ShareThisPnoy impeachment eyed but doomed; Abad urged to quit
MANILA (via PhilAmPress) — The Supreme Court (SC), voting 13-0, declared last Tuesday salient parts of the Malacanang-invented Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) unconstitutional.
With the ruling, is expected that more people will call for the impeachment of President Benigno S. Aquino III and the head of Budget and Management Secretary Florencio “Butch” Abad, who reportedly created and defended DAP.
But Speaker Feliciano Belmonte pointed out that the ruling cannot be used to impeach the President. Even if an impeachment complaint is filed in the House of Representatives, it will have no chance to prosper with an overwhelming majority of congressmen supporting the administration.
The President, however, could still be held liable for the unconstitutional DAP when he leaves office, according to legal experts.
Malacanang did not immediately comment on the ruling, saying it will have to wait for the full copy of the decision first.
Some senators immedaitely commended the Supreme Court (SC) for declaring the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) unconstitutional.
Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, a constitutional law expert, said she anticipated the SC decision even before the matter reached the high court months ago.
Following the Supreme Court ruling, Santiago renewed her call for the Commission on Audit to probe into the alleged bribery of Congress
members during the impeachment trial of ex-Chief Justice Renato Corona in connection with the 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.
“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,” Santiago said.
Detained Sen. Jose Jinggoy Estrada thanked the SC “for respecting and upholding the Congress’ exclusive power of the purse.”
”On its face, DAP is unconstitutional. It really has no basis and it’s not even included and nowhere to be found in the General Appropriations Act,” said Estrada, who exposed the DAP in a privilege speech.
”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 added.
Estrada is now detained at Camp Crame for graft and plunder charges filed against him and Senators Ramon Revilla Jr. and Juan Ponce Enrile over alleged P10-billion pork barrel scam.
Senator Ralph Recto said he respects the SC ruling while Senator Francis Chiz Escudero said the decision “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,” said Escudero, Senate finance committee chairman.
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 senator said the Constitution allows fund transfers only if there are savings, meaning that the project was completed, and yet the appropriation was not exhausted; but there are no savings if a project was merely deferred.
“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,” the former UP College of Law constitutional law professor said.
Santiago said that it appeared that DAP funds were taken from alleged slow-moving projects. “If so, no savings were generated, and therefore the DAP is illegal,” she said.
The senator also said that the budget department should have sought the approval of Congress, because under the Constitution, it is Congress that exercises the power of the purse.
”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,” she said.
Santiago said the DAP funds appear to have been disbursed in violation of the Constitution’s equal protection clause, which is the keystone of all human rights.
According to Abad, additional pork under the so-called DAP were released reportedly during and after the impeachment trial against former Chief Justice Renato Corona.
“It should be illegal for the budget department to discriminate among senators. While all other senators received an average of P50 million in DAP funds, reportedly three senators got P100 million each. They are Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile, Sen. Franklin Drilon, and Sen. Francis Escudero,” she said.
The three senators did not explain why they got more than the others, but merely defended themselves with the excuse that they spent the money on public projects. By contrast, each representative allegedly received P15 million.
Those who were not given any additional pork from the DAP were Santiago, Sen. Bongbong Marcos, and former Sen. Joker Arroyo—the three senators who voted against impeachment.
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.
She quoted Article 210: “Direct Bribery. – Any public officer who shall agree to perform an act constituting a crime, in connection with the performance of his official duties, in consideration of any offer, promise, gift, or present received by such officer.”
Santiago said that every senator who voted to convict, and every representative who voted to indict, if each one is shown to have received additional pork during and immediately after the impeachment trial, are presumably guilty of bribery, because of the close timing between the two events.
She said that under the Penal Code, each senator or representative was guilty of the crime of “knowingly rendering unjust judgment.”
Presidential Communication Operations Office (PCOO) Secretary Herminio “Sonny” Coloma said the Palace will await the official copy of the SC decision “then review it to be able to understand its implications.”
“We will defer comment until we’ve read the full text of the decision,” said Deputy Presidential spokesperson Abigail Valte.
For his part, Secretary Abad said he has yet to read the full text of the High Court decision.
“I reserve my comments until I read the full text of the (SC) decision,” he said.
Presidential Spokesman Edwin Lacierda earlier said the government strongly believed that the discretionary fund has benefited the country.
“When we started, there was a very low GDP (gross domestic product). We implemented the DAP and it contributed to the various programs of the government, the various agencies,” he said.
Lacierda said the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) was prepared to defend the legality of President Benigno S. Aquino’s discretionary fund.
SC Public Information Office chief and spokesman Atty. Theodore Te said the SC partially granted the petitions for certiorari and prohibition “and declares the following acts and practices under the DAP National Budget Circular 541 and related executive issuances unconstitutional for being in violation of Section 25, Paragraph 5, Article 6 of the 1987 Constitution.”
The dispositive portion of the SC ruling listed the following acts and practices as unconstitutional:
* The withdrawal of unobligated allotments from the implementing agencies, and the declaration of the withdrawn unobligated allotments and unreleased appropriations as savings prior to the end of the fiscal year and without complying with the statutory definition of savings contained in the General Appropriations Acts (GAAs).
* The cross-border transfers of the savings of the Executive to augment the appropriations of other offices outside the Executive.
* The funding of projects, activities and programs that were not covered by any appropriation in the GAA.
The SC further declared void the use of unprogrammed funds despite the absence of a certification by the National Treasurer that the revenue collections exceeded the revenue targets for non-compliance with the conditions provided in the relevant GAAs.
The petitioners argued that because of the DAP, grave abuse of discretion was committed on the part of the government and there was a violation of the 1987 Constitution, particularly Section 29 of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution which states that the government funds should not be utilized in projects or expenditures not covered by the appropriations law.
They stressed that the DAP cannot be found in any of the enacted GAA for the years 2011, 2012 and 2013.
Associate Justice Lucas Bersamin is the ponente or writer of the decision.
Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco Jr., who is on-leave, left his vote with Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. Aranal Sereno.
Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro inhibited herself from the voting.