Congress turn to defend DAP before Supreme Court

MANILA, Philippines – With at least two justices hinting at the unconstitutionality of fund releases to senators through the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), how will Congress defend the controversial spending program?

Justices of the Supreme Court (SC) will find out Tuesday, February 18, as they hear oral arguments from the legislature. Congress will be represented by retired Justice Vicente Mendoza.  

The DAP is a system of realigning unused funds from government savings to slow-disbursing state projects. It was initiated by President Benigno Aquino III in 2011 to boost the economy. 

Government savings come from vacancies in government personnel, projects that have already been abandoned, and projects which were finished but at a lesser cost than was appropriated.

An anti-pork barrel group on Monday, February 17, asked the Commission on Audit (COA) to scrutinize state funds savings that were diverted to various projects through DAP.

During the second day of oral arguments before the SC, Solicitor General Francis Jardeleza, arguing for the Palace, said the program has been put in the back-burner since mid-2013. Jardeleza added that the termination of DAP, which was done even prior to the filing of the petitions at the SC, renders the petitions moot. (READ: SolGen to SC: DAP won’t be used again, petitions moot)

Petitioners during the Day 1 of oral arguments said the re-alignment of government savings to items that are not outlined in the General Appropriations Act (GAA) – without congressional approval or consultation – encroaches upon the jurisdiction of the legislative branch.

Points of contention

On Tuesday, Congress is expected to rebutt a point raised during Day 2: that cross-border appropriations or the transfer of savings from one branch of government to supplement the funds of another branch is unconsitutional. (READ: Two justices say DAP releases to senators not allowed)

Justice Lucas Bersamin earlier pointed out that “the tenor of the Constitution is clear.” The provision, he said in his line of questioning, limits the President’s power over budget augmentation only to the executive department.

Justice Marvic Leonen pointed out that the constitutional provision that accords the President and other officials with the power to augment funds uses the term “respective” in the transfer of appropriations.

“And we adjudicate based on the text of the Constitution,” he said, echoing Bersamin’s point on cross-border fund augmentation.

Among the main issues to be tackled before the High Tribunal Tuesday are: 

Disbursements to senators

DAP became controversial when Senator Jinggoy Estrada exposed in a privilege speech the disbursements given to senators immediately following the impeachment trial of Former Chief Justice Renato Corona. 

Estrada delivered the speech after being indicted for plunder for alleged links to the pork barrel scam, the illegal siphoning of lawmakers’ funds to fake non-governmental organizations.

Budget Secretary Florencio Abad denied allegations these disbursements were bribes in exchange of votes for the impeachment of Corona, an appointee of the previous administration disfavored by Aquino. 

Based on Department of Budget and Management records, below are the names of senators and the amount of funds they received via DAP in 2012:

– Rappler.com