Palace to senators: Account for DAP

By Christian V. Esguerra, Jerome Aning |Philippine Daily Inquirer

2:58 am | Tuesday, July 8th, 2014
MANILA, PhilippinesSmarting from the Supreme Courts adverse ruling last week, Malacaang now wants senators to
disclose where the enormous funds they had received from its purported economic stimulus package had gone to.
At the same time, the Palace rejected the idea of conducting a loyalty check among its allies in the House of
Representatives following the filing of impeachment complaints against President Aquino in connection with the
Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP).
If you look at the beneficial effects of the DAP, how it has profited and benefited the people, do you think a loyalty check
is needed? presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda said on Monday in a press briefing a week after the court struck
down the program as unconstitutional.
On Tuesday, the high tribunal declared the DAP unconstitutional. It ruled that projects carried out in good faith could no
longer be undone, but the architects and implementers of the facility could be held accountable.
Justice Secretary Leila de Lima told reporters on Monday that the National Bureau of Investigation was looking into claims
by whistle-blower Benhur Luy that senators had coursed DAP funding to fake foundations controlled by Janet Lim-
Napoles, the alleged mastermind in the siphoning of P10-billion in congressional pork barrel allocations to ghost projects
and kickbacks.
De Lima said the cases could either be referred to the Ombudsman, or the NBI could conduct its own inquiry and file a
complaint later.
Budget Secretary Florencio Abad earlier admitted that 20 senators had received DAP funding from the executive branch a
few months after the Senate, acting as an impeachment court, convicted Chief Justice Renato Corona in May 2012 but
denied this constituted a bribe.
Lacierda said it would be in the best interest of everyone to see how they spent their funds if they did receive the DAP.
The use of the DAP funds were meant to primarily help the constituents, the countrymen. The question now is: Did the
senators misuse those funds? he said, noting that Senate President Franklin Drilon had already disclosed where his
allocation had gone to.
On Abads list, Drilon received the biggest allocation of P100 million in 2012, followed by Sen. Francis Escudero with P99
million and Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile with P92 million.
Documents earlier obtained by the Inquirer indicated that Senators Jinggoy Estrada, Bong Revilla, Ferdinand Marcos Jr.,
and Vicente Sotto III sought to channel their DAP allocations of P100 million each in 2011 to foundations put up by
Napoles.
Another set of documents showed at least six administration senators proposing projects after they had been told that an
additional P100-million budget was available for each of them during the same year.
The requests were coursed through Drilon, then the finance committee chair.
Lacierda said there was still no word on when the President intends to address the issue. We will just wait for the [time]
when the President will decide to speak on the DAP, he said.
Also conspicuously silent on the matter was Abad, chief architect of the supposed economic stimulus program.
Last year, Aquino spoke before foreign journalists claiming that there was a conspiracy to attack his administration over
the DAP. He then sought to distance the DAP from the graft-ridden Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), the
congressional pork barrel, but admitted that 9 percent of DAP money went to projects undertaken through consultation
with our legislators.
But he did not say that 9 percent meant that P12.8 billion of P142.23 billion in DAP savings was in effect spent like in the
defunct PDAF system.
PDAF vs. DAP
The Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) or commonly called as Pork Barrel is a discretionary fund given to the
members of the Congress. It is designed to allow legislators to fund small-scale infrastructure or community projects
which fell outside the scope of the national infrastructure program, which was often restricted to large infrastructure
items.(Wikipedia)
On the other hand, 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. (Official Gazette)
The DAP issue is about the executive exceeding the bounds of its power; the PDAF issue is about private individuals and
public officials stealing the peoples money. It is a question of constitutionality vs. criminality.
DAP is unconstitutional
With the unearthing of the most controversial issue of the PDAF scam, it was not a surprise that Filipinos were suspicious
of the legality of the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), which is exposed by the now detained senator for
plunder and graft charges connected to PDAF scam, Jinggoy Estrada, as used to bribe senators of P50 to P100 million
each for the conviction of then Chief Justice Renato Corona.
On July 1, 2014, the Supreme Court of the Philippines upon voting 13-0, declared the implementation of the Disbursement
Acceleration Program, by the executive branch, unconstitutional.
The unconstitutional acts declared were:
a. The withdrawal of unobligated allotments from 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 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 General
Appropriations Act.
In view of that, Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago said that this decision is a no-brainer. According to her, The DAP is
illegal because it was not contained in the 2011 or 2012 budgets and because the alleged savings are used to augment
new budget items which was not previously authorized by Congress.
However, prior to the release of the Supreme Courts decision regarding the legality of the DAP, Department of Budget
and Management Secretary Florencio Abad already said that the implementation of the DAP has a legal basis, and thus,
lawful. Abad finds this basis in Art. VI, Sec. 25 (5) of the Constitution, which states 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 the
Constitutional Commissions may, by law, be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their
respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations.
In general, DAP is really an accumulation of budget savings. It is sourced from (1) savings or unspent appropriations and
(2) unprogrammed funds which are windfall revenue collections, like large dividends from government, corporations and
financial institutions (SSS, GSIS, Landbank, etc.), and proceeds of the sale of government assets and of new loans.
Moreover, according to Eastern Samar Rep. Ben Evardone and Marikina Rep. Miro Quimbo, DAP contributed a lot to the
countrys economic growth and funded viable and productive programs of the government, which means that the funds
were not inappropriately used.
Oust PNoy?
Anti-Pork Barrel groups wanted President Aquino, Secretary Abad, and other architects of DAP should be prosecuted and
be held accountable for this unlawful use of government funds.
Former Iloilo Rep. Augusto Boboy Syjuco Jr. on Monday filed an impeachment complaint against President Aquino,
accusing him of bribery, betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution. However, any impeachment
complaint needs to be backed up or endorsed by at least one House member. Without an endorser, similar to this
Syjucos complaint, the House cannot act on it. Moreover, the House of Representatives cannot do any action on the
complaint until after Aquinos SONA on July 28.
On the other hand, Fr. Joaquin Bernas, a Constitution expert and Dean Emeritus of the Ateneo De Manila University
School of Law, believes that there is no ground for President Aquinos impeachment regarding the DAP. Bernas also
pointed out that under the constitution, the president is immune from any lawsuit until he finishes his term.
Furthermore, according to Marikina Rep. Miro Quimbo, The signing of the DAP is a means of formalizing what has been
practiced by the previous administrations. Prior to the SC decision, it was in fact legal. These circumstances clearly will
not make DAP of such a character as to make it a culpable violation of the Constitution
Lastly, according to House Speaker Sonny Belmonte, the Supreme Court ruling is not retroactive, but covers actions from
the time of the ruling, which means that it can only be used as basis for future cases similar in its nature. This makes
impeachment complaints, in relation to the DAP implementation, against PNoy weak and baseless.