(First of a Series)

In order to amplify the issue involving the brainchild of Sec. Florencio Abad Jr. called the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) under the leadership of Pres. Pnoy, we shall quote hereunder the decision of the Supreme Court en banc, meaning all the fifteen justice of the High Court participated in the deliberation of the nine (9) cases filed against DAP being consolidated into one case. All the Supreme Court justices voted in favor of the decision being penned by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin in these cases led by G.R. No. 209287 entitled Araullo, et al versus Pres. Benigno C. Aquino Jr. III, et al promulgated during the Charter Day of Tagbilaran last Tuesday. The decision starts with a discussion that at the core of the controversy is Section 29(1) of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, a provision of the fundamental law that firmly ordains that “no money shall be paid out of the treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law”.

* * * * *

The tenor and context of the challenges posed by the petitioners against the DAP indicate that the DAP contravened this provision by allowing the executive (branch) to allocate public money pooled from programmed and un-programmed funds of its various agencies in the guise of the President exercising his constitutional authority under Section 25(5) of the 1987 Constitution to transfer funds out of savings to augment the appropriations of offices within the executive branch of the government. But the challenges are further complicated by the interjection of allegations of transfer of funds to agencies or offices outside of the executive. What has precipitated the controversy? On September 25, 2013, Sen. Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada delivered a privilege speech in the Senate of the Philippines to reveal that some Senators, including himself, had been allotted an additional P50 Million each as “incentive” for voting in favor of the impeachment of Chief Justice Renato C. Corona.

* * * * *

Responding to Sen. Estrada's revelation, Secretary Florencio Abad of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) issued a public statement entitled “Abad: Releases to Senators Part of Spending Acceleration Program” explaining that the funds released to the senators had been part of the DAP, a program designed by the DBM to ramp up spending to accelerate economic expansion. Abad clarified that the funds had been released to the Senators based on their letters of request for funding; and that it was not the first time that releases from the DAP had been made because the DAP had already been instituted in 2011 to ramp up spending after sluggish disbursements had caused the growth of the gross domestic product (GDP) to slow down. He explained that the funds under the DAP were usually taken from (1) unreleased appropriations under Personnel Services; (2) un-programmed funds; (3) carry-over appropriations unreleased from the previous year; and (4) budgets for slow-moving items or projects that had been realigned to support faster-disbursing projects.

* * * * *

The DBM soon came out to claim in its website that the DAP releases had been sourced from savings generated by the government, and from un-programmed funds; and that the savings had been derived from (1) the pooling of unreleased appropriations, like unreleased Personnel Services appropriations that would lapse at the end of the year, unreleased appropriations of slow-moving projects and discontinued projects per zero-based budgeting findings; and (2) the withdrawal of unobligated allotments also for slow-moving programs and projects that had been earlier released to the agencies of the National Government. The DBM listed the following as the legal bases for the DAP's use of savings, namely: (1) Section 25(5), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, which granted to the President the authority to augment an item for his office in the general appropriations law; (2) Section 49 (Authority to Use Savings for Certain Purposes) and Section 38 (Suspension of Expenditure Appropriations), Chapter 5, Book VI of Executive Order (EO) No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987); and (3) the General Appropriations Acts (GAAs) of 2011, 2012 and 2013, particularly their provisions on the (a) use of savings; (b) meanings of savings and augmentation; and (c) priority in the use of savings. As for the use of un-programmed funds under the DAP, the DBM cited as legal bases the special provisions on un-programmed fund contained in the GAAs of 2011, 2012 and 2013. The revelation of Sen. Estrada and the reactions of Sec. Abad and the DBM brought the DAP to the consciousness of the nation for the first time, and made this present controversy inevitable. That the issues against the DAP came at a time when the nation was still seething in anger over Congressional pork barrel – “an appropriation of government spending meant for localized projects and secured solely or primarily to bring money to a representative's district”– excited the nation as heatedly as the pork barrel controversy.(To be continued)

* * * * *

POSTSCRIPT: Starting yesterday until today, we maximize our time bonding with our family to belatedly mark the birthday of our youngest child, Ma. Emilee and capitalize the time that we have for this weekend. Ma. Emilee and Dan Blyke went home last Friday to find a break with us and spend time with Ma. Christilee and Orez. Merly had here urgent tasks but we asked here to spend this weekend with us. This is our real father's day for two days. Of course, this break is through our charge. Feeling that we are spending for the occasion, Dudot inserted his own wish list knowing that the same will be charged to our bill. Tsk, tsk, tsk.…By the way, our kumpadre and companiero, Atty. Tony Arabejo also marked his natal day yesterday. Apparently, he obtained an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) from kumadre Grace yesterday. Whatever that means...There's more when we come back.