Estradas on DAP: Abad’s head must roll

MANILA, Philippines (2nd UPDATE) – While detained over the pork barrel scam, Senator Jinggoy Estrada found ammunition to attack Malacañang: the Supreme Court ruling partially striking down the administration’s Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP). 

Just minutes after the release of the court decision, the embattled opposition senator issued a statement through his media staff, saying that the administration should be held to account for the partly illegal spending program. 

“Now that the highest court of the land said that the DAP mechanism is unconstitutional and illegal, heads must roll and budget officials must be held accountable,” Estrada said in a statement on Tuesday, July 1. 

It was an obvious reference to Budget Secretary Florencio Abad, a key ally of President Benigno Aquino III. Estrada’s estranged half-brother, Senator JV Ejercito, reiterated his call for Abad to resign over DAP.

“I don’t think we can just accept the administration’s answer that ‘we already stopped DAP.’ A violation is a violation, those guilty should face [the] consequences of their action,” Ejercito told Rappler. “The ruling is implicit that there may have been a culpable violation of the Constitution but falls short of saying it. The SC should put every issue to rest.”  

Watch this report below.

It was Senator Estrada’s privilege speech against the administration in September 2013 that sparked criticism against the government’s spending program. In his speech, Estrada claimed that senators who voted to convict former Chief Justice Renato Corona in 2012 were allotted an additional P50 million each. Aquino pushed hard for Corona’s conviction as part of his anti-corruption campaign.

Abad later confirmed the allotment to the senators and said it came from DAP but denied that the amount was a bribe. Instead, the secretary said the money was meant to address the government’s underspending then blamed for the country’s sluggish economic growth.

While admitting that he too received the allocation, Estrada said it was not a bribe and it did not influence his decision to convict Corona. As for Ejercito, he was one of the congressmen who signed the impeachment complaint against Corona as then San Juan representative. 

Estrada said on Tuesday that the court affirmed critics’ statement that the DAP violated the Constitution. Legal luminaries then said that the DAP had no legal basis and was another form of pork barrel. 

“It’s not even included and nowhere to be found in the General Appropriations Act. I thank the Supreme Court for respecting and upholding the Congress’ exclusive power of the purse,” Estrada said.

ACT Teachers Representative Antonio Tino echoed Estrada, saying Aquino and Abad must be held accountable. 

“For sure, President Aquino will be facing an impeachment complaint when Congress reopens at the end of the month, and will certainly cast a dark cloud over his upcoming State of the Nation Address. Sec. Abad should immediately resign as the chief architect and promoter of the DAP and face criminal prosecution,” Tinio said in a statement.  

On Tuesday, the court issued the much-awaited decision on the administration program, declaring the following acts unconstitutional:

• the withdrawal of unobligated allotments from the implementing agencies
• cross border transfers of savings of the executive department to offices outside the executive department
• funding of projects, activities, programs not covered by appropriations in the General Appropriations Act.

The ruling followed the court’s landmark decision in November 2013 striking down the pork barrel or congressional discretionary funds known as the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF).

The court declared the PDAF unconstitutional after the pork barrel scam broke out. Estrada and senators Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr and Juan Ponce Enrile now face plunder charges for allegedly channeling their development funds for the poor to fake non-governmental organizations in exchange for millions of pesos in kickbacks.

The DAP ruling is seen as a political defeat for Aquino and his administration, which fiercely defended the program as necessary to boost the economy and fund worthwhile projects. Aquino even delivered a primetime TV address in defense of DAP ahead of the Supreme Court oral arguments on its legality. 

‘Admin fiddling with the budget’

Like Estrada, Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago hailed the court’s ruling which came months after she rejected the DAP as unconstitutional.

Along with former Senator Joker Arroyo and Senator Ferdinand Marcos Jr, Santiago was one of only 3 out of 23 senators who did not get an allocation from DAP. Incidentally, these 3 senators were the ones who voted to acquit Corona.

“Using the DAP, the budget department is basically realigning funds without public discussion in Congress. In effect, they are chipping away at the legislative power of the purse by fiddling with the budget,” said Santiago, a constitutional law expert.

Santiago said she expected the court ruling. “It’s basically a no-brainer. The DAP is illegal because it was not contained in the 2011 or 2012 budgets, and because the alleged savings were used to augment new budget items which was not previously authorized by Congress.”

In particular, Santiago said the DAP violates the constitutional provision that: “No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations; however, the President…may, by law, be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations.” 

“The first issue is that the DAP was not taken from savings. The second issue is that the DAP was not used to augment items in the budget that were previously authorized by Congress.  The alleged savings were used to augment new budget items not previously authorized by Congress,” she added.

Santiago again took issue with the administration’s decision to exclude the 3 senators as recipients of the allocation from DAP, and to allot a higher amount of P100 million each to her archenemy Enrile, and Senate President Franklin Drilon and Senate finance committee chairman Francis Escudero.

She said this violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause.

“In releasing funds, the executive branch cannot play favorites when carrying out constitutional commands such as social justice, social services, and equal work opportunities.  The DAP releases, flawed as they were from the very beginning, played favorites among senators.  That was clearly unconstitutional,” she said.

‘Probe bribery in impeachment’

The senator renewed her call for the Commission on Audit (COA) to investigate the alleged bribery of lawmakers during the impeachment trial using DAP.

“Both the pork barrel and DAP scandals are equally repulsive, and the Supreme Court declared both funds as unconstitutional. I wholeheartedly welcome the impartial adjudication of these abominable abuses of public funds by the Supreme Court since I cannot obtain relief from the Senate itself, which appeared to have been complicit in bribery,” she said.

Santiago said that the senators who voted to convict Corona and the representatives who voted to indict the former chief justice are “presumably guilty of bribery” if they are shown to have received “additional pork” during and immediately after the trial because of the close timing between the two events.

Ruling to affect 2015 budget

The senator again called for support for the bill President Aquino ironically filed when he was a senator that requires the President to go back to Congress to request to impound appropriations.

An Aquino ally, Escudero said that the Senate finance committee will apply the decision in preparing the budget. 

“The ruling will have far-reaching consequences and effects on government budgeting and disbursement processes. We will study the decision carefully with a view to following and implementing it in the current, 2015, and succeeding budgets,” he said.

Another Aquino ally, Senator Ralph Recto credited the administration for “unilaterally” stopping the acts the Court struck down. He said he was sure the funds were properly used. 

“Remember that there is no allegation that they were stolen. The debate was on the process followed. The discussion centered on the means rather than the end,” Recto said. – Rappler.com