P-Noy cannot augment funds for approved government projects, activities and programs (PAPs) in the annual General Appropriations Act (GAA) through his controversial Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) beyond what he had originally recommended to Congress.
To allow him to do so violates the mechanisms for checks and balances provided in the Constitution and opens the budget process to abuse, according to defeated senatorial candidate Greco Antonious Beda Belgica, one of the main petitioners in the case.
Belgica, through his lawyers Harry L. Roque, Jr., Joel Ruiz Butuyan and Roger R. Rayel of the Roque and Butuyan Law Offices, filed yesterday a Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling striking down cross-border transfers of funds made by the Office of the President through the DAP.
He said there is a need for a definitive ruling from the Supreme Court on the power of the President to augment the funds to cover a deficit in a program for which public funds had been earmarked under the annual appropriations law.
He said that under the DAP, President Aquino in many occasions augmented or added funds from government savings for projects in amounts that exceeded many times the originally funding for them under the GAA.
“To do so would mean giving the President more money for a project that he failed to properly assess and evaluate how much it would cost to implement,” he said in his 23-page motion. “ To allow him to use more money than he initially determined would be required for a certain project would be to disregard the process of budgeting required to be observed under the law.” As proof of this, he cited the following:
- The DREAM Project of the Department of Science and Technology under the 2011 budget (R.A. No. 10147) with an augmentation of One Billion Six Hundred Million Pesos (P1,600,000,000.00). A check with Republic Act No. 10147 disclosed that the project referred to by the Office of the President only had a total appropriation of Five Hundred Thirty Seven Million, Nine Hundred Ten Thousand Pesos (P537,910,000.00) under the category of Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses (MOOE). How could a P537,910,000.00 appropriation be augmented by almost three times such amount, that is, P1.6 Billion for a total expenditure of P2.137 Billion?
- The same thing is true with respect to the second item wherein the total appropriation under R.A. No. 10147, p. 711, under Section A.II.a is P8,003,000.00 comprising of P5,975,000.00 for Personal Services and P2,028,000.00 for MOOE. Yet, this was “augmented by P300 Million, an amount more than twenty six (26) times the original appropriation.
- The Repair/Rehabilitation of the PNP Crime Laboratory under R.A. No. 10147, p. 502 under Section A.III.a.1.a on “Conduct of operation and other related confidential activities against dissidents, subversives, lawless elements and organized crime syndicates and campaign against kidnapping, trafficking of women and minors, smuggling, carnapping, gunrunning, illegal fishing and trafficking of illegal drugs.” Clearly, the activity to be funded is a operational activity and not a capital outlay. However, the “augmentation” expense of P3,255,837,000.00 is one for capital outlay for the “Repair/Rehabilitation of the PNP Crime Laboratory.” What is worse is that out of the P48,152,488,000.00 total appropriation for the item under Sec. A.III.a.1.a, P47,476,814,000.00 was for Personal Services while only P675,674,000.00 was for MOOE. There is no appropriation for capital outlay. Thus, there existed no appropriation that the Office of the President could latch on to for this particular “augmentation.”
He also attacked recent proposals made by some sectors sympathetic to the President on the issue that the DAP expenditure by the President may be justified under Section 49 of Book VI of the Administrative Code of 1987. The provision reads in part thus:
Section 49. Authority to Use Savings for Certain Purposes. – Savings in the appropriations provided in the General Appropriations Act may be used for the settlement of the following obligations incurred during a current fiscal year or previous fiscal years as may be approved by the Secretary in accordance with rules and procedures as may be approved by the President:
(9) Priority activities that will promote the economic well-being of the entire, including food production, agrarian reform, energy development, disaster relief, and rehabilitation;
(10) Repair, improvement and renovation of government buildings and infrastructure and other capital assets damaged by natural calamities;
xxx (Emphasis supplied)
However, Belgica said through his lawyers that the very same provision requires that the obligations being funded from savings be “incurred during a current fiscal year or previous fiscal years.”
This, it can only refer to PAPs with existing appropriation covers and to those unpaid obligations of the previous years, especially contingent obligations that became due and demandable only during the current fiscal year as borne by the enumeration in the cited provision, he said.
Belgica took issue with the Supreme Court’s characterization of the government’s budget process as descriptive rather than normative, charging that to do so ignores the constitutional requirement found in Section 15 (1), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution requiring that the “form, content, and manner of preparation of the budget shall be prescribed by law.”
“Thus, and with due respect, to characterize the budget process as merely ‘descriptive, not normative’ and to propose a different ‘treatment of departments and offices granted fiscal autonomy’ is to demean the legal significance thereof as if the process described is merely directory and not mandatory,” he said.
 Consolidated Comment, par. 33.