Canaya, Maricar Corina

LLB I

Position paper on the

Disbursement Acceleration Program

Did the Executive Department usurped the powers of both

the Congress through the Disbrsement Acceleration Program?
In the perspective of the petitioners in the consolidated case
of Araullo vs. Aquino III1, the DAP surely did seized the power of
the Congress. After all, it has too much flaws to begin with.
According to the plaintiffs, the DAP gave the Executive branch,
particularly the President too much power over public funds. They
raised the question of constitutionality of the acts and practices
under the DAP, particularly their non-conformity with Section
25(5), Article VI of the Constitution2.

1 G.R. Nos. 209287, 209135, 209136, 209155, 209164, 209260, 209442,

209517 & 209569

Why did DAP become so controversial? It started in a privilege

speech given by Senator Jinggoy Estrada when he declared that
senators who voted to convict former Chief Justice Renato Corona
received an additional P50 million each as discretionary funds.
Defending the side of the Governemnt, Department of Budget and
Management Secretary Florencio Abad justified that the funds
had been released to the Senators based on letters of request for
funding.
The birth of DAP started after President Aquinos
administration decelerated government project implementation.
The World Bank however said that the countrys economic
progress could be reduced, xxx and weaken should the
Government continue with its underspending and fail to address
the large deficiencies in infrastructure.3 This paved the way for
the execution of the DAP as a stimulus package to fast-track the
2(5) No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations;
however, 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
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.
3 World Bank, http://www.investphilippines.info/arangkada/wpcontent/uploads/2011/WB-Philippines-Quarterly-Update-Sept2011.pdf, Cited
from Araullo vs Aquino III, G.R. No. 209287, March 3, 2015

spending and to boost economic development by investing in

projects, activities and programs from the savings during the
fiscal year.
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
savings4.
In the July 1, 2014 ruling of the Supreme Court, the justices
agreed that the DAP is unconstitutional for violating the principle
of separation of powers, as well as the transfers and augmentation
based on the following grounds:

4 http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/63267-understanding-supreme-courtruling-dap

 Funds that have not yet been released to agencies and

funds for programs that have not yet been completed or
abandoned cannot be declared as savings
The President cannot put DAP funds in projects that
are not in the National Budget;
The President cannot transfer DAP funds from one
government branch to another, which the constitution
prohibits; and,
The President cannot use standby funds without
exceeding to revenue targets
The Malacanang defended that the funds need not be
released to agencies to be considered savings. The funds for
projects that do not have contracts yet can also be declared
savings, because they are free from any obligation.
I definitely agree with the Supreme Court ruling. The 1987
Constitution limits the Presidents discretion over appropriations
when the budget law is being implemented. While DAPs intention
was to boom economic growth, this noble end cannot justify the
means done by abusing President Aquinos presidential powers,
hence, it shall not be allowed.

The Constitution only permits the President, the Senate

President, the Speaker, the Chief Justice, and heads of
Constitutional Commissions to transfer funds within their
respective offices. These funds involve savings generated from
appropriations also for their respective offices.
Moreover, the performance of cross-border transfers, which
refers to the movement of funds from one branch of government to
another is prohibited by law. The transfer of funds 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/elibrary in the amount of P250 million, or about $5.6 million)
violate the Constitution5.
In a concurring and dissenting opinion by Associate Justice
Del Castillo, the exercise of the vast power to realign and to
augment should be x x x circumscribed by existing constitutional
5 http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/63267-understanding-supreme-courtruling-dap

and legislative standards and limitations as well as safeguards

that Congress may institute in the future, consistent with the
Constitution, in order to prevent the abuse or misuse of this
power. I definitely agree. By collecting savings and deciding how
to use the savings, the Executive department effectively usurped a
power that belongs exclusively to Congress.
Just like in the ruling of Planas vs Gil6, the classical
separation of governmental powers, whether viewed in the light of
the political philosophy, x x x is a relative theory of government
There is more truism and actuality in interdependence than in
independence and separation of powers, for as observed by Justice
Holmes in a case of Philippine origin, we cannot lay down "with
mathematical precision and divide the branches into watertight
compartments" not only because "the great ordinances of the
Constitution not establish and divide fields of black and white" but
also because "even the more specific of them are found to
terminate in a penumbra shading gradually from one extreme to
the other."

G.R. No. 46440. January 18, 1939

Why is there a need for us to respect the principle of separation of

powers? Professor David answered it in a simple way: That, in this
way do we ensure that every exercise of state power by a branch of
Government is capable of being checked by another. If a branch of
Government usurped a power that belongs to the other, who then
protects our laws?