion went
to lawmakers.
Philconsa officials led by its president Rep. Ferdinand Martin Romualdez and chairman Manuel
M. Lazaro hailed the decision of the Supreme Court.
Romualdez said it was now the duty of the Justice Department and the National Bureau of
Investigation, with the help of the Integrated Bar of the Philippine, to gather and secure all
documents related to the disbursement of DAP funds, and investigate the people who caused
their approval in preparation for the filing of criminal charges.
The government should exert all efforts to recover the funds as this will be a windfall recovery of
funds that may be used forthe benefit of the people, Philconsa said.
Senator Francis Escudero said the Supreme Court ruling would have far-reaching consequences
and effects on government budgeting and disbursement processes.
Detained Senator Jinggoy Estrada, who first exposed the existence of the DAP last year, said
heads must roll and budget officials must be held accountable for the illegal disbursement of
funds.
On its face, DAP is unconstitutional. It really has no basis and its ...nowhere to be found in the
General Appropriations Act. I thank the Supreme Court for respecting and upholding the
Congress exclusive power of the purse, he said.
Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago renewed her call to the Commission on Audit to investigate
the alleged bribery of lawmakers using DAP funds to ensure the conviction of former Chief
Justice Renato Corona during his impeachment trial.
She said all those involved in bribing senators and congressmen using DAP funds, and those who
got the bribe at the height of Coronas impeachment trial should be investigated.
She mentioned in particular Budget Secretary Florencio Abad, who was behind the DAP.
Both the pork barrel and DAP scandals are equally repulsive, and the Supreme Court declared
both funds as unconstitutional. I wholeheartedly welcome the impartial adjudication of these
abominable abuses of public funds by the Supreme Court since I cannot obtain relief from the
Senate itself, which appeared to have been complicit in bribery, she said.
With the Court decision, the left-wing bloc in the House demanded that President Aquino III and
Abad be held accountable for inventing the DAP and abusing the program.
At the same time, one of the groups Amembers, Kabataan party-list Rep. Terry Ridon
threatened to file an impeachment case against President Aquino.
We have always been certain on the unconstitutionality of the DAP. We will be readying all
necessary charges against officials involved in its implementation. But more important is that
this constitutes the impeachable offense of culpable violation of the constitution and betrayal of
public trust, Ridon said, just moments after the release of the decision.
Apart from being one of the petitioners iagainst the DAP, Ridon also filed House Resolution 359
last October which urges the House committee on appropriation and the committee on good
government and public accountability to investigate the DAP.
Ridon said he was unfazed by the dominance of Aquinos allies in the House and the Senate.
It is a daunting task, but we are prepared to fight, Ridon said.
Ridon added that Abad can also be charged with malversation of public funds at the bare
minimum.
Abad clearly committed malversation in crafting and implementing the multi-billion-peso DAP.
We will file the appropriate charges against him at the soonest, the party-list lawmaker said.
The Filipino people need to make this arrogant administration accountable for implementing an
illegal scheme that only served to further the administrations political motives and perpetuate
political patronage in government. To succeed, the Filipino people must stand united in the
fight, Ridon said.
The DAP came under fire last year after several senators revealed that funds were used as
incentives for legislators who supported the impeachment of Corona in 2012.
Bayan Muna party-list Rep. Carlos Zarate said the Court decision was just a partial victory of
the people against the pork barrel system.
As we have orally argued before the High Court, DAP is a form of budgetary dictatorship of the
Aquino administration that run afoul with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, Zarate told the
Manila Standard.
Zarate added: DAP exposes the hypocrisy of the Aquino administrations hallow, selective and
even deceptive anti-corruption campaign.
An administration ally, Ako-Bicol party-list Rep. Rodel Batocabe, said the Courts decision
should be respected.
While it may limit the discretion of the executive, it may nonetheless affect adversely the
absorptive capacity of executive agencies,Batocabe said.
Paranaque Rep. Gus Tambunting, member of the opposition United Nationalist Alliance (UNA),
also welcomed the SC decision against DAP.
I am in favor of the Supreme Courts opinion that the DAP was not a practice in accordance
with the law. Nothing in the legislated budget by Congress authorized it, Tambunting said. The
very fact the administration stopped its implementation showed even they realized there was
something wrong with it, he added.
Official Gazette
The Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) is a stimulus package under the Aquino
administration designed to fast-track public spending and push economic growth. This covers
high-impact budgetary programs and projects which will be augmented out of the savings
generated during the year and additional revenue sources. The DAP was approved by the
President on October 12, 2011, upon the recommendation of the Development Budget
Coordination Committee (DBCC) and the Cabinet Clusters.
The DAP was conceptualized in September 2011 and introduced in October 2011, in the context
of the prevailing underspending in government disbursements for the first eight months of 2011
that dampened the countrys economic growth. Such government intervention was needed
because key programs and projects, most notably public infrastructure, were moving slowly. The
need to accelerate public spending was also brought about by the global economic situation as
well as the financial toll of calamities in that year. While the economy has generally improved in
2012 and 2013, the use of DAP was continued to sustain the pace of public spending as well as
economic expansion.

Post navigation
Older posts
Notice of Coverage






Rate This

Request for Coverage
Reference: Prof. Harry L. Roque, Jr. 09175398096
Today, July 2, 2014, 1:30 pm at Maxs Restaurant (1123 M.Y. Orosa Street, corner U.N.
Avenue, Ermita, Manila), Centerlaw and the Roque & Butuyan Law offices will hold a press
conference on the recent court decisions on the following cases:
1) Rev Magnolia Mendoza vs Cebu Pacific where the court ordered CebuPac to pay 2M in
damages to Rev Mendoza.
2) On the Declaration of Unconstitutionality of the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP)
Media coverage is requested.
ON THE DECLARATION OF
UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE
DISBURSEMENT ACCELERATION
PROGRAM (DAP)






Harry Roque

The Supreme Court today struck down key provisions of the governments Disbursement
Acceleration Program (DAP). The declaration of unconstitutionality of the DAP is a great
victory for the Constitution and the Rule of Law. The applicable constitutional and statutory
provisions on the matter of use of savings and augmentation are very clear savings can come
only from existing appropriations within the department of the government, including
constitutional commissions and augmentations may only be effected if the original appropriation
is found to be deficient. Thus, the Supreme Court rightly declared cross-border augmentations
and augmentations of inexistent programs as unconstitutional and the withdrawal of the
unobligated allotments before the end of the fiscal year for programs or projects not abandoned
as unconstitutional transfer of appropriations.
Centerlaw, which filed one of the Petitions questioning the DAP before the High Court is elated
at the decision of the Court. In the meantime, the Petitioners wait, as in the case of the Priority
Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), the criminal prosecution of those responsible for the
DAP.
The unconstitutional transfer of appropriations was one of the principal causes for the
unmitigated raid of the governments coffers during the Marcos regime under Presidential
Decree No. 1177 that allowed Marcos to plunder the government in the Billions of Dollars.
Unlike the PDAF where previous decisions of the Supreme Court upheld its validity, the case of
unconstitutional transfers of appropriation was decided as early as 1987 in the case of Demetria
vs. Alba.The present administration cannot therefore claim good faith for its unconstitutional
transgression. The declaration of unconstitutionality, is therefore, not enough. Aside from
criminal prosecution for technical malversation, heads must roll for the illegal expenditures as is
required under Section 43, Chapter 5, Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987.
Centerlaw Chairperson Harry Roque states, It is a great victory for the constitution and the rule
of law. Our next task is to hold those responsible for DAP criminally responsible as well as those
behind the PDAF scam.

DAP unconstitutional SC
Written by Benjamin B. Pulta
Wednesday, 02 July 2014
J inggoy: Palace execs liable for DAP, heads must roll
Its official. The Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) was ruled by the Supreme
Court (SC) yesterday as unconstitutional, for which detained Sen. Jinggoy Estrada, in a
statement issued by his office, said heads must roll as the Palace executives, must be held
liable.
A unanimous SC ruled to outlaw the presidential pork barrel, known as the DAP.
Court spokesman Theodore Te told newsmen that at the end of its regular en banc
session the high court in the decision by Associate Justice Lucas Bersamin declared the
program as unconstitutional for being in violation of the Constitution and the doctrine of
separation of powers.
Senior Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr., who is on official leave, left his vote on
the issue with Chief Justice Lourdes Sereno while Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo-
de Castro had inhibited from the case.
The use of unprogrammed funds by the Executive Branch was declared illegal despite
the absence of a certification by the National Treasurer that revenue collections exceeded
the targets.
Te said the fund was in violation of Section 25 (5) Article VI of the
Constitution and the doctrine of separation of powers in implementing DAP, National
Budget Circular No. 541 among others.
Article VI, Section 25 (5) of the Constitution authorizes the President and heads of other
branches of government and constitutional commissions to augment any item in GAA for
their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations.
The Court cited the three specific acts of the President and his co-respondents that are
unconstitutional, namely: The withdrawal of unobligated allotments from the
implementing agencies, and the declaration of the withdrawn unobligated allotments and
unreleased appropriations as savings, prior to the end of the fiscal year and without
complying with the statutory definition of savings contained in the GAA; the cross-
border transfers of the savings of the Executive to augment the appropriations of other
offices outside the Executive; and the funding of projects, activities and programs that
were not covered by any appropriation in the GAA.
Te said Subject to the views expressed by some justices in their separate opinions, the
Court en banc voting unanimously...partially granted the petitions for certiorari and
prohibition challenging the Disbrusement Acceleration Program.
The nine petitions against the DAP were filed last year by losing senatorial candidate
Greco Belgica, former Iloilo Rep. Augusto Syjuco, lawyers Jose Malvar Villegas Jr. and
Manuelito Luna; Philippine Constitution Association (Philconsa); Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP); the militant Bayan Muna, Kabataan and Gabriela party-list groups;
Confederation for Unity, Recognition and Advancement of Government Employees
(Courage); and the Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption.
The case was heard in three-part oral arguments last January and February.
Solicitor General Francis Jardeleza, in its reply to the petitions, has described DAP as a
mechanism of public expenditure designed to fast-track public spending for priority
programs, activities and projects with the use of savings and the Unprogrammed Fund.
The OSG also insisted that there is no law required for the creation of DAP since the
President has the constitutional authority to create policies in the execution of laws.
The OSG added that the Constitution provides that the President...may, by law, be
authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for [his] office from
savings in other items of [his] appropriations.
Jardeleza said the legislative authorization for the Presidents exercise of his
augmentation power is found in the GAA, the Administrative Code, and in the Budget
Reform Decree of 1977.
The petitioners alleged that the discretionary fund of the President violates the exclusive
power of Congress to appropriate funds - just like in PDAF.
They said the use of the DAP violated Section 29 (1), Article VI of the Constitution,
which requires that no money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an
appropriation made by law.
They also argued that the Constitution prohibits the transfer of funds between branches of
government without necessary law.
They cited Section 24, Article XXV and Section 25, Article VI of the Constitution in
questioning the legality of DAP.
The first provision gives Congress exclusive power of the purse while the second
requires a law in transferring appropriations from one government branch to another.
Petitioners also argued that the Constitution restricts augmentation of budgets of offices
of the President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker, the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court, and the heads of Constitutional Commissions by their respective savings.
Aside from the President, also named respondents in the petitions were Budget Secretary
Florencio Abad, Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa and the Senate and House of
Representatives.
It was Senator Estrada, who, in a privilege speech exposed Aquinos DAP, unaware of
its existence then, believing that it was additional priority development assistance fund
(PDAF) given to senators as incentives. The amounts given to the senators who had
voted to acquit then Chief Justice Renato Corona were P50 million in pork with other
allies of President Aquino, such as Franklin Drilon, then chairman of the Finance
committee, and Sen. Francis Escudero, among others, given P100 million in pork
projects.
Budget Secretary Abad later admitted that the additional funds came from the DAP, but
maintained that the allocations were neither bribes nor incentives.
In his statement, Estrada commended the high court for respecting and upholding
Congress exclusive power of the purse.
Now that the highest court of the land said that the DAP mechanism is unconstitutional
and illegal, heads must roll and budget officials must be held accountable, he said.
UP School of Economics Professor Benjamin Diokno commented on the ruling of the
SC, saying: Offhand, Its a great day for Filipinos. The SC has effectively restored the
Congresss power of the purse. It has strictly defined the powers of the President and
Congress with respect to the budget process. The checks and balance embedded in th
Constitution have been strengthened. The Executive department will take budget
preparation more seriously.
Sen. Miriam Santiago, who appears still to be smarting over the budget chief having
excluded her from the DAP inititive renewed her call for the Commission on Audit to
probe into the alleged bribery of Congress members during the impeachment trial of ex-
Chief Justice Renato Corona in connection with the DAP.
Both the pork barrel and DAP scandals are equally repulsive, and the Supreme Court
declared both funds as unconstitutional. I wholeheartedly welcome the impartial
adjudication of these abominable abuses of public funds by the Supreme Court since I
cannot obtain relief from the Senate itself, which appeared to have been complicit in
bribery, she said.
It should illegal for the budget department to discriminate among senators. While all
other senators received an average of P50 million in DAP funds, reportedly three senators
got P100 million each. They are Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile, Sen. Franklin Drilon, and Sen.
Francis Escudero, she said.
The three senators did not explain why they got more than the others, but merely
defended themselves with the excuse that they spent the money on public projects. By
contrast, each representative allegedly received P15 million.
In releasing funds, the executive branch cannot play favorites when carrying out
constitutional commands such as social justice, social services, and equal work
opportunities. The DAP releases, flawed as they were from the very beginning, played
favorites among senators. That was clearly unconstitutional, she said.
Senate President Pro Tempore Ralph Recto, an administration ally, said that while
executive officials may have committed some oversight, most of the DAP funds were
properly spent.
Remember that there is no allegation that they were stolen. The debate was on the
process followed. The discussion centered on the means rather than the end, Recto said
in a separate statement.
He added that the Aquino administration has already unilaterally terminated the DAP
ever since legal questions were raised against the program.
Senator Escudero, finance committee chairman, for his part, said the SC ruling on DAP
will have far reaching consequences on government budgeting.
With the Supreme Courts ruling of the DAP as unconstitutional, Kabataan Partylist Rep.
Terry Ridon said that the next step would be to ensure that President Aquino and Budget
Secretary Abad would be held accountable for the inventing and abusing the said fiscal
program.
Ridon said that the Supreme Courts ruling on DAP is a solid ground for culpable
violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust, both of which are impeachable
offenses.
It (impeachment) is a daunting task, but we are prepared to fight, Ridon said, adding
that Abad can be charged with malversation of public funds, at the bare minimum,
Ridon added.
Buhay Rep. Lito Atienza, who belongs to the House independent bloc, while lauding the
SC decision declaring parts of the DAP unconstitutional, supported Ridons position that
those responsible for its creation be held responsible.
The brains behind the DAP Budget Secretary Butch Abad, who claims to be patriotic,
should now be resigning to pave the way for an impartial investigation into this. He
should also make a complete accounting of the billions of pesos he disbursed under this
illegal program he conceived and concocted, according to his own admission, Atienza
stressed.
For their part, Bayan Muna Reps. Neri Colmenares and Carlos Zarate claim the SC
decision as a partial victory of the peoples struggle to abolish the gargantuan pork barrel
system
An administration lawmaker yesterday doused cold water on the planned impeachment
moves by the militant left and the political opposition.
Eastern Samar Rep. Ben Evardone said filing an impeachment complaint against the
president is a right of every Filipino citizen but that would not prosper under the present
Congress.
Speaker Feliciano Belmonte said the Aquino government has to comply with the SC
decision, adding that the unconstitutional provisions of the DAP have already been
withdrawn by President Aquino.
Paraaque Rep. Gustavo Tambunting, also a member of the minority bloc, said that the
decision was not surprising.
Im not surprised; Ive always been saying this: the DAP could not be declared
constitutional if the PDAF (Priority Development Assistance Fund) is unconstitutional,
Tambunting said.
Tambunting, who was guest at the weekly Ugnayan sa Batasam media Forum in the
House of Representatives, said that the SC is just being consistent.
If they want to be consistent then theres only one way they can rule on this and that is
to declare DAP unconstitutional and illegal, Tambunting said.
Ako Bicol Rep. Rodel Batocabe said Abad could be liable if he continues with the DAP
despite the SC decision.
Marikina Rep. Miro Quimbo, refuted Ridons statement saying that Abad cannot be held
liable for the DAP.
He said that any impeachment complaint filed against President Aquino has no basis in
law.
Akbayan Rep. Walden Bello, an ally of the administration, said that President Aquino is
not in any danger of impeachment. He shared the position of Eastern Samar Rep. Ben
Evardone.
On the calls for Abad to resign, Bello said: No, I do not think Secretary Abad should
resign or be fired since the SC ruling carries liability only from hereon, from the time of
the ruling. The SC ruling clarified the status of a practice. So the Executive now has a
clear ruling on which to base its future actions. With Angie M. Rosales, Charlie V.
Manalo. Gerry Baldo and Pat C. Santos