PNoy challenges SC decision from DAP

(Phil. Star) - The legal battle over the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) isn’t over.

President Aquino openly questioned yesterday the unanimous ruling of the Supreme Court (SC), which declared key portions of the DAP unconstitutional, and said his administration would seek a reversal of the decision.

In a 20-minute address to his “bosses” the people last night, the President also alluded to something that he said the SC had done in the past that could be worse than the DAP, but which the executive believed deserved the presumption of regularity. Why, he asked, couldn’t the high tribunal do the same for the DAP?

Aquino did not go into details, but reliable sources said it involved over P1 billion in judiciary funds that his political allies are set to look into when the second regular session of the 16th Congress opens at the end of the month.

The speech put the President on a collision course with the nation’s highest court. Some quarters considered it defiance and raised concerns over a looming constitutional crisis and anarchy.

With his Cabinet and congressional leaders in the audience at Malacañang, the President again defended the DAP, tracing its history and blaming the corruption in the administration of his predecessor Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo for creating the need to set up a stimulus program.

Malacañang also released the full list of DAP funded projects. Click here for the complete list

Aquino sidestepped calls for the resignation of Budget Secretary Florencio Abad, who was in the audience and who is painted as the architect of the DAP.

The SC decision said Abad could be held liable for the DAP. The budget chief, one of the President’s most trusted aides, faces a plunder complaint in connection with the stimulus program, for which he could be arrested and held without bail.

Insisting that “DAP is good; our intentions, our processes, and the results were correct,” the President urged the SC justices, in a speech delivered mainly in Filipino, to “help us help our countrymen… Do not bar us from doing what we swore to do.”

He stressed that he did not want a clash between the executive and judicial branches as he announced that the administration is preparing to file a motion for reconsideration of the SC ruling.

Reliable sources said Malacañang had strongly lobbied for the DAP to be upheld. Some SC justices were reportedly willing to go along if Abad would be replaced.

Malacañang refused, and sent word that an adverse ruling would lead to a public scrutiny of over P1 billion in special allowances for judges and justices or SAJJ, which is apart from the Judiciary Development Fund.

The sources said the SC justices apparently felt they were being blackmailed. Their vote for the DAP, initially at 9-3 against the stimulus program, became unanimous on July 3.

Aquino likened himself to a motorist who parks in a no-parking area to save an injured accident victim, and is being punished for breaking parking regulations.

His situation “might be even worse,” he said. “I am, after all, being arrested for parking in an area that up to now hasn’t yet been declared a no-parking zone. Is this reasonable?”

Reiterating his defense of good faith, he said, “We did not break the law when we implemented DAP.”

And unlike the congressional pork barrel or Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) from which lawmakers are accused of skimming billions, he said the government did not steal people’s money through the stimulus program.

“We do not want two equal branches of government to go head to head, needing a third branch to step in to intervene,” he emphasized.

‘Use it or lose it’

Endemic corruption characterized the budgeting system in the Arroyo administration and did not benefit the people, Aquino said.

But another problem arose as his new administration moved to clean up spending and implementation. Projects and programs moved slowly, and underspending affected projects needed especially by the poor, such as irrigation.

That was when they started looking at savings. Sometimes savings are good, he said, but sometimes they mean under-utilization of funds that could otherwise be put to better use.

The SC, in its ruling, said only funds left over from programmed appropriations at the end of the fiscal year can be classified as savings and impounded by the executive.

Aquino said this would mean a wait of several months for the funds to be utilized and for public biddings to be held.

Projects needing immediate funding would have to be delayed, he said, citing relocation efforts that must be completed before the typhoon season. It’s a case of “use it or lose it,” he argued.

Aquino cited the DAP for ending the shortage of classrooms and completion of village electrification.

Addressing SC justices, he said, “We ask that you review your decision, this time taking into consideration the points I have raised… The nation hopes for your careful deliberation and response. And I hope that once you’ve examined the arguments I will submit, regarding the law and about our economy, solidarity will ensue – thus strengthening the entire government’s capability to push for the interests of the nation.”

He wondered why the SC did not consider the legal basis for the DAP, which was the Administrative Code of 1987.

Aquino also noted that the SC itself, the World Bank and even critics of the DAP admitted that the stimulus program helped improve the economy.

He asked for clarity in the SC ruling, adding, “Perhaps they can even identify DAP’s negative effect on the country.”

Vendetta?

“There are those who say that this decision might be a personal vendetta against me – that I am being dared to act in the same vindictive manner against them,” he said. “All I can say – as the President, as the father of this country – is that we need temperance and forbearance. We must comply with due process.”

Aquino said any lawyer would caution against a motion for reconsideration of a 13-0 vote against DAP, with one abstention.

“The mere hope that the decision will be overturned is a monumental one. We had also been warned that pushing through with this motion might put us in greater danger,” he said.

Addressing SC justices, he said, “We find it difficult to understand your decision. You had done something similar in the past, and you tried to do it again; there are even those of the opinion that what you attempted to commit was far graver. Abiding by the principle of presumption of regularity, we assumed that you did the right thing; after all, you are the ones who should ostensibly have a better understanding of the law. And now, when we use the same mechanism – which, you yourselves have admitted, benefit our countrymen – why is it then that we are wrong?”

Aquino did not give details on what the SC had done.

“We believe that the majority of you, like us, want only the best for the Filipino people,” he said. “Perhaps no one will dare to doubt that we have pushed for reform these past four years. And I must ask: what is expected from those of us who are advancing reform?”

Righting the wrongs

Aquino said the system that they inherited from Arroyo was one that did not help, or did not do enough to help, the people.

“We are now righting the wrongs in the system, so that it may work towards this goal: to uphold the interests of the people, our bosses who handed us our mandate,” he said. “Shouldn’t you be siding with us in pushing for reform? Let us, therefore, end this vicious cycle that has taken our people hostage.”

To his “bosses,” he promised: “I will not allow your suffering to be prolonged – especially if we could do what we can as early as now.”

He cited Book VI, Chapter 5, Section 39 of the 1987 Administrative Code of the Philippines, which states: “Except as otherwise provided in the General Appropriations Act, any savings in the regular appropriations authorized in the General Appropriations Act for programs and projects of any department, office or agency, may, with the approval of the President, be used to cover a deficit in any other item of the regular appropriations.”

“As you can see, this law openly gives the President the power to transfer savings to other projects. It does not limit the transfer to only one department or branch of government. In other words: we did not transgress the law when we implemented DAP. The Constitution and the Administrative Code are not at odds with each other,” Aquino said.

“Even until now, Section 39 of the Administrative Code is in effect, along with its other sections,” he stressed.

The President said this became even more worrisome when taking into account the “operative fact doctrine,” which the SC also mentioned in its decision.

“This is simple. When a Supreme Court declares as unconstitutional any law or edict by the executive, only those projects yet to be implemented under said law are deemed prohibited. The declaration does not include completed projects if this means stripping our citizens of benefits. This is only natural because it is not right to destroy bridges that have already been built, or to demolish houses that have already been bestowed to families of informal settlers,” Aquino said.

He pointed out that under the same doctrine, project implementers are not held accountable if there was good faith. The SC said good faith must be established in court.

“In their decision, the judges immediately presume the absence of good faith, which would then have to be proven through trial. What happened to the principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty?’” the President argued.

He assured those affected by DAP-funded projects now on hold as a result of the SC ruling that he would ask Congress for a supplemental budget.

GMA blamed

He said when he assumed power, only P100 billion or 6.5 percent of the P1.54-trillion appropriation for the year was left. There were fat bonuses even for officials of government corporations that were operating at a loss.

For a project to dredge Laguna de Bay, he said the government was supposed to pay P18.7 billion “just to play with mud.”

“DAP is not a project – it is an efficient way of spending the budget; it follows the law and adheres to the mandate granted to the executive branch,” he said.

Tracing the creation of the stimulus program, he narrated: “Hours before delivering my SONA in 2011, I was given a progress report by all government departments. I was taken aback by certain information given to us.”

“Is it not right that funds that had been otherwise left unused were utilized for programs that had proven effective, so that targets can be met and the benefits to the people can ensue at the soonest possible time?” he asked.

“Another advantage of this system: projects that were temporarily suspended for a given year would not have to compete for funding with the other finished projects in the following year. This is clearly a win-win situation,” Aquino reiterated.

He said “any good leader would want to implement projects that benefit the public at the soonest possible time.”

“It is clear that if you delay the benefits due them, you prolong the suffering of the Filipino people,” Aquino said.