Palace mulls scrapping DAP to preempt SC action

Source: The Daily Tribune

WITH POSSIBLE HIGH COURT STRIKING DOWN DISBURSEMENT PROGRAM

DBM Secretary Butch Abad and President Aquino (File Photo)

With the high probability of the Supreme Court declaring the controversial Disbursement Acceleration Program as unconstitutional, presidential spokesmen yesterday claimed that President Aquino is now studying whether to continue the DAP in the coming years.

Communications Secretary Ricky Carandang claimed that “it is ‘possible’ that there will be no more need for DAP if the country’s economic growth continues,” and that its continued existence is still unsure, as its future depends on a completed review.

“If the economic growth numbers are very strong there may be no need for additional government stimulus,” he said.

He, however, added that on the issue of the President’s power to realign savings, he insisted that this power will continue to be exercised by Aquino.”

Presidential Communications Operations Office head Herminio “Sonny” Coloma Jr. echoed the same line, saying at a press briefing yesterday that DAP was launched as a stimulus program, after the government saw the decline of the country’s economic growth rate to three percent during the first half of 2011, stressing that the country today has a growth rate of more than 7 percent.

He added that the country’s needs and resources available in 2011 and 2012 cannot be compared to today’s needs and resources.

The SC has ordered oral arguments on the DAP issue on Nov. 11. There are today at least eight petitions seeking the court’s ruling on the constitutionality of the DAP, which they claim is being used as the pork barrel of Aquino, as he has sole discretion over its disbursement.

One of the petitioners questioning the constitutionality of Aquino’s multi billion peso pork barrel before the high court said the Palace should honor the sub judice rule and stop attempting to subvert the high court on the case by commenting publicly while the controversy remains pending before the tribunal.

Former Iloilo Rep. Augusto Syjuco, one of the handful of petitioners questioning the pork system asked the SC to prevent Aquino and his officials from discussing the merits of the petitions seeking to declare as unconstitutional his DAP.

In a 21-page manifestation, Syjuco said the President is violating the Court’s sub judice rule when he defended DAP during a televised address last week.

The sub judice rule restricts comments and disclosures pertaining to pending judicial proceedings.

The restriction applies not only to participants in the pending case which include the lawyers, litigants and witnesses but also to the public in general, which necessarily includes the media.

Syjuco added that Aquino’s speech was not only intended to the public but can be construed as pressuring the Court to uphold the legality of DAP.

“Not only that President Aquino violated the sub judice rule, at worst, his speech constituted a very contumacious act of impressing a hint to the Supreme Court. In effect, he was subtly exerting pressure on the Supreme Court. Clearly, his speech was not only intended for the general public but also for the Supreme Court,” petitioner alleged.

Syjuco urged the Court to assert its independence and decide on the case based on its merit.

“It is only prudent that the Supreme Court should enjoy full autonomy and independence in resolving the constitutionality of the DAP. Any act, which would influence or tend to influence the independent function of the court, should not be countenanced,” he stressed.

Under Sec. 3 (d), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, a party that violates the sub judice rule may be cited by court for indirect contempt.

Aquino has been named as one of the respondents in the petitions against DAP along with Senate President Franklin Drilon and Budget Secretary Florencio “Butch” Abad.

Syjuco, however, asked the Court to exempt the press from the coverage of the sub judice rule which should “yield to the greater right of the press.”

In a separate motion, Syjuco asked the Court to issue a subpoena compelling Abad to testify during during the scheduled oral arguments on the DAP and to bring documents related to its disbursements.

“The testimony of the respondent as well as the documents under his authority and control as the Secretary of the DBM are relevant to the proceedings. In order to substantiate his testimony, it is material that he be compelled to produce documents,” the former solon insisted.

Among the documents that Syjuco wanted Abad to present before the Court are sources of unreleased appropriations for personal services coursed through the DAP; sources of unreleased appropriations for discontinued or slow-moving projects coursed through DAP; sources of realigned budgetary items within agencies in favor of fast-disbursing projects coursed through DAP; sources of the unprogrammed fund and windfall dividends from government-owned and controlled-corporations’ coursed through DAP; sources for unreleased appropriations for discontinued or slow-moving projects coursed through DAP; and itemized list of releases and disbursements of public funds made under DAP.

The eight petitioners alleged that the discretionary fund of the President violates the exclusive power of Congress to appropriate funds – just like in PDAF.

They argued that the use of the DAP violated Section 29 (1), Article VI of the Constitution, which requires that “no money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law.”

They also contended that the Constitution prohibits transfer of funds between branches of government without necessary law.

United Nationalist Alliance secretary general, Navotas Rep. Toby Tiangco yesterday dared Malacañang to “officially” suspend the controversial DAP to show that it is observing judicial courtesy in view of the pending petitions in the SC.

“Malacañang should not ram DAP like mad while there are still pending petitions awaiting to be heard by the Supreme Court. It would be fitting and proper if Malacañang officially suspends DAP as an act of judicial courtesy,” Tiangco said.

He added that Aquino had already suspended the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) in August even before the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO).

“Like PDAF, there are legitimate legal and public interest issues that need to be taken up and discussed in DAP. I don’t see the point why the President would be willing to suspend PDAF which is a legal item in the 2013 GAA, but can hardly give up DAP which is not part of any budget item,” Tiangco pointed out.

Tiangco said that as a matter of judicial courtesy, the President should also officially suspend DAP since Malacañang is a respondent in the DAP cases pending before the High Court.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) has been required to comment on the consolidated petitions by tomorrow, Nov. 7 prior to the Supreme Court holding of oral arguments on the cases.

Tiangco likewise criticized the Liberal Party (LP) for mobilizing a pro-DAP roadshow to reverse the public opinion.

He described LP’s planned roadshow as a direct assault on the SC.

“The pro-DAP roadshow not only displays the pigheadedness of the Administration with regard pork-barrel, but a direct assault on the Supreme Court. Why does the LP need to muddle the issue and bring it to the people? The question here is not about the benefits but the legality of DAP—on which the High Tribunal has the sole authority to decide,” he pointed out.

Tiangco stressed that the LP is trying to confuse the public by highlighting the supposed benefits of the DAP, and yet evading the question of legality.

“The end does not justify the means. You don’t defend something which is not even in the GAA. I cannot understand why the LP would go extra miles to defend something which is unlawful and illegal,” he said, adding that there is nothing mentioned in the budget about DAP.

Tiangco said LP stalwarts are willing to campaign and justify DAP to the people because they are aware that an unfavorable decision on the DAP by the Supreme Court may have an unfavorable political backlash on the President.

Palace allies in the Senate also yesterday defended Aquino’s decision to address the nation in explaining the issue concerning his economic stimulus fund called Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), amid the growing controversy over alleged pork barrel misuse.

At least two allied senators said Aquino cannot be faulted for coming out with a televised speech last Oct. 30.
“He is a political leader. That is a leadership that he must exercise at this point,” Senate President Franklin Drilon said to reporters.

“I will not fault him for talking to the people, I will not fault him for going out, explain certain things that he thinks need to be explained to the people. I think that’s an admirable quality. He should not be criticized. He should even be praised since he went directly to the people. Whether it’s an issue involving DAP or any other issue, this is an opportunity to talk directly to the people. What is wrong with that” said Sen. Francis “Chiz” Escudero.

Escudero said the Chief Executive merely exercised his prerogative in explaining to the public the issues surrounding the DAP as well as the PDAF.

“I respect his being open and consultative but for me, clearly, the DAP is a mere slogan or term in utilizing the savings of the government. Utilization of savings has been done by previous administrations but was not used under the term called DAP. It’s a slogan. There’s no such item in the budget. But it’s an on-going slogan and program of government in its anti-corruption drive,” he added.

Former Lingayen Archbishop Emeritus Oscar V. Cruz meanwhile said the dialog being proposed by Aquino will not easily convince those advocating the abolition of discretionary funds.

In an interview over Church run CBCP Online Radio, Cruz said the Palace may be able to explain where the DAP is sourced and used but those with whom he will dialog would be more knowledgeable and may not easily be convinced.

Cruz also added that, “If ever those whom the president with whom he has a dialog will give their proposal and suggestion, the president may be the one that will not understand.”

By Benjamin B. Pulta, Paul Aquino, Angie M. Rosales, Charlie V, Manalo and Pat C. Santos