PNoy’s ‘hol-DAP’

Cong Corrales .

LATE last month, the Office of the Ombudsman finally ordered the indictment of former President Benigno Simeon Aquino III and ex-Budget Secretary Florencio Abad when both encroached Congress’ power of the purse by redefining savings to fund programs, activities, and projects under the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP).

Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales granted the appeal of Bayan Muna Rep. Carlos Isagani Zarate to review her decision last March 3 that cleared Aquino of liability for implementing the dubious economic stimulus package. The Supreme Court, by the way, had already ruled it as unconstitutional, still, the dynamic duo continued to implement it just the same.

All of these started four years ago. In the spirit of public service and providing context, allow me to give the backstory of Aquino’s economic stimulus package.

On July 1, 2014, the Supreme Court—voting 13-1-0—declared the National Budget Circular 541 and other related issuance related to DAP unconstitutional.

The High Tribunal ruled that “the following acts and practices under the DAP, National Budget Circular No. 541 and related executive issuance unconstitutional for being in violation of Section 25(5), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and the doctrine of separation of powers, namely:

1. a) The withdrawal of unobligated allotments from the implementing agencies, and the declaration of the withdrawn unobligated allotments and unreleased appropriations as savings prior to the end of the fiscal year and without complying with the statutory definition of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;
2. b) The cross-border transfers of the savings of the Executive to augment the appropriations of other offices outside the Executive; and
3. c) The funding of projects, activities, and programs that were not covered by any appropriation in the General Appropriations Act.”

The Supreme Court also declared as “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 General Appropriations Act.”

Then Palace spokesman Herminio Coloma Jr. defended Aquino’s budget impoundment facility by saying that it was implemented “in good faith and due diligence, in accordance with existing laws and pertinent auditing rules and procedures.”

“Good faith,” in contract law, is a general presumption that the parties to a contract will deal with each other honestly, fairly, and in good faith, so as not to destroy the right of the other party or parties to receive the benefits of the contract.

So, can this reason of “good faith” possibly exonerate Aquino and Abad this time around? I highly doubt this reason will still hold water again.

In March 2009, then then Senator Aquino filed Senate Bill No. 3121 also known as The Budget Impoundment Control Act to limit the president’s power to impound funds appropriated by Congress. Aquino then argued that this practice had removed from Congress the control over the public purse. Aquino was then part of the political opposition to then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

“Of recent times, however, this presidential prerogative has been misused and abused and has emasculated Congress’ authority to check the President’s discretionary power to spend public funds. In effect, the President seems to have a vast and unbridled control over the national budget,” Aquino wrote in the bill’s explanatory note.

Aquino ended the bill’s explanatory note by saying the bill would increase Congress’ oversight and clip then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s influence over specific appropriations in the General Appropriations Act.

Aquino argued then that “as the ‘power of the sword’ belongs to the President, ‘the power of the purse’ resides in Congress.”

So, how could Aquino invoke “good faith” in implementing the DAP when he himself knew that such impounding mechanisms were prone to abuse, and had even proposed legislation against such a practice five years prior to the DAP?

But then again, I cannot help but be teary eyed of the thought that no matter how effed up our country was before, at least it had a clear delineation of the three co-equal branches of government ? executive, legislative, and the judiciary. The Supreme Court did its mandate as the check and balance of the executive branch.

Sadly, those lines have become blurry now.