You are on page 1of 39

G.R. No.

209287 July 1, 2014


MARIA CAROLINA P. ARAULLO, CHAIRPERSON, BAGONG ALYANSANG
MAKABAYAN; JUDY M. TAGUIWALO, PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF THE
PHILIPPINES DILIMAN, CO-CHAIRPERSON, PAGBABAGO; HENRI KAHN,
CONCERNED CITIZENS MOVEMENT; REP. LUZ ILAGAN, GABRIELA WOMEN'S
PARTY REPRESENTATIVE; REP. CARLOS ISAGANI ZARATE, BAY AN MUNA
PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVE; RENATO M. REYES, JR., SECRETARY GENERAL
OF BAYAN; MANUEL K. DAYRIT, CHAIRMAN, ANG KAPATIRAN PARTY; VENCER
MARI E. CRISOSTOMO, CHAIRPERSON, ANAKBAYAN; VICTOR VILLANUEVA,
CONVENOR, YOUTH ACT NOW, Petitioners,
vs.
BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III, PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES; PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., EXECUTIVE SECRETARY; AND
FLORENCIO B. ABAD, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND
MANAGEMENT, Respondents.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 209135
AUGUSTO L. SY JUCO JR., Ph.D., Petitioner,
vs.
FLORENCIO B. ABAD, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT
OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT; AND HON. FRANKLIN MAGTUNAO DRILON, IN
HIS CAP A CITY AS THE SENATE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 209136
MANUELITO R. LUNA, Petitioner,
vs.
SECRETARY FLORENCIO ABAD, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS HEAD OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT; AND EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
PAQUITO OCHOA, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ALTER EGO OF THE
PRESIDENT, Respondents.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 209155
ATTY. JOSE MALV AR VILLEGAS, JR., Petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR.; AND THE
SECRETARY OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT FLORENCIO B.
ABAD, Respondents.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 209164
PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION (PHILCONSA), REPRESENTED BY
DEAN FROILAN M. BACUNGAN, BENJAMIN E. DIOKNO AND LEONOR M.
BRIONES, Petitioners,
vs.
DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT AND/OR HON. FLORENCIO B.
ABAD, Respondents.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 209260
INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES (IBP), Petitioner,
vs.
SECRETARY FLORENCIO B. ABAD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND
MANAGEMENT (DBM),Respondent.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 209442
GRECO ANTONIOUS BEDA B. BELGICA; BISHOP REUBEN MABANTE AND REV.
JOSE L. GONZALEZ,Petitioners,
vs.
PRESIDENT BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III, THE SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
REPRESENTED BY SENATE PRESIDENT FRANKLIN M. DRILON; THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, REPRESENTED BY SPEAKER FELICIANO BELMONTE, JR.;
THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE, REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO
N. OCHOA, JR.; THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY FLORENCIO ABAD; THE DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY CESAR V. PURISIMA; AND THE
BUREAU OF TREASURY, REPRESENTED BY ROSALIA V. DE LEON, Respondents.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 209517
CONFEDERATION FOR UNITY, RECOGNITION AND ADV AN CEMENT OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES (COURAGE), REPRESENTED BY ITS 1ST VICE
PRESIDENT, SANTIAGO DASMARINAS, JR.; ROSALINDA NARTATES, FOR
HERSELF AND AS NATIONAL PRESIDENT OF THE CONSOLIDATED UNION OF
EMPLOYEES NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY (CUENHA); MANUEL BACLAGON,
FOR HIMSELF AND AS PRESIDENT OF THE SOCIAL WELFARE EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND
DEVELOPMENT CENTRAL OFFICE (SWEAP-DSWD CO); ANTONIA PASCUAL, FOR
HERSELF AND AS NATIONAL PRESIDENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN
REFORM EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (DAREA); ALBERT MAGALANG, FOR
HIMSELF AND AS PRESIDENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND MANAGEMENT
BUREAU EMPLOYEES UNION (EMBEU); AND MARCIAL ARABA, FOR HIMSELF
AND AS PRESIDENT OF THE KAPISANAN PARA SA KAGALINGAN NG MGA KAW
ANI NG MMDA (KKKMMDA), Petitioners,
vs.
BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO Ill, PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES; PAQUITO OCHOA, JR., EXECUTIVE SECRETARY; AND HON.
FLORENCIO B. ABAD, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND
MANAGEMENT, Respondents.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 209569
VOLUNTEERS AGAINST CRIME AND CORRUPTION (VACC), REPRESENTED BY
DANTE L. JIMENEZ,Petitioner,
vs.
PAQUITO N. OCHOA, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, AND FLORENCIO B. ABAD,
SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND
MANAGEMENT, Respondents.

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS

The controversy on the constitutionality of the Disbursement


Acceleration Program was triggered on September 25, 2013, when
Sen. Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada delivered a privilege speech in the
Senate of the Philippines to reveal that some Senators, including
himself, had been allotted an additional P50 Million each as
"incentive" for voting in favor of the impeachment of Chief Justice
Renato C. Corona.

As a response to Sen. Estradas revelation, Secretary Florencio Abad


of the DBM issued a public statement entitled Abad: Releases to
Senators Part of Spending Acceleration Program, explaining that the
funds released to the Senators had been part of the DAP, a program
designed by the DBM to ramp up spending to accelerate economic
expansion.

Secretary Abad clarified that the funds had been released to the
Senators based on their letters of request for funding; and that it was
not the first time that releases from the DAP had been made because
the DAP had already been instituted in 2011 to ramp up spending
after sluggish disbursements had caused the growth of the gross
domestic product (GDP) to slow down. He explained that the funds
under the DAP were usually taken from (1) unreleased appropriations
under Personnel Services; (2) unprogrammed funds; (3) carry-over
appropriations unreleased from the previous year; and (4) budgets for
slow-moving items or projects that had been realigned to support
faster-disbursing projects.

Thereafter the DBM posted on its website that the DAP releases had
been sourced from savings generated by the Government, and from
unprogrammed funds; and that the savings had been derived from (1)
the pooling of unreleased appropriations, like unreleased Personnel
Services appropriations that would lapse at the end of the year,
unreleased appropriations of slow-moving projects and discontinued
projects per zero based budgeting findings; and (2) the withdrawal of
unobligated allotments also for slow-moving programs and projects
that had been earlier released to the agencies of the National
Government. The DBM listed on its website the legal bases 1 for the
DAPs use of savings.

The revelation of Sen. Estrada and the reactions of Sec. Abad and
the DBM brought the DAP to the consciousness of the Nation for the
first time, and made this present controversy inevitable. That the
issues against the DAP came at a time when the Nation was still
seething in anger over Congressional pork barrel "an appropriation
of government spending meant for localized projects and secured
solely or primarily to bring money to a representatives district"
excited the Nation as heatedly as the pork barrel controversy.

1 1) Section 25(5), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, which granted to the President the authority to augment an item
for his office in the general appropriations law; (2) Section 49 (Authority to Use Savings for Certain Purposes) and Section
38 (Suspension of Expenditure Appropriations), Chapter 5, Book VI of Executive Order (EO) No. 292 (Administrative Code
of 1987); and (3) the General Appropriations Acts (GAAs) of 2011, 2012 and 2013, particularly their provisions on the (a)
use of savings; (b) meanings of savings and augmentation; and (c) priority in the use of savings.
II. PROCEEDINGS

Nine petitions assailing the constitutionality of the DAP and the


issuances relating to the DAP were filed within days of each other, as
follows:

1. G.R. No. 209135 (Syjuco), on October 7, 2013;


2. G.R. No. 209136 (Luna), on October 7, 2013;
3. G.R. No. 209155 (Villegas), on October 16, 2013;
4. G.R. No. 209164 (PHILCONSA), on October 8, 2013;
5. G.R. No. 209260 (IBP), on October 16, 2013;
6. G.R. No. 209287 (Araullo), on October 17, 2013;
7. G.R. No. 209442 (Belgica), on October 29, 2013;
8. G.R. No. 209517 (COURAGE), on November 6, 2013; and
G.R. No. 209569 (VACC), on November 8, 2013.

In G.R. No. 209287 (Araullo), the petitioners brought to the Courts


attention NBC No. 541 (Adoption of Operational Efficiency Measure
Withdrawal of Agencies Unobligated Allotments as of June 30, 2012),
alleging that NBC No. 541, which was issued to implement the DAP,
directed the withdrawal of unobligated allotments as of June 30, 2012
of government agencies and offices with low levels of obligations,
both for continuing and current allotments.

Thereafter respondents filed their Consolidated Comment through the


Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).

The Court directed the holding of oral arguments on the significant


issues raised and joined.

A decision was promulgated by the Court on these consolidated


petitions.
III. ISSUES

The issues in this case are:

A. Procedural Issue

1. Whether or not certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus are proper


remedies to assail the constitutionality and validity of the
Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), National Budget Circular
(NBC) No. 541, and all other executive issuances allegedly
implementing the DAP. Subsumed in this issue are whether there is a
controversy ripe for judicial determination, and the standing of
petitioners.

B. Substantive Issues

1. Whether or not the DAP violates Sec. 29, Art. VI of the 1987
Constitution, which provides: "No money shall be paid out of the
Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law;"

2. Whether or not the DAP, NBC No. 541, and all other executive
issuances allegedly implementing the DAP violate Sec. 25(5), Art. VI
of the 1987 Constitution insofar as:

(a)They treat the unreleased appropriations and


unobligated allotments withdrawn from government
agencies as "savings" as the term is used in Sec. 25(5),
in relation to the provisions of the GAAs of 2011, 2012
and 2013;
(b)They authorize the disbursement of funds for projects
or programs not provided in the GAAs for the Executive
Department; and
(c)They "augment" discretionary lump sum appropriations
in the GAAs;
3. Whether or not the DAP violates: (1) the Equal Protection Clause,
(2) the system of checks and balances, and (3) the principle of public
accountability enshrined in the 1987 Constitution considering that it
authorizes the release of funds upon the request of legislators;

4. Whether or not the release of unprogrammed funds under the DAP


was in accord with the GAAs; and

5. Whether the doctrine of operative fact is applicable.

IV. RULINGS

Procedural Issue:

a) The petitions under Rule 65 are proper remedies


All the petitions are filed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, and
include applications for the issuance of writs of preliminary prohibitory
injunction or temporary restraining orders. More specifically, the
nature of the petitions is individually set forth hereunder, to wit:

Certiorari, Prohibition and


G.R. No. 209135 (Syjuco)
Mandamus
G.R. No. 209136 (Luna) Certiorari and Prohibition
G.R. No. 209155 (Villegas) Certiorari and Prohibition
G.R. No. 209164
Certiorari and Prohibition
(PHILCONSA)
G.R. No. 209260 (IBP) Prohibition
G.R. No. 209287 (Araullo) Certiorari and Prohibition
G.R. No. 209442 (Belgica) Certiorari
G.R. No. 209517 (COURAGE) Certiorari and Prohibition
G.R. No. 209569 (VACC) Certiorari and Prohibition

The Court held that the respondents arguments and submissions on


the procedural issue are bereft of merit: that there is no actual
controversy that is ripe for adjudication in the absence of adverse
claims between the parties; that the petitioners lacked legal standing
to sue because no allegations were made to the effect that they had
suffered any injury as a result of the adoption of the DAP and
issuance of NBC No. 541; that their being taxpayers did not
immediately confer upon the petitioners the legal standing to sue
considering that the adoption and implementation of the DAP and the
issuance of NBC No. 541 were not in the exercise of the taxing or
spending power of Congress; and that even if the petitioners had
suffered injury, there were plain, speedy and adequate remedies in
the ordinary course of law available to them, like assailing the
regularity of the DAP and related issuances before the Commission
on Audit (COA) or in the trial courts.

It was further held that the special civil actions of certiorari and
prohibition are the proper actions for directly assailing the
constitutionality and validity of the DAP, NBC No. 541, and the other
executive issuances implementing the DAP, contrary to the
contentions of the respondents.

Substantive Issues:

The Court declared the following acts and practices under the
Disbursement Acceleration Program, National Budget Circular No.
541 and related executive issuances UNCONSTITUTIONAL for being
in violation of Section 25(5), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and
the doctrine of separation of powers, namely:

(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; and

(c) The funding of projects, activities and programs that were


not covered by any appropriation in the General Appropriations
Act.

It further declared that 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 General Appropriations Acts is
void.

Issue No. 1
It was held that the DAP did not violate Section 29(1), Art. VI of the
Constitution. DAP was merely a program by the Executive and is not
a fund nor is it an appropriation. It is a program for prioritizing
government spending. As such, it did not violate the Constitutional
provision cited in Section 29(1), Art. VI of the Constitution. In DAP no
additional funds were withdrawn from the Treasury otherwise, an
appropriation made by law would have been required. Funds, which
were already appropriated for by the GAA, were merely being
realigned via the DAP.

Issue No. 2

There is no executive impoundment in the DAP. Impoundment of


funds refers to the Presidents power to refuse to spend
appropriations or to retain or deduct appropriations for whatever
reason. Impoundment is actually prohibited by the GAA unless there
will be an unmanageable national government budget deficit (which
did not happen). Nevertheless, theres no impoundment in the case
at bar because whats involved in the DAP was the transfer of funds.

The transfers made through the DAP were unconstitutional. It is true


that the President (and even the heads of the other branches of the
government) are allowed by the Constitution to make realignment of
funds, however, such transfer or realignment should only be made
within their respective offices. Thus, no cross-border
transfers/augmentations may be allowed. But under the DAP, this
was violated because funds appropriated by the GAA for the
Executive were being transferred to the Legislative and other non-
Executive agencies.

Further, transfers within their respective offices also contemplate


realignment of funds to an existing project in the GAA. Under the
DAP, even though some projects were within the Executive, these
projects are non-existent insofar as the GAA is concerned because
no funds were appropriated to them in the GAA. Although some of
these projects may be legitimate, they are still non-existent under the
GAA because they were not provided for by the GAA. As such,
transfer to such projects is unconstitutional and is without legal basis.

The DAP transfers are not savings contrary to what was being
declared by the Executive. Under the definition of savings in the
GAA, savings only occur, among other instances, when there is an
excess in the funding of a certain project once it is completed, finally
discontinued, or finally abandoned. The GAA does not refer to
savings as funds withdrawn from a slow moving project. Thus, since
the statutory definition of savings was not complied with under the
DAP, there is no basis at all for the transfers. Further, savings should
only be declared at the end of the fiscal year. But under the DAP,
funds are already being withdrawn from certain projects in the middle
of the year and then being declared as savings by the Executive
particularly by the DBM.

Issue No. 3

There is no violation of equal protection. Petitioners claim that the


Executive discriminated against some legislators on the ground alone
of their receiving less than the others could not of itself warrant a
finding of contravention of the Equal Protection Clause. The denial of
equal protection of any law should be an issue to be raised only by
parties who supposedly suffer it, and, in these cases, such parties
would be the few legislators claimed to have been discriminated
against in the releases of funds under the DAP. The reason for the
requirement is that only such affected legislators could properly and
fully bring to the fore when and how the denial of equal protection
occurred, and explain why there was a denial in their situation. The
requirement was not met here.

Issue No. 4

Unprogrammed funds from the GAA cannot be used as money


source for the DAP because under the law, such funds may only be
used if there is a certification from the National Treasurer to the effect
that the revenue collections have exceeded the revenue targets. In
this case, no such certification was secured before unprogrammed
funds were used.

Issue No. 5

The Court held that the doctrine of operative fact is applicable in this
case. Such doctrine recognizes the existence of the law or executive
act prior to the determination of its unconstitutionality as an operative
fact that produced consequences that cannot always be erased,
ignored or disregarded. It nullifies the void law or executive act but
sustains its effects. It provides an exception to the general rule that a
void or unconstitutional law produces no effect. But its use must be
subjected to great scrutiny and circumspection, and it cannot be
invoked to validate an unconstitutional law or executive act, but is
resorted to only as a matter of equity and fair play. It applies only to
cases where extraordinary circumstances exist, and only when the
extraordinary circumstances have met the stringent conditions that
will permit its application.

The doctrine of operative fact is applicable to the adoption and


implementation of the DAP. Its application to the DAP proceeds from
equity and fair play. The consequences resulting from the DAP and its
related issuances could not be ignored or could no longer be undone.
The Court further cleared that the doctrine extends to a void or
unconstitutional executive act. The term executive act is broad
enough to include any and all acts of the Executive, including those
that are quasi legislative and quasi-judicial in nature.

V. DOCTRINES

1. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

OPERATIVE FACT DOCTRINE


This recognizes the existence of the law or executive act prior to the
determination of its unconstitutionality as an operative fact that
produced consequences that cannot always be erased, ignored or
disregarded. It nullifies the void law or executive act but sustains its
effects. It provides an exception to the general rule that a void or
unconstitutional law produces no effect. But its use must be subjected
to great scrutiny and circumspection, and it cannot be invoked to
validate an unconstitutional law or executive act, but is resorted to
only as a matter of equity and fair play. It applies only to cases where
extraordinary circumstances exist, and only when the extraordinary
circumstances have met the stringent conditions that will permit its
application.

The operative fact doctrine applies to the implementation of the


DAP. To declare the implementation of the DAP unconstitutional
without recognizing that its prior implementation constituted an
operative fact that produced consequences in the real as well as
juristic worlds of the Government and the Nation is to be impractical
and unfair. Unless the doctrine is held to apply, the Executive as the
disburser and the offices under it and elsewhere as the recipients
could be required to undo everything that they had implemented in
good faith under the DAP. That scenario would be enormously
burdensome for the Government. Equity alleviates such burden.

2. POLITICAL LAW

POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW


The Legislature is assigned with the task and the power to make and
enact laws, but not to interpret them. This is true with regard to the
interpretation of the basic law, the Constitution, which is not within the
sphere of the Legislative department. If the Legislature may declare
what a law means, or what a specific portion of the Constitution
means, especially after the courts have in actual case ascertain its
meaning by interpretation and applied it in a decision, this would
surely cause confusion and instability in judicial processes and court
decisions. Under such a system, a final court determination of a case
based on a judicial interpretation of the law of the Constitution may be
undermined or even annulled by a subsequent and different
interpretation of the law or of the Constitution by the Legislative
department. That would be neither wise nor desirable, besides being
clearly violative of the fundamental, principles of our constitutional
system of government, particularly those governing the separation of
powers.

3. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
ACCUMULATION AND UTILIZATION OF SAVINGS
The Court emphasized that the exercise of the power to augment
shall be strictly construed by virtue of its being an exception to the
general rule that the funding of Presidential Acceleration Programs
shall be limited to the amount fixed by Congress for the purpose. The
utilization and management of savings will also be strictly construed
against expanding the scope of the power to augment. Strict
interpretation is essential in limiting the Executive and other budget
implementors within their prerogatives during budget execution, and
to prevent them from unduly transgressing Congress power of the
purse. Hence, regardless of the perceived beneficial purposes of the
DAP, and regardless of whether the DAP is viewed as an effective
tool of stimulating the national economy, the acts and practices under
the DAP and the relevant provisions of NBC No. 541 cited in the
Decision should remain illegal and unconstitutional as long as the
funds used to finance the projects mentioned therein are sourced
from savings that deviated from the relevant provisions of the GAA,
as well as the limitation on the power to augment under Section
25(5), Article VI of the Constitution. In a society governed by laws,
even the best intentions must come within the parameters defined
and set by the Constitution and the law. Laudable purposes must be
carried out through legal methods.

4. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

POWER TO AUGMENT CANNOT BE USED TO FUND NON-


EXISTENT PROVISION IN THE GAA
The Court clarified that there must be an existing item, project or
activity, purpose or object of expenditure with an appropriation to
which savings may be transferred for the purpose of augmentation.
Accordingly, so long as there is an item in the GAA for which
Congress had set aside a specified amount of public fund, savings
may be transferred thereto for augmentation purposes. This
interpretation is consistent not only with the Constitution and the
GAAs, but also with the degree of flexibility allowed to the Executive
during budget execution in responding to unforeseeable
contingencies.

5. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

DAP AS AN APPROPRIATION MEASURE


The DAP is not an appropriation measure and does not contravene
Section 29(1), Article VI. The President, in keeping with his duty to
faithfully execute the laws, had sufficient discretion during the
execution of the budget to adapt the budget to changes in the
countrys economic situation. He could adopt a plan like the DAP for
the purpose. He could pool the savings and identify the PAPs to be
funded under the DAP. The pooling of savings pursuant to the DAP,
and the identification of the PAPs to be funded under the DAP did not
involve appropriation in the strict sense because the money had been
already set apart from the public treasury by Congress through
the GAAs. In such actions, the Executive did not usurp the power
vested in Congress under Section 29(1), Article VI of the Constitution,
that, no money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance
of an appropriation made by law.

VI. SIGNIFICANT DISSENT

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO,


CONCURRING AND DISSENTING

According to Justice del Castillo, the theories presented in the instant


case have not adequately and accurately taken into consideration the
paramount State interests. Such theories, if adopted by the Court, will
affect not only the present administration but future administrations as
well. They have serious implications on the very workability of our
system of government.

He emphasized that the case must be decided beyond the prevailing


climate of public distrust on the expenditure of huge public funds
generated by the PDAF scandal. It must be decided based on the
Constitution, not public opinion. It must be decided based on reason,
not fear or passion. It must, ultimately, be decided based on faith in
the moral strength, courage and resolve of our people and nation.
He summarized his vote to limit the declaration of unconstitutionality
to the afore-discussed for the following reasons, as quoted:

First, I am of the view that the Court should not make a broad and
sweeping declaration of unconstitutionality relative to acts or
practices that were not actually proven in this case. Hence, I limit the
declaration of unconstitutionality to the three admitted cross-border
transfers of savings. To rule otherwise would transgress the actual
case and controversy requirement necessary to validly exercise the
power of judicial review.

Second, I find it improper to declare the DAP unconstitutional without


specifying the provisions of the implementing issuances which
transgressed the Constitution. The acts or practices declared
unconstitutional by the majority relative to the DAP are a restatement
of existing constitutional and statutory provisions on the power to
augment and the definition of savings. These do not identify the
provisions in the implementing issuances of the DAP which allegedly
violated the Constitution and pertinent laws. Again, it transgresses the
actual case and controversy requirement.

Third, I do not subscribe to the view of the majority relative to the


interpretation and application of Section 38 of the Administrative
Code, and the GAA provisions on savings, impoundment, the two-
year availability for release of appropriations and the unprogrammed
fund, for reasons already extensively discussed. While I find the
wording of these laws to be highly susceptible to abuse and even
unwise and imprudent, the Court has no recourse but to interpret and
apply them based on their plain meaning, and not to accord them an
interpretation that lead to absurd results or render them inoperative.
Last, I find that the remedy in this case is not solely judicial but largely
legislative in that imperative reforms are needed in, among others,
the limits of Section 38, the definition of savings, the transparency of
the exercise of the power to augment, the safeguards and limitations
on this power, and so on. How this is to be done belongs to Congress
which must balance the State interests in curbing abuse vis--vis
flexibility in fiscal management.

Ultimately, however, the remedy resides in the people: to press for


needed reforms in the laws that currently govern the enactment and
execution of the national budget and to be vigilant in the prosecution
of those who may have fraudulently abused or misused public funds.
In fine, I am of the considered view that the abuse or misuse of the
power to augment will persist if the needed reforms in the subject
laws are not promptly instituted. Hence, the necessity of calling upon
the moral strength, courage and resolve of our people and nation to
address these weaknesses in our laws which have, to a large extent,
precipitated the present controversy.

VII. SEPARATE OPINION

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE ANTONIO T. CARPIO

Justice Carpio viewed that while the Disbursement Acceleration


Program to have a noble end: "to fasttrack public spending and push
economic growth" by funding "high-impact budgetary programs and
projects," its constitutionality is often sacrificed to in pursuit of good
intentions. The pooling funds under NBC 541 do not qualify as
savings, and hence, the pooled funds could not validly be realigned.
The unobligated allotments of agencies with low-level of obligations
as of June 30, 2012 are certainly not savings as defined in the GAAs,
with the exception of MOOE from January to June 2012, excluding
Mandatory Expenditures and Expenditures for Business-type
Activities. The realignment of these funds to augment items in the
GAAs patently contravenes Section 25(5), Article VI of the
Constitution. Thus, such realignment under the DAP, NBC 541 and
other Executive issuances related to DAP is clearly unconstitutional.

He further averred that the DAP also violates the prohibition on cross-
border transfers enshrined in Section 25(5), Article VI of the
Constitution. No less than the DBM Secretary has admitted that the
Executive transferred funds to the COA and the House of
Representatives. The OSG has also expressly admitted in its
Memorandum of March 10, 2014 that the Executive transferred
appropriations to the COA, the House of Representatives and the
COMELEC. The Executive transferred DAP funds to augment the
PDAF, or the unconstitutional Congressional Pork Barrel, making the
augmentation also unconstitutional.

Justice Carpio reiterated in his opinion that the following acts and
practices under the Disbursement Acceleration Program and the
National Budget Circular No. 541 dated July 18, 2012 are
unconstitutional for violating Section 25(5), Article VI of the
Constitution:

1. Transfers of appropriations from the Executive to the


Legislature the Commission on Elections and the Commission
on Audit;
2. Disbursements of unobligated allotments for MOOE as savings
and their realignment to other items in the GAAs, where the
MOOE that are the sources of savings are appropriations for
months still to lapse;
3. Disbursements of unobligated allotments for Capital Outlay as
savings and their realignment to other items in the GAA, prior to
the last two months of the fiscal year if the period to obligate is
one year, or prior to the last two months of the second year if
the period to obligate is two years; and
4. Disbursements of unobligated allotments as savings and their
realignment to items or projects not found in the GAA.
The use of the Unprogrammed Fund without the certification by the
National Treasurer that the revenue collections for the fiscal year
exceeded the revenue target for that year was also declared VOID for
being contrary to the express condition for the use of the
Unprogrammed Fund under the GAAs.

VIII. PUBLICATION

Understanding the
SC ruling on the
DAP
What are the main points and highlights of the Supreme Court
decision on the controversial Disbursement Acceleration
Program?
By Chay F. Hofilea, July 17, 2014

MANILA, Philippines On July 1, 2014, the Supreme Court


ruled on the controversial Disbursement Acceleration Program
(DAP).

Voting 13-0-1, excluding retired justice Roberto Abad, the High


Court ruled 3 schemes under the DAP unconstitutional. Justice
Lucas P. Bersamin penned the main decision, with 6 Justices
writing separate opinions Antonio Carpio, Presbitero Velasco
Jr, Arturo Brion, Mariano del Castillo, Estela Perlas-Bernabe, and
Marvic Leonen.

Justice Teresita de Castro inhibited from the voting, while


Velasco, who was on official leave, gave his vote to Chief
Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno.

The High Tribunal ruled as unconstitutional the following:


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 branch of government to another

the allotment of funds for projects,


activities, and programs not outlined in the
General Appropriations Act

Here are highlights of the 92-page ruling in Question and


Answer format:

What is the issue that the Supreme Court addressed in its


resolution pertaining to the Disbursement Acceleration
Program (DAP)?

Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of DAP, which was


intended by the Aquino administration to accelerate
government spending. They also questioned National Budget
Circular 541 which, in effect, characterized unreleased
appropriations and unobligated or unused allotments as
savings. The question brought to the Court was whether the
Executive exceeded his powers to augment items in the budget
within the executive branch of government.

When exactly did the DAP start?


The closest indication is a memorandum dated October 12,
2011 from Budget Secretary Butch Abad seeking approval from
the President to implement DAP. The memo listed funding
sources that amounted to P72.11 billion (about $1.7 billion)
which could be used for other proposed priority projects
among them, National Housing Authority programs,
capitalization of the Bangko Sentral, and peace and
development interventions in the Autonomous Region in
Muslim Mindanao.

How was DAP supposed to be implemented and


funded?
There were 3 ways identified: (1) by declaring savings from
various departments and agencies derived from pooling
unobligated allotments and withdrawing unreleased
approprirations; (2) by releasing unprogrammed funds; (3) by
applying the savings and unprogrammed funds to augment
existing programs, activities or projects (PAPs) or to support
other priority PAPs.

Can the President transfer funds?


With limits. While the power to transfer funds from one item to
another within the executive branch existed since 1909, during
the time of American Governors-General, this power was
reduced to merely augmenting items from savings. The 1987
Constitution put limits on the Presidents discretion over
appropriations during the budget execution phase (when the
budget law is being implemented).
The Constitution authorizes the President, the Senate
President, the Speaker, the Chief Justice, and heads of
Constitutional Comissions to transfer funds within their
respective offices; when these funds involve savings
generated from appropriations also for their respective offices;
and when the purpose of the transfer is to augment items in
the Appropriations Law again for their respective offices.

How is "savings" defined? How did this issue make


DAP problematic?
The Court defined savings as funds that remain unspent after
the completion or discontinuance of a project. Congress
provided that appropriated funds are available for a period of
one fiscal year. But in a May 20, 2013 memo, Budget Secretary
Butch Abad sought omnibus authority to consolidate savings
and unused funds to finance the DAP on a quarterly basis. This
shortened the period that funds were supposed to be available
for, giving rise to questions about the budget departments
own definition of savings.

How were funds under DAP spent? What are related


issues?
According to the Department of Budget and Management
(DBM), as of 2013, P144.4 billion (about $3.3 billion) was
released to implement programs, activities, projects (PAPs). In
2011, P82.5 billion (about $1.8) was released, while P54.8
billion (about $1.2 billion) was released in 2012. About 9% of
the total DAP applied to PAPs were identified by lawmakers.

The DBM also said that 116 PAPs were financed by DAP, each
of which had existing appropriations in the budget. The Office
of the Solicitor-General submitted 7 evidence packets in
support of this claim, but the Court found that there were
projects not covered by an existing appropriation for
example, items under the P1.6-billion DREAM project under the
Department of Science and Technology. DREAM refers to
Disaster Risk, Exposure, Assessment and Mitigation.
Are cross-border transfers or augmentations of
the budget allowed?
No. Cross-border transfers refer to the movement of funds from
one branch of government to another. These are allowed only
within respective offices thus the use of DAP funds to
augment funds of the Commission on Audit (for its IT
infrastructure program and the hiring of litigation experts in
the amount of P143.7 million, or about $3.2 million) and the
House of Representatives (for a legislative library and archives
building/e-library in the amount of P250 million, or about $5.6
million) violate the Constitution.

What is the operative fact doctrine and why is it


relevant to DAP?
In effect, it says let it be, because the consequences resulting
from DAP could no longer be undone. For instance, the positive
results of DAP funding could include roads, bridges, homes for
the homeless, hospitals, classrooms.
Not applying the operative fact doctrine would require the
physical undoing and destruction of these infrastructure a
considerable waste. The application of the doctrine, however,
does not exonerate the proponents and implementors of the
DAP unless it is established that they acted in good faith.
Rappler.com

Source: http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/63267-understanding-supreme-court-ruling-
dap

INFOGRAPHIC: What
s DAP? FAQs about
the Disbursement
Acceleration
Program
Published August 1, 2014 1:35pm
The Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) has
triggered an adverse Supreme Court (SC) ruling, a
nationwide address from President Benigno Aquino III,
impeachment and plunder complaints against government
officials, and anti-corruption rallies.
What exactly is this controversial spending mechanism all
about? Did the executive branch really overstep its bounds
by implementing the DAP?

GMA News Online went over the SC decision declaring


certain acts under the DAP as unconstitutional, and several
documents from the Department of Budget and
Management to answer frequently asked questions about
this economic stimulus initiative. RSJ/KG/YA, GMA
News
Source: http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/372936/news/specialreports/infographic-
what-s-dap-faqs-about-the-disbursement-acceleration-program
Supreme Court affirms DAP
unconstitutionality
By Camille Diola (philstar.com) | Updated February 3, 2015 - 3:14pm

File photo of the magistrates of the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Maria Lourdes
Sereno convening for oral arguments. Edd Gumban

MANILA, Philippines The Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday affirmed the unconstitutionality
of the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) while partially granting the government's
motion for reconsideration.

The magistrates affirmed that a significant portion of the administration's DAP, supposedly
created to speed-up public spending, violates Section 25(5), Article VI of the 1987
Constitution and the doctrine of separation of powers of the executive and legislative
branches.
SC spokesperson Theodore Te said two of the three acts and practices outlined in the July
2014 ruling of the high court are still considered unconstitutional. These are:

1. The creation of savings from un-obligated allotments prior to the end of the fiscal year
without complying with the statutory definition of savings under the General Appropriations
Act (GAA), and

2. The executive department's cross-border transfer of savings to another branch of


government.

"The court further declares void the use of unprogrammed funds despite the absence of a
certification by the national treasure for non-compliance," Te said in a televised press
briefing.

Citing the operative fact doctrine, the high court, however, heeded the Aquino
administration's motion in reconsidering the third scheme on the allotment of funds for
projects, activities and programs not covered by the GAA.

"There is no constitutional requirement for Congress to create allotment classes within an


item," Te said.

He added that the Constitution does not require the augmentation of funds to be under the
expense category or allotment class of the GAA.

"Accordingly, so long as there is an item in the GAA that Congress has set aside a specified
amount of public funds, savings may be transferred thereto for augmentation purposes," Te
explained.

The doctrine on operative fact sustains the effects of projects under the DAP even as it was
declared invalid.
The court's 2014 decision on the DAP, which forced government to terminate its
implementation, provoked President Benigno Aquino III to address the public and the
Supreme Court to insist on its constitutional basis.

The issue contributed to a significant drop to satisfaction ratings of the Aquino administration,
with critics saying the DAP was the executive's version of the illegal "pork barrel" funds of the
legislative.

Possible liable individuals narrowed


The court, moreover, clarified the language of its earlier ruling by removing "proponents" and
"implementors" among those who can be held liable for the DAP.

Te said that "authors" under the DAP identified in appropriate courts can still be sanctioned
under the recent decision.

It is important to identify and point to specific authors of the DAP in subsequent filing of
cases, Te added.

He said that this modification in the language of the earlier ruling is consistent with the
operative fact doctrine.

"It would be more unproductive or disastrous for the court to declare all of these projects
invalid, and therefore sustains those projects as valid," he said.

Source:
http://www.philstar.com:8080/headlines/2015/02/03/1419749/supreme-
court-affirms-dap-unconstitutionality
7 reasons why PNoys Disbursement
Acceleration Program (DAP) is wrong

President BS Aquino: Enjoys full power of the purseDuring his fifth State of
the Nation Address, President BS Aquino appeared frustrated at having to
keep defending his Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) to the Filipino
people. At some point during his speech, he became flustered and tried to
fight back his tears. A lot of those who witnessed him being emotional felt
sorry for him and sympathized with him. His emotional speech paying
homage to his fathers so-called legacy managed to distract some people
from the real issue.

The lesson here is simple: emotional blackmail always work with gullible
people. Theres a catch to using emotional blackmail though. It only works in
the short term. If you keep using it to get what you want, either you will
come across as a spoiled brat or an emotional wreck something of a
weakling. Soon, peoples sympathy will fade and turn into annoyance or
worse, hate.

Since President BS Aquino cant discuss the DAP without becoming distressed
and irrational, it is up to the Filipino public to keep the discussion sober or
more level-headed. More importantly, they have to keep the discussion alive.
There is always a danger that peoples short attention spans could be
diverted again to the next viral sex video or to Presidential sister, Kris
Aquinos love life and then the controversy surrounding DAP will be forgotten.

What is wrong with the DAP anyway? The answer to that question is: A LOT.

While the average Filipino those who are not lawyers readily agree that
DAP is wrong simply because the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional;
most of the Presidents supporters think it is acceptable simply because BS
Aquino says it was used in good faith. In other words, the arguments over
DAP, whether for or against it, simply fly over most peoples heads.

It doesnt help that Budget Secretary Florencio Abads explanation is both


dubious and convoluted. And it doesnt help as well that lawmakers allied
with the President keep asking the wrong questions.

All this talk about the General Appropriations Act (GAA), the Administrative
Code of 1987 and a new meaning for savings is doing peoples heads in.
With that in mind, I have come up with a simple, lay mans explanation of
why the DAP is wrong:

(1) The DAP gave the President or the Executive branch of


government too much power over public funds.

Philippine Congress: Consent given to PNoy to usurp power of the purseEvery


year, the Executive through his Budget Secretary submits a budget proposal
to Congress outlining where the President thinks the public funds should be
spent. Congress, who has the power to approve the budget, deliberates on
the merits of the items. If they think some of the items should not be
prioritized, they can strike these out from the budget that is, assuming
they actually study the items thoroughly.

Since public funds coursed through the DAP were spent without Congress
approval, the President assumed control of public funds and in essence took
the power of the purse away from Congress.

(2) The DAP was used to continue the tradition of patronage politics.

This is where it gets complicated. A few days ago I tried to explain this to a
foreigner but he looked at me like I was talking out of my ass. He could not
comprehend why members of Philippine Congress or public auditors would
allow the DAP to happen. He said where he comes from, a cunning deception
like this would cause public outrage. I told him that most members of
Congress are always happy to receive pork barrel funds from the President
no matter where it came from and so naturally, they would help defend the
DAP. Doing the opposite would implicate them in the offense. Former Senator
Joker Arroyo likened DAP to the President raping Congress with its consent.

Sadly, even locals loyal to the Aquino regime are in denial of this. In an ideal
situation, Congress would have impeached the President immediately after
finding out his unlawful acts in the management of the national budget even
before the matter is brought to the Supreme Court. In an ideal world,
members of Congress actually use their heads. In the Philippines however,
the President and most members of Congress are in cahoots in the
mismanagement of public funds.

(3) The DAP is promoting impunity.

Because most members of Congress from the Legislative Branch of


government do not want to hold the Executive accountable for the DAP, this
will continue to be a problem in the future of Philippine politics. The next
President will have an excuse to justify playing around with public funds
using his own discretion. As a matter of fact, President BS Aquino knew
very well that this can happen when he was still a senator. Back in 2008
when he authored Bill 3121 or the Budget Impoundment Control Act, his
purpose was to strengthen the Legislatures power over how the Executive
spends appropriations.

Unfortunately, the bill just sat on the drawing board and now the very author
of the bill has chosen to weaken the Legislatures power over how the
Executive spends appropriations without changing the Constitution.

(4) The DAP will help continue the cycle of retribution among those
in power.

If the DAP becomes legitimate and if the Executive resumes allocating funds
to members of Congress, there will be no end to rival politicians seeking
revenge once they are in power. Those who felt wronged during President BS
Aquinos term will do the same thing buy favors from lawmakers using
public funds to persecute their enemies. The circus show called
Congressional hearings will continue to be popular programming in local TV
channels.
(5) The DAP will continue the tradition of vote buying during
Philippine elections.

Just like the now defunct Priority Development Assistance Funds (PDAF) or
pork barrel funds, public servants who got fund allocations from the
Executive through the DAP had funds to buy voters. Former National
Treasurer Leonor Briones likewisewarned of the same thing. Heres what she
had to say:

Former National Treasurer Leonor Briones on Friday warned that


the huge lump sums in the 2015 national budget might be used
by the government to prepare for the 2016 elections.

This is similar to the 2012 budget that preceded the 2013


elections. The government cranks up spending for infrastructure
and construction the year before elections. Concrete projects
create the impression of growth, though it is a challenge to
sustain this growth for the next years, Briones said in a
statement.

Briones said incumbent politicians usually have an advantage


against their opponents because projects are credited to officials
as part of their track record as the ruling parties would spend for
projects in their allies jurisdictions. Opposing parties can be
deprived of this spending, putting them at a disadvantage.
Past TESDA scholars thanking former President Gloria ArroyoTheres also
loose talk going around that some of the individual recipients of the DAP like
the iskolar ng bayan had to pledge allegiance to the yellow ribbon before
they could receive government funding for their training. This is similar to
what some of the victims of typhoon Yolanda were saying that relief goods
were only given to those who promise to vote for the members of the Liberal
Party.

(6) The DAPs role in stimulating economic growth is not sustainable.

When you use spending to stimulate growth, it will only work in the short-
term. The reason why former President Gloria Arroyo had to use spending to
stimulate growth was to counteract the effects of the Global Financial Crisis
that ravaged global markets in 2008. The funds to stimulate the economy
then were approved by Congress and the move was even lauded by a few
economists because the country managed to avoid going into depression
similar to what happened to Iceland and Greece. However, as soon as
President BS Aquino put government spending on hold in 2010, economic
growth drastically slowed.

Spending to stimulate the economy has a lasting legacy, which is the


accumulation of debt. The more people spend, the more they get into debt.
The high credit rating the government received from such agencies like Fitch
Rating could only result in the country going into more debt for nothing if the
funds are not used wisely.

An alternative that President BS Aquino should have done, which would have
had a long-term effect on the economy was to give support to local industries
to promote local employment. The government could have given low-interest
loans to small business operators that would foster innovation. Likewise, the
government should have fixed tax collection by providing incentives to
business owners to encourage them to pay the correct tax and push more
investors to join the club.

(7) Projects funded through the DAP are not visible to the naked eye.

They say an empty cart rattles loudly. President BS Aquinos defense of DAP
sounded like an empty cart, indeed. One of the reasons why it is so hard for
some people to believe public funds were spent wisely through the DAP is
because the average Filipino cant find any evidence of improvement in the
public infrastructure that they use on a daily basis. The Philippines still has
the worst airport, a bad public transport system, still suffers from flooding,
road traffic congestion and power interruptions.
If I were in President BS Aquinos shoes and have billions of public funds at
my disposal, I would have prioritized fixing those things the minute I stepped
inside Malacanang. Unfortunately, he chose to prioritize projects he thinks
are more important. This includes funding the persecution of his political
enemies.

You see, its not surprising that President BS Aquino gets frustrated when
defending the DAP. Theres no doubt that some of the funds went to
legitimate projects that would benefit the public. However, the disbursement
of the funds lacked transparency. Not to mention, still unaccounted for.

Source: http://www.getrealphilippines.com/blog/2014/08/7-reasons-
why-pnoys-disbursement-acceleration-program-dap-is-wrong/

Carpio, Brion
want Aquino,
Abad held liable
for DAP
By: Tetch Torres-Tupas - Reporter / @T2TupasINQ
INQUIRER.net / 06:01 PM February 12, 2015
MANILA, PhilippinesTwo senior justices of the Supreme
Court said President Benigno Aquino III and Budget
Secretary Florencio Butch Abad should be held liable for
unconstitutional acts under the Disbursement Acceleration
Program (DAP).

The high court, in its ruling earlier this month, said that
authors of the DAP should be held accountable for the DAP
acts declared as illegal. However, it did not specify who the
authors are.

But in separate opinions made public Thursday, Associate


Justices Antonio Carpio and Arturo Brion said President
Aquino and Abad cannot invoke good faith.
Carpio said it was the President who signed the NBC on DAP
and it was Abad who implemented it. The NBC allowed the
withdrawal of unobligated allotments of agencies of low-
level obligations as of June 30, 2012 to augment or fund
priority and/or fast moving programs and projects of the
government.

Budget Secretary Florencio Butch Abad and President


Benigno Aquino. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO

Carpio pointed out that unobligated allotments are not


savings. He added that the NBC authorizes augmentation of
projects not considered in the 2012 budget which is
contrary to the 1987 Constitution.

Since the President and the DBM Secretary approved and


issued NBC (National Budget Circular) 541, they are
considered the authors of the unconstitutional act. As a
consequence, neither the President nor the DBM Secretary
can invoke the equitable doctrine of operative fact although
they may raise other defenses, Carpio said in his 13-page
opinion.
As authors of the unconstitutional act, they have to answer
for such act, he added.

Both Aquino and Abad, according to Carpio, cannot invoke


the doctrine of operative fact because only those who
merely relied in good faith on the illegal act, without any
direct participation can invoke it.

Those directly responsible for an illegal or unconstitutional


act cannot invoke the doctrine. He who comes to equity
must come with clean hands and he who seeks equity must
do equity, Carpio said.
Brion agreed with Carpio.

They were in fact the parties responsible for establishing


and implementing the DAPs unconstitutional terms and in
these capacities, cannot rely on the unconstitutionality or
invalidity of the DAP as reason to escape potential liability
for any unconstitutional act they might have committed,
Brion said in his 34-page opinion.

Brion said Abads actions negate the presumption of good


faith that he would otherwise enjoy in an assessment of his
performance of duty.

There are indicators showing that the DBM Secretary


might have established the DAP knowingly aware that it is
tainted with unconstitutionality, he added.

Voting 13-0 last Feb.3, justices of the high court


unanimously denied the appeal of the Palace on its decision
in July last year striking down the withdrawal of unobligated
allotments from implementing agencies and their use as
savings prior to end of fiscal year as well as the cross-
border transfers of savings of the executive to augment
funds of agencies outside the department.

They likewise stood by their earlier finding that 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
conditions in the GAA was illegal.

The high court again held that these acts and practices
under the DAP violated the constitutional doctrine of
separation of powers and the provision prohibiting inter-
branch transfer of appropriations.

But the high court reversed its ruling on the act under DAP
pertaining to the funding of projects, activities and
programs that were not covered by any appropriation in the
GAA, which was earlier declared unconstitutional.
Partially granting the motion for reconsideration of the
office of the solicitor general, the High Court now declared
such act as constitutional.

Source:http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/672523/carpiobrionwantaquinoabad
heldliablefordap

SC ruling on DAP
pleases Speaker
Belmonte
By: DJ Yap, Leila B. Salaverria, Tarra Quismundo - @inquirerdotnet
Philippine Daily Inquirer / 04:10 AM February 05, 2015

MANILA, PhilippinesSpeaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. on


Wednesday said he was pleased with the Supreme Court
decision on the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP)
for acknowledging its positive effects on the economy and
clarifying the powers available to the executive.

On the whole, I was very happy about that ruling. It


clarified what can be done and what cannot be done. It did
not leave the executive with its hands tied, as we thought
the first one had done, he told reporters.
Voting 13-0, the court on Tuesday affirmed its earlier
decision striking down the DAP, a stimulus program
launched in 2011, for certain unconstitutional practices
involving the use of government savings and budget
realignments.

But it clarified that the ruling did not mean the invalidation
of the 116 DAP projects discussed in its earlier decision in
July, and that funding authorities retained the right under
the Constitution to augment projects identified in the
budget law.
Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr.: Happy. INQUIRER FILE
PHOTO / LEO M. SABANGAN II

Little was known of the DAP until Sen. Jinggoy Estrada


slammed the P50 million in additional pork barrel funds
given by the administration as incentive to senators who
voted to convict Chief Justice Renato Corona in his
impeachment trial in 2013. Abad later said the funding
came from the DAP.

Belmonte, vice chair of the ruling Liberal Party, said he


considered the high tribunals ruling to be a step in the
right direction.

Fire Abad
We noticed that the ruling took note of the good things
that came out of the DAP but still [noted] some things that
should be done. On the other hand, its good that they
made a clarification on the people being presumed
innocent because thats a cornerstone of the Constitution,
he said.

But Akbayan Rep. Walden Bello, an ally of President Aquino,


said the courts decision made no difference on his call for
the resignation of the DAPs chief architect, Budget
Secretary Florencio Abad.

My call on the President to fire Secretary Abad or for


Secretary Abad to resign irrevocably was never dependent
on the issue of bad faith on the part of Abad. I based my
strong recommendation for his dismissal on his
recklessness and bad judgment in the deployment of
appropriated funds, leading to practices that were judged
then and now upheld to be unconstitutional, he said.
I must also reiterate my continuing condemnation of his
allocation of a huge proportion of DAP funds and projects
allocated to members of Congress to the tiny province of
Batanes, which had the effect of contributing to his wifes
reelection in 2013, he said, referring to Rep. Henedina
Abad, a Deputy Speaker.
Investigate authors
We simply cannot tolerate traditional politicians masking
as reformers, Bello said.

Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan) said the ruling


announced on Tuesday on the governments motion for
reconsideration of the courts July 1 decision should now
pave the way for holding Aquino and his Department of
Budget and Management (DBM) secretary accountable for
large-scale corruption, bribery and malversation of public
funds.

They are the principal authors of the DAP who should be


investigated and made accountable, said Renato Reyes Jr.,
Bayan secretary general.

Abad concocted the DAP while Aquino signed all DAP


memoranda that illegally pooled the savings from various
implementing agencies.

He said the group would pursue cases and push for Mr.
Aquinos removal or resignation, citing how the high court
ruling in a way vindicates those behind the failed
impeachment move against Aquino last year, following the
release of the court decision that found his stimulus
program unconstitutional.

CBCP urges probe


The legal and moral grounds for Aquinos removal from
office are now stronger than ever, Reyes said.

The Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP)


called for an immediate investigation and prosecution of
those who knowingly and deliberately misused public
funds in the manner declared illegal by the Supreme
Court.
Archbishop Socrates Villegas, the CBCP president, in a
statement also called on legal academics and other
concerned citizens to study the implications of the latest
court ruling on the DAP.

Villegas said some are disturbed by the fact that the


resolution apparently lends its judicial fiat to disbursements
for unappropriated items or projects.

He said that while it does seem like the court has


maintained its initial characterization of transfer of funds
from one branch of government to another, there are still
pertinent concerns.

Harry Roque, lawyer for one of the petitioners, said he


would appeal Tuesdays ruling.

Roque cited how the courts favorable ruling on fund


augmentation just about restores a wide swath of
unappropriated and not legislatively considered
expenditures to the sole discretion of the Chief Executive.

This defeats the whole purpose of giving the power of the


purse to the legislature. Precisely, a wide array of
expenditures under the DAP have been made outside the
GAA (General Appropriations Act), Roque said in a
statement on Wednesday.

For all intents and purposes, the reversal by the Supreme


Court reinstates and legitimizes the presidential pork barrel
system without benefit of congressional approval and
oversight, he said.

Time to move on
With the ruling, its time to put the issue to rest and move
on, according to Senate President Franklin Drilon and acting
Minority Leader Sen. Vicente Sotto III.

I think everyone has accepted the decision. The Supreme


Court has spoken. Let us move on, Drilon told reporters.
Sotto shared Drilons position.
But Sen. Nancy Binay said the Senate should shed light on
how P167 billion in public funds were pooled and spent for
other government projects.

It is about time that we get to the bottom of this issue, and


uncover the persons responsible for hijacking the national
budget, Binay said in a statement. The Supreme Court
has ruled that what the DBM did was unconstitutional, and
someone must be held to account for this.

Patently unconstitutional
The National Union of Peoples Lawyers (NUPL) said in a
statement that the court ruling essentially and basically
affirms the patent unconstitutionality of the acts of both
Aquino and Abad.

Contrary to another contorted and self-serving reading by


the Palace, the decision strengthened calls and moves for
accountability and liability for such gross and wholesale
juggling of public funds into one huge presidential kitty,
said NUPL secretary general Edre Olalia.
The message is loud and clear except to those who remain
incurably narcissist and self-righteous [that] they could do
no wrong, Olalia said.

Farmers have all the more reasons to demand Mr. Aquinos


ouster for plundering multibillion pesos in public fund and
converting the national budget as presidential pork barrel,
said Rafael Mariano, chair of the peasant group Kilusang
Magbubukid ng Pilipinas.With reports from Jerome
Aning, Tina G. Santos and Rima Granali

Source:http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/670593/scrulingondappleasesspeaker
belmonte

You might also like