By MARK MERUEÑAS
GMA News
GMA News
A senior magistrate of the Supreme Court on Tuesday declared that the sources of the controversial Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) funds could not be considered as “savings,” contrary to the Aquino administration’s claim.
Making things “worse,” Associate Justice Antonio Carpio added, the DAP funds had been realigned even without a written authorization from the president.
During the first day of oral arguments tackling the nine petitions contesting the legality of the DAP, the petitioners also questioned Department of Budget and Management National Budget Circular 541, which allows the use of DAP “to fund priority programs and projects not considered in the 2012 budget but expected to be started or implemented during the current year.”
“[The government] continued DAP without any written document. So, the [Budget] Secretary realigned without presidential approval, which is worse,” Carpio said in the middle of interpellating Bayan Muna Party-list Rep. Carlos Zarate, one of the legal counsels of the petitioners.
“[The government] admits there’s realignment in 2013, but there was no written directive from the President. It is worse,” he added.
Carpio contested the DBM’s claim that the DAP funds came from several sources, including unobligated funds, unused appropriations, and unprogrammed funds among others.
“They say these are the savings but they did not qualify under the definition of savings [based on the General Appropriations Act],” the magistrate added.
He said that according to the GAA, unused government funds, categorized as a capital outlay, cannot be immediately declared as “savings” halfway through the year, since the GAA gives the government two years to “execute” the appropriation and spend the amount.
Carpio added that under the law, savings must be returned to general fund, and could only later be used for to augment items in the national budget provided there is an appropriation law for it.
Carpio noted Republic Act 245, which authorizes the president and the Finance secretary to “borrow any amount to fund an appropriation law.”
Meanwhile, lawyer Raymond Fortun, another lawyer of the petitioners, warned that the DAP could be used to impeach government officials, just like what happened to former Chief Justice Remato Corona, who was ousted after an impeachment court found him guilty of not declaring his actual wealth.
The DAP became an issue after Senator Jinggoy Estrada bared that he and other senators who voted to convict Corona in May last year received P50 million each in additional funds, later found to be part of DAP funds, months after the impeachment trial.
In interpellating Fortun, Associate Justice Marvic Leonen did not seem amused by the lawyer’s statement.
“Do you think we will rule in your favor because we fear impeachment?,” Leonen asked Fortun.
“This is a court of law and you want to imply that bribery did occur with certain members of Congress,” Leonen added.
Fortun responded: “[But] that is a fact that has already been established [with Estrada's admission].”
Fortun then said his “bribery” claim was merely a “possibility” and that he did not necessarily “make a conclusion.”
“We would appreciate if you would only give the facts,” Leonen responded.
The petitioners have argued the DAP funds could not be artificially deemed as “savings” as defined by the DBM and the General Appropriations Act of 2012 since there could not be savings in the middle of a fiscal year, especially if the projects or programs for which these funds were allocated by law, have not been completed, discontinued or abandoned.
They said the resolution of the issue whether Circular 541 or the DAP violates the Constitution, the Executive Order 292 or the Administrative Code and the appropriations law is not political as it no longer pertains to the wisdom or discretionary act of a public official.
They said the funds accumulated through the DAP are part of the presidential pork barrel, where only the sitting president, or in this case, Aquino, can determine where the funds will go. They said this could be used for patronage politics.
The almost five-hour DAP oral arguments on Tuesday ended around 7 p.m. and will resume on December 10 at 2 p.m. — BM, GMA News
No comments:
Post a Comment