Gov’t lawyers appeal SC ruling on DAP
INQUIRER.net FILE PHOTO
MANILA, Philippines–Malacañang on Friday asked the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision declaring the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) as unconstitutional.
In a 52-page motion for reconsideration, government lawyers led by Solicitor General Francis Jardeleza asked the high court to declare that:
1. Withdrawn obligated allotments and unreleased appropriations under the DAP are savings;
2. Cross-border fund transfers under the DAP are constitutional;
3. The President augmented items with appropriation cover under the DAP;
Article continues after this advertisement4. The use of Unprogrammed Fund under the DAP complied with the conditions provided in the relevant General Appropriations Acts (GAAs);
Article continues after this advertisement5. Regardless of the nullification of certain acts and practices under the DAP and/or National Budget Circular No. 541, the operative fact doctrine does not operate to impute bad faith to authors, proponents and implementers who continue to enjoy the presumption of innocence and regularity in the performance of official functions and duties.
The government lawyers, who were also assisted by retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Vicente Mendoza, said the use of savings and unused funds that were pooled under the disbursement mechanism was legal and within President Benigno Aquino III’s authority to augment funds and is within the bounds of the 1987 Constitution.
They said the mechanisms used to incur savings under the DAP had existed in one form or another throughout all administrations under the 1987 Constitution and in the absence of any prohibition, “it is the essence of sound management to stop the flow of scarce resources from projects that are failing and not moving, and to reallocate them into projects that have higher chances of success.”
“No malice could be attributed to these mechanisms, which represent the Executive’s contemporaneous interpretation of the budget which it helped prepare with Congress. This interpretation was validated repeatedly, year after year, through budget deliberations before Congress,” it added.
The Executive also protested the insinuations that there was bad faith in the formulation of the DAP.
“With all due respect, the Honorable Court’s decision redefines existing administrative interpretation of the law, deemed adopted in subsequent enactments of the GAA (General Appropriations Act),” the motion stated.
The Executive added that if they are bent on accumulating savings so that the President can have funds for augmentation, they should not have passed the GAA and resorted to a reenacted budget like what the Arroyo administration had done.
The timely passage of the budget, the government lawyers said, was proof that what President Aquino and Budget Secretary Florencio “Butch” Abad wanted was disciplined spending.
“This is not only a mark of good faith; it is, more important, also an unmistakable sign of full and diligent compliance with the Constitution. A judgment constrained by this important context will find it difficult to assign malice to the current practice of passing budgets on time that has in fact substantially reduced the flexibility of the President and his economic managers,” the motion stated.
Also, contrary to what anti-DAP petitioners claim, the government lawyers said DAP applications had appropriations cover.
The Executive added that the President had the authority to transfer savings to other branches of government as part of his mandate stated under the Constitution.
“In such case, the President merely gives the other department access to public funds but he cannot dictate how they shall be applied by that department whose fiscal autonomy is guaranteed by the Constitution,” the motion stated further
The high court had declared DAP as unconstitutional early this month.
The high court also said that proponents, authors, implementers of DAP can be held liable unless they can prove that they acted on good faith.
RELATED STORIES
Aquino warns SC of clash
