Palace moves to kill Noy impeach on DAP issue

Written by  Charlie V. Manalo

Amid fears that President Aquino might be slapped with an impeachment case once the Disbursement Acceleration Program, a fund created under his administration, is declared unconstitutional, Palace henchmen are reportedly working overtime in trying to convince members of the Supreme Court (SC) to rule in favor of DAP.

A source from the Judiciary bared to The Tribune that so far, the Palace had been able to convince at least six members of the high court to rule in favor of the controversial fund which include the four magistrates appointed by Aquino: Chief Justice Lourdes Sereno, Associate Justices Bienvenido Reyes, Estela Perlas-Bernabe and Marvic Leonen.

The source added that two other justices, apart from the four Aquino appointed justices, had already committed to the Palace in exchange for favorable considerations on their situations. “Aquino cannot invoke the same excuse as that of the lawmakers in the issue of the PDAF (Priority Development Assistance Fund),” said the source. 

“Of course there is no ex post facto law meaning, the effectivity of the SC ruling cannot be antedated to cover the PDAF expenditures in the past.”

“More importantly, there is a law to cover PDAF. And it is not the lawmakers’ fault the law had only been interpreted by the SC now. Hence, they cannot be held liable for spending their PDAFs in the past,” the source told the Tribune.

“But in the case of the DAP, there is no law to back it up ever since,” the source stressed.
Under the Constitution, the government’s annual budget spending must be in accordance with the law, specifically the General Appropriation Act (GAA), the source explained.

Outside of its prescription, the president should have to ask Congress to enact a law supporting any spending beyond the GAA.

However, the source said Aquino violated the rules and allegedly cooked the DAP as a means to justify the fund for Aquino’s rechanneling of funds.

Aquino, the source said, cannot use Section 25, Article VI of the Philippine Constitution of the 1987 Constitution in justifying his actions as the said provision only allows him to re-channel or augment his proposed expenditures for a particular item from his savings.

“However, how can Aquino claim he has only been re-channeling funds from his savings when he is doing that in the middle of fiscal year? How can you have savings in the middle of the year?” the source asked.

“And that is highly unconstitutional,” the source stressed.

While admitting that Congress, from where the impeachment process is initiated is still controlled by Aquino’s allies, much more the Senate wherein the trial takes place, these chambers are also highly considered a yellow turf, the source said anything is now possible as the president no longer has the pork to entice the lawmakers to submit to his whims.
“With no more pork, anything is now possible,” said the source.

“So, aside from trying to avert the possibility of an impeachment case against him, Noynoy wants the DAP so badly as he is aware he could use that as a pork substitute,” the source said.
Although unanimous in striking down the PDAF and declaring it unconstitutional, nevertheless, several of the appointees of Aquino in the high court, through the release of individual decisions, it was already evident that the justices were not united in the matter of the lump sum appropriations found in the pork barrel, or the PDAF.

This division could be carried over to DAP’s question of constitutionality. The DAP is also a lump sum allocation, along with other lump sum allocations in the budget, all under the discretion of Aquino, and without any audit from the Commission on Audit, the state audit agency.

These lump sum allocations have been branded as the presidential pork barrel, which consists of hundreds of billions of pesos.

Although the Supreme Court more or less cited this in its ruling against pork, as it touched on the illegality of the lump sum appropriations, it was noted in separate concurring opinions, that the justices were divided on the legality of lump-sum funds in general.

Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio made it clear that all lump-sum appropriations in the budget are illegal.

Associate Justices Teresita Leonardo-De Castro and Roberto Abad held the same position.
Chief Justice Lourdes Sereno, who is expected to rule in favor of Aquino’s lump sum, took the position that was opposite that of Carpio, De Castro and Abad, as reflected in her separate concurring/ dissenting opinion.

“To arrive at an unwarranted conclusion, i.e. that all lump-sum appropriations are invalid, whether in the 2013 GAA only or in all appropriation laws, is not sufficiently sensitive to the process of deliberation that the members of this Court undertook to arrive at a significant resolution,” the Chief Justice said.

Associate Justices Brion and Leonen agreed with Chief Justice Sereno on this point.
In his concurring and dissenting opinion, Brion argued that a total condemnation of lump sum funding is an “extreme position that disregards the realities of national life.”

Leonen, who is also known to favor the Palace position, said that the lump sum issue needs clarification in a “more appropriate case.” which evidently would be the DAP issue, since the challenge is on the constitutionality of the lump sum appropriations under the sole discretion and disposal of Aquino.

http://www.tribune.net.ph/headlines/palace-moves-to-kill-noy-impeach-on-dap-issue