SC strikes down DAP
MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court declared yesterday certain acts under the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) unconstitutional but said nothing about the culpability of President Aquino, Budget Secretary Florencio Abad and other officials involved in acts now considered illegal.
In a decision unanimously approved by the justices in full court session, the Supreme Court (SC) said the acts and practices under the DAP violated the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers as well as the provision prohibiting inter-branch transfer of appropriations.
The SC specifically declared as illegal the withdrawal of so-called unobligated allotments from implementing agencies and their use as savings before the end of a fiscal year.
Cross-border transfers of savings of the executive to augment funds of agencies outside the department as well as funding of projects and programs not covered in the General Appropriations Act (GAA) were also declared unconstitutional.
The SC also voided the use of unprogrammed funds despite the absence of a certification by the national treasurer that the revenue collections exceeded the revenue targets.
The constitutional violations cited for DAP were the same ones used by the high court in its ruling last year declaring the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) unconstitutional.
Associate Justice Lucas Bersamin penned the ruling, which was not immediately made available as it did not yet have the signatures of the 13 justices. There were also five separate opinions on the case.
Facing the press after the issuance of the ruling, SC spokesman Theodore Te only read certain portions of the decision, and did not touch on issues involving the possible culpability of the President and other officials.
He said the high court only partially granted the nine petitions filed last year by former Manila councilor Greco Belgica, former Iloilo Rep. Augusto Syjuco, lawyers Jose Malvar Villegas Jr. and Manuelito Luna, Philippine Constitution Association (Philconsa), Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Bayan Muna, Kabataan and Gabriela party-list groups; Confederation for Unity, Recognition and Advancement of Government Employees (Courage), and the Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption.
Asked if the decision covers only specific acts enumerated and not the entire DAP, Te replied: “It’s clear what was declared in the dispositive. Only the three acts under DAP and NBC 541 and the use of unprogrammed funds were declared unconstitutional.” NBC 541 is National Budget Circular 541.
A magistrate explained, however, to The STAR that the decision effectively voided the entire DAP.
“The four parts declared unconstitutional effectively cover the entire DAP. The word ‘partially grants’ was used simply because the other prayers of petitioners like disclosure of documents and return of funds were not granted for being moot,” the magistrate who declined to be named said in a text message.
The petitioners immediately welcomed the SC decision, but stressed it’s still too early to celebrate as the high court has yet to reveal the entire contents of the ruling.
Militant group Bagong Alyansang Makabayan called the SC decision a “partial victory.” But Bayan secretary-general Renato Reyes, who led a group of protesters outside the SC while awaiting the ruling, said their fight against DAP is not yet over until executive officials are held liable.
“It is a blow to presidential lump sum and discretionary spending or presidential pork under Aquino. The big challenge now is accountability. We will pursue this for sure. President Aquino and Secretary Abad should be answerable to the people,” he told reporters.
Another petitioner in the case, former national treasurer Leonor Briones, agreed with Reyes.
The SC decision on DAP is expected to set the stage for the prosecution of those who may have misused government funds.
The case was heard in three-part oral arguments last January and February.
In their petition, anti-DAP groups argued that the program – like PDAF – violates the exclusive power of Congress to appropriate funds.
But the Office of the Solicitor General said there was no need for the SC to entertain the petitions since the President had already abolished DAP.
Congress, represented by retired SC Justice Vicente Mendoza in the case, also asked the high court to dismiss the petitions, citing lack of jurisdiction.
In the hearing, the former SC justice contended that the petitioners failed to exhaust all other legal remedies before bringing the matter to the court.
He said the petitioners should have challenged the implementation of DAP first before the Commission on Audit or trial courts.
No comments:
Post a Comment