Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • PCIJ Sidebar Table4

    Uploaded by

    BlogWatch
    91 views1 page
    The DAP story started 26 months ago supposedly as “a fiscal stimulus measure” designed to shore up public spending and boost economic growth. The Department of Budget and Management has conceived it to bankroll supposedly fast-disbursing, high-impact, and socially responsive projects. But through it all, according to Cabinet secretary, DAP offers public officials a singular lesson: “Good intentions are not good enough.” In truth, until a fortnight ago, DAP was a concept not quite clear to even some Cabinet members themselves. What apparently started as a mere budget management tool soon evolved into “a big pool of funds” or a virtual special purpose fund that did not exist as a line item in the General Appropriations Acts for 2011, 2012, and 2013. Under DAP, the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) released a supposed total of P144.38 billion in taxpayers’ money for supposedly 116 projects from October 2011 to December 2013. DBM itself could not seem to get its numbers right, however. Various official DBM statements place the DAP funds that had been disbursed to be anywhere from P136 billion to P144 billion to P149 billion, for a significant variance of P5 billion to P13 billion. In truth, DBM’s list of “DAP-funded projects” is a virtual smorgasbord of specific projects to be implemented by single agencies allotted relatively smaller amounts, as well as unspecified “various priority local projects” or “various priority infrastructure projects” given billions of DAP pesos. Two to four agencies were assigned to implement the latter through transfers or sub-allotment of funds covered by a web of inter-agency memoranda of agreement. In these cases, accountability for fund spending and project implementation had been shared, and thus diffused, among the agencies. This vague category of DAP “projects” include those that DBM said had been “requested by legislators, local officials, and national agencies.” But 10 months after the DAP row broke in September 2013, DBM has yet to disclose the full details of which lawmaker or agency had proposed what types of projects, where, and for how much, with lump-sum fund cover under DAP. The saga or DAP lingers on, however, as the Senate is poised to hold a public hearing starting tomorrow, even as the Executive branch has filed a motion for reconsideration of the Supreme Court's 13-0 decision declaring DAP unconstitutional in part..

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The DAP story started 26 months ago supposedly as “a fiscal stimulus measure” designed to shore up public spending and boost economic growth. The Department of Budget and Management has conceived it to bankroll supposedly fast-disbursing, high-impact, and socially responsive projects. But through it all, according to Cabinet secretary, DAP offers public officials a singular lesson: “Good intentions are not good enough.” In truth, until a fortnight ago, DAP was a concept not quite clear to even some Cabinet members themselves. What apparently started as a mere budget management tool soon evolved into “a big pool of funds” or a virtual special purpose fund that did not exist as a line item in the General Appropriations Acts for 2011, 2012, and 2013. Under DAP, the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) released a supposed total of P144.38 billion in taxpayers’ money for supposedly 116 projects from October 2011 to December 2013. DBM itself could not seem to get its numbers right, however. Various official DBM statements place the DAP funds that had been disbursed to be anywhere from P136 billion to P144 billion to P149 billion, for a significant variance of P5 billion to P13 billion. In truth, DBM’s list of “DAP-funded projects” is a virtual smorgasbord of specific projects to be implemented by single agencies allotted relatively smaller amounts, as well as unspecified “various priority local projects” or “various priority infrastructure projects” given billions of DAP pesos. Two to four agencies were assigned to implement the latter through transfers or sub-allotment of funds covered by a web of inter-agency memoranda of agreement. In these cases, accountability for fund spending and project implementation had been shared, and thus diffused, among the agencies. This vague category of DAP “projects” include those that DBM said had been “requested by legislators, local officials, and national agencies.” But 10 months after the DAP row broke in September 2013, DBM has yet to disclose the full details of which lawmaker or agency had proposed what types of projects, where, and for how much, with lump-sum fund cover under DAP. The saga or DAP lingers on, however, as the Senate is poised to hold a public hearing starting tomorrow, even as the Executive branch has filed a motion for reconsideration of the Supreme Court's 13-0 decision declaring DAP unconstitutional in part..

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    91 views1 page

    PCIJ Sidebar Table4

    Uploaded by

    BlogWatch
    The DAP story started 26 months ago supposedly as “a fiscal stimulus measure” designed to shore up public spending and boost economic growth. The Department of Budget and Management has conceived it to bankroll supposedly fast-disbursing, high-impact, and socially responsive projects. But through it all, according to Cabinet secretary, DAP offers public officials a singular lesson: “Good intentions are not good enough.” In truth, until a fortnight ago, DAP was a concept not quite clear to even some Cabinet members themselves. What apparently started as a mere budget management tool soon evolved into “a big pool of funds” or a virtual special purpose fund that did not exist as a line item in the General Appropriations Acts for 2011, 2012, and 2013. Under DAP, the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) released a supposed total of P144.38 billion in taxpayers’ money for supposedly 116 projects from October 2011 to December 2013. DBM itself could not seem to get its numbers right, however. Various official DBM statements place the DAP funds that had been disbursed to be anywhere from P136 billion to P144 billion to P149 billion, for a significant variance of P5 billion to P13 billion. In truth, DBM’s list of “DAP-funded projects” is a virtual smorgasbord of specific projects to be implemented by single agencies allotted relatively smaller amounts, as well as unspecified “various priority local projects” or “various priority infrastructure projects” given billions of DAP pesos. Two to four agencies were assigned to implement the latter through transfers or sub-allotment of funds covered by a web of inter-agency memoranda of agreement. In these cases, accountability for fund spending and project implementation had been shared, and thus diffused, among the agencies. This vague category of DAP “projects” include those that DBM said had been “requested by legislators, local officials, and national agencies.” But 10 months after the DAP row broke in September 2013, DBM has yet to disclose the full details of which lawmaker or agency had proposed what types of projects, where, and for how much, with lump-sum fund cover under DAP. The saga or DAP lingers on, however, as the Senate is poised to hold a public hearing starting tomorrow, even as the Executive branch has filed a motion for reconsideration of the Supreme Court's 13-0 decision declaring DAP unconstitutional in part..

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    S|debar 1ab|e 4. New ro[ects under the 13.

    4-b||||on DA
    New ro[ects Under the 13.4-b||||on DA
    Agency ro[ect Amount
    uCS1
    naLlonwlde ulsasLer 8lsk, Lxposure, AssessmenL and MlLlgaLlon
    (u8LAM)
    1.6 bllllon
    uA-nlA !alaur 8lver MulLlpurpose ro[ecL 430 mllllon
    MMuA
    Solld WasLe ulsposal ro[ecL 230 mllllon
    urban 8enewal, 1rafflc ManagemenL, llood ConLrol (hase l) 134.403 mllllon
    rlorlLy llood ConLrol ro[ecLs 293.371 mllllon
    uWP varlous lnfrasLrucLure pro[ecLs 139.917 mllllon
    ulLC
    Speclal capaclLy bulldlng pro[ecL for people's and non-governmenL
    organlzaLlons (os/nCCs)
    43.323 mllllon
    LCus CLher varlous local pro[ecLs 1.88 bllllon
    8CC l1 lnfrasLrucLure malnLenance pro[ecL 192.64 mllllon
    uWP
    aymenL of rlghL of way clalms naLlonwlde 719.02 mllllon
    lncenLlves of personnel affecLed by Lhe raLlonallzaLlon program 2.286 bllllon
    n AddlLlonal funds for MCCL of n 8eglonal Cfflces/n sLaLlons 113.33 mllllon
    CPLu
    AddlLlonal budgeL for SuCs:
    ! lnsLlLuLlonal capaclLy bulldlng of leadlng sLaLe unlverslLles
    ! CranLs-ln-Ald program for poverLy allevlaLlon
    ! Modernlzlng PL faclllLles
    4.284 bllllon
    LLuA lnfrasLrucLure upgrade and developmenL program 270 mllllon
    uCS1 LsLabllshmenL of Lhe Advanced lallure Analysls LaboraLory 300 mllllon
    uA
    ParmonlzaLlon of naLlonal CovernmenL erformance MonlLorlng
    and 8eporLlng SysLems
    3 mllllon
    SC Malacanang SecurlLy and CommunlcaLlon lan 248.327 mllllon
    uWP ermanenL Magulllng 8rldgero[ecL 143 mllllon
    GkAND 1C1AL 13.379 b||||on
    !"#$%&' )*+, "- ./012234 5678#$7&9&:; <%%&=&$>;6": <=$&>?@ A&=&>7&?B //1C, ?678#$7&?1D
    5&E>$;9&:; "- 4#?F&; >:? G>:>F&9&:;B * H>:1 0I20

    You might also like