Petitioners to seek partial reconsideration of SC decision on DAP


Centerlaw Press Release
Reference: Prof. Harry L. Roque, Jr. 09175398096

A group of Petitioners against the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) will seek a partial reconsideration of the DAP Decision to force the Supreme Court to implement the laws that require that savings can only be used for augmentation of deficient appropriations according to lawyer Harry Roque, counsel of Petitioners Greco Belgica, et al. This is necessitated by the fact that while the Decision categorically said that “an appropriation for any PAP must first be determined to be deficient before it could be augmented from savings,” in the dispositive portion of the Decision, the Court declared as unconstitutional only “The funding of projects, activities and programs that were not covered by any appropriation in the General Appropriations Act.” Thus, the Court did not actually give life to the constitutional requirement for valid augmentation and did not implement the provisions of the General Appropriations Act for 2011, 2012 and 2013 and the second paragraph of Section 44 of Presidential Decree 1177 which required that for any augmentation to be valid, there must be an actual deficiency in an existing appropriation and not merely the existence of an appropriation cover.

Roque said that this is a disturbing part of the Decision as it seems that the discussion and examples cited by the Supreme Court on the subject focused only on the lack of appropriation cover. For example, the Court cited the Disaster Risk, Exposure, Assessment and Mitigation (DREAM) Project of the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) with the following expenditures under the DAP: Personnel Services – P43.5 Million; MOOE – P1.164 Billion; and Capital Outlays – P391.9 Million. However, the original appropriations under the General Appropriations Act for 2011 are: Personnel Services – P0.00; MOOE – P537.9 Million; and Capital Outlays – P0.00. If the Supreme Court Decision as it now stands is followed, the only questionable augmentations in the above example as pointed out by the Supreme Court itself are those relating to Personnel Services and Capital Outlays which amount to only P435 Million out of the P1.6 Billion spent for the Dream Project. However, the money spent for MOOE under the DREAM-DAP is P1.164 Billion or almost three times (3X) the amount spent for Personnel Services and Capital Outlays (P435 Million) under the DREAM-DAP. More importantly, the P1.164 Billion spent on MOOE is more than twice the P537 Million originally appropriated for MOOE.

It is clear that on the items for Personnel Services and Capital Outlays, there was no valid augmentation as there were no appropriations to be augmented. What is not so clear is whether there was actual deficiency for the MOOE that required augmentation. In the example cited by the Supreme Court, the augmentation was more than twice the original appropriation. Roque asked: “Can this be reasonably called a deficiency considering that the augmentation is more than two times the original budget? Would the additional P1.164 Billion be considered as the actual deficiency in the original appropriation? What would prevent the President to add P1 Billion, P10 Billion or P100 Billion more and claim that it is a valid augmentation?”

He cited other examples:

1. The “National Road Project in the Province of Tarlac” where the original appropriation was only P1.1Billion was given an additional P900 Million which is almost (P200 Million less) the same amount as the original appropriation. Would an augmentation in an amount equal to or less than the original appropriation automatically qualify as a valid augmentation?
2. The DOST original appropriation of P5.975 Million was augmented by P300 Million or almost fifty (50) times the original appropriation. Is fifty times the original amount be reasonably called a deficit so as to qualify for augmentation?
3. The budget for the Office of the Presidential Assistant for the Peace Process (OPAPP) for 2011, 2012 and 2013 totaled P700 Million, more or less, including the budget for the program called Payapa at Masaganang Pamayanan or PAMANA. However, the money given under the DAP for this program granted to the Cordillera People’s Liberation Army (CPLA) amounted to P1.5 Billion while the money given to the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) was P1.8 Billion. How can this be called an augmentation of an actual deficiency when the amounts used to augment is more than two times (2X) the budget of the implementing agency for the past three years?
4. The P700 Million in DAP assistance to the Province of Quezon under the Local Government Support Fund (LGSF). The appropriation for years 2011, 2012 and 2013 for LGSF was P200 Million for each year. How can P700 Million be characterized as augmentation when it is more than the budget of the program for the past three (3) years?

Given the above examples, there is a need to clearly define what constitutes actual deficit so as to be able to make valid augmentations as this may be exploited by those responsible for the DAP as their escape mechanism to avoid criminal and administrative liability. Further, this may be relied upon as authority in the future to provide for measly funding for many items in the GAA just for the purpose of providing “appropriations cover” where “savings” may be used.

Roque concluded that what is paramount is the Constitution which requires that “Congress may not increase the appropriations recommended by the President for the operation of the Government as specified in the budget.” If Congress (whose role is to authorize the maximum amounts that Government may spend for any appropriation for any given year) cannot increase the amounts submitted by the President, then all the more reason that the President (whose role is limited to the execution of the budget) cannot go beyond the amounts authorized by Congress unless there is actual deficiency to be augmented.

About these ads

One comment on “Petitioners to seek partial reconsideration of SC decision on DAP

  1. Rizalde F Laudencia says:

    Thank you for your and your clients’ vigilance and dedication. I’m sure the president’s choir boys and girls will not able to find and include, in his “message” tonight, answers to the issues you raised in the motion for partial reconsideration.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s