Anti-DAP petitioners told to comment on gov’t’s MOR
Supreme Court spokesperson Theodore Te
MANILA, Philippines – The Supreme Court ordered anti-Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) petitioners to respond to the government’s appeal on the high court’s ruling partly thumbing down the economic stimulus program.
High Court’s Information Chief Theodore Te said the anti-DAP petitioners were given 10 days to answer the government’s motion for reconsideration.
Required to comment on the government’s petition are former Iloilo Rep. Augusto Syjuco, lawyers Jose Malvar Villegas Jr. and Manuelito Luna; Philippine Constitution Association (Philconsa); Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP); the militant Bayan Muna, Kabataan and Gabriela party-list groups; Christian sects led by losing senatorial candidate Greco Belgica; Confederation for Unity, Recognition and Advancement of Government Employees (Courage); and the Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption.
Last week, the government, in its appeal said that DAP, a program designed to accelerate public spending, did not violate the Constitution.
“The President and his alter egos, in implementing a decidedly successful program, deserve to be afforded the traditional constitutional presumptions that apply to most other forms of public actions, especially the presumption of good faith,” read the appeal filed by Solicitor General Francis Jardeleza.
Article continues after this advertisementThe government, in its appeal, urged the high court to consider institutional competence and value of bureaucratic practices in understanding the constitutional role of the executive in managing the economy, the authority of Congress to define savings, the shared role of the political departments in preparing the budget and the limited role of the Supreme Court on the matter.
Article continues after this advertisementThe government further argued that the use of savings and unused funds that were pooled under the disbursement mechanism is 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.
RELATED STORIES
Gov’t lawyers appeal SC ruling on DAP
Churches mount black-and-white ribbon protest vsDAP
