Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • PCIJ Sidebar Table5

    Uploaded by

    BlogWatch
    82 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
    82 views1 page

    PCIJ Sidebar Table5

    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

    !"#$%&' )&%*$ +, -'./'&01 &2# -'.3$451 672#$# %8 !

    &9"2/1 &2# :"2#;&** <$9$27$1


    -'./'&01 &2# -'.3$451 672#$# %8 !&9"2/1 &2# :"2#;&** <$9$27$1
    =/$248 -7'>.1$ =0.725
    ?"2 0"**".2 -@-A
    uCl/8S LqulLy lnfuslon for Lhe AuLhorlzed CaplLal SLock of 8S 20,000
    uWP AddlLlonal funds for Secondary naLlonal 8oad ro[ecL of Lhe
    Mlllennlum Challenge AccounL-hlllpplnes
    1,200
    uWP rlorlLy lnfrasLrucLure ro[ecLs, parLlcularly naLlonal 8oads and
    8rldges, and Access 8oads Lo 1ourlsm uesLlnaLlons
    2,773.24
    uo1 1ourlsm Medla AdverLlslng Campalgn 300
    uo1/ naL'l
    arks uev'L
    kllomeLer Zero naLlonal MonumenL Pardscape and SofLscape
    8edevelopmenL ro[ecL
    207.1
    uepLd AddlLlonal funds for Lhe ubllc-rlvaLe arLnershlp () for
    School lnfrasLrucLure ro[ecL hase ll
    4,077
    uA-nlA 8ehablllLaLlon, upgradlng or acqulslLlon of Mechanlcal dryers ln
    supporL of Lhe lood SLaple Sufflclency rogram
    121
    ulLC erformance-8ased Challenge lund (Cl) granL for an addlLlonal
    47 ellglble Local CovernmenL unlLs
    233
    unu-Al 8ehablllLaLlon of Alr LducaLlon and 1ralnlng Command 60
    unu-Al AddlLlonal funds Lo supporL Lhe unfunded requlremenLs of Lhe
    hlllpplne Alr lorce Lo address lLs capablllLy gap
    307.3
    varlous
    Agencles
    AcLlvlLles of Lhe ayapa aL Masaganang amayanan (AMAnA)
    rogram (CA, unu-Al, uWP & A8MM)
    743.46
    naLlonal
    Archlves
    hlllpplne ulglLlzaLlon lund for Lhe dlglLlzaLlon of publlc records of
    naLlonal governmenL deparLmenLs and agencles
    300
    LCus varlous local pro[ecLs 2,790
    nLuA varlous lnfrasLrucLure lmprovemenL ro[ecLs 207.04
    !"#$%&' )*+", -..$"/&0 *123145 -6678 !.&96:9; <$"= !>/:9;0 >96 ?:96<>88@ -A>6' *2B45 5!*
    CD#:E, F9<#0:"9 5$:9;0 +3G3 5>8>9%& E" *HB453I J&.>$E=&9E "< 5#6;&E >96 K>9>;&=&9EL 2M J&%3
    2BH23

    You might also like