I.

FACTS :
THE DISBURSEMENT ACCELERATION PROGRAM

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.
Funds used for programs and projects identified through DAP were sourced from savings generated by
the government, the realignment of which is subject to the approval of the President; as well as the
Unprogrammed Fund that can be tapped when government has windfall revenue collections, e.g., unexpected
remittance of dividends from the GOCCs and Government Financial Institutions (GFIs), sale of government assets.
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.
The Supreme Court, with a vote of 13-1-0, declared as unconstitutional President Benigno Aquino IIIs
Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP).
II. CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE:
a. 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declaration of the withdrawn unobligated allotments and unreleased appropriations as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 Acts;
b. The cross-border transfers of the savings of the Executive to augment the appropriations of
other offices outside the Executive;
c. The funding of projects, activities and programs that were not covered by any appropriation
in the GAA;
d. The use of unprogrammed funds despite the absence of a certification by the National
Treasurer that the revenue collections exceeded the revenue targets for non-compliance
with the conditions provided in the relevant GAA.


III. SOURCES:

A. Primary:
1. 1987 Constitution
2. General Appropriations Act
3. ?????
B. Secondary:
1. We are a government of laws. This means that no matter how noble, the ends may not
necessarily justify the means if they violate constitution, --former national treasurer Leonor
Briones ------?????
2. ?????
IV. ASSERTION OF THE GROUP:
DAP is unconstitutional because:
1. It encroaches the Congress power of the purse as well as its law making function.

Congress wields the power of the purse. Thus, the Constitution provides that No money shall
be paid out of the treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by the law. [Sec. 29 (1), Art
VI].
Appropriation carries with it the power to specify the project or activity to be funded by the
appropriation law. Appropriation refers to the spending power of Congress. It can be as detailed and as
broad, as Congress wants it to be. (PHILCONSA vs Enriquez 235 SCRA 506)

2. It facilitates the illegal transfer of appropriations.

For a valid transfer of funds to happen pursuant to Sec. 25 (5), Art VI of the Constitution, first,
there are savings and second, the savings are transferred in the same department and third, the same
are transferred to existing items or those items specified in the general appropriations act.

The President may augment any item in the general appropriations act for his office form savings
in other items. It is he alone who is authorized to exercise such power.

3. It undermines the system of checks and balance.
Secretary Florencio Abad being the Head of the Department of Budget and Management and
authorized the disbursement/releases of billions of pesos in public funds without congressional
authorization.
The only way new items may be funded is through some kind of supplemental appropriation or
new general appropriations law. The Executive Branch cannot cut corners in order to fund new items
not provided for in the GAAs.
4. It violates equal protection
Right after the privilege speech of Senator Jinggoy Estrada delivered on Sept 24, 2013, wherein he
revealed that some of his colleagues in the Senate including himself, received additional fifty million sourced
DAP on top of their regular PDAF allocation, some lawmakers from both chambers of Congress who may
have no knowledge of its existence nor availed of the lawmaker-identified projects component soured from
it, denounced the program on constitutional and even moral grounds. Only select legislators benefited from
the program.
Though the law be fair on its face and impartial in appearance, yet if it is applied and administered
by the public authorities charged with their administration with an evil eye and unequal hand as practically
to make unjust and illegal discrimination, the denial of equal justice is still within the prohibition. (Genaro R.
Reyes Construction, Inc. vs CA 234 SCRA 116)