DAP is constitutional – Palace
Presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO
MANILA, Philippines – There is nothing wrong with having a Disbursement Acceleration Program-like mechanism, Malacañang insisted on Wednesday.
In the first place, “DAP is constitutional,” according to Presidential Spokesperson Edwin Lacierda.
“Let’s lay the groundwork. DAP is constitutional, only certain acts were declared (as) not in keeping with the Constitution,” he said during a Palace press briefing.
Lacierda was reacting to the signature campaign of anti-pork groups, which will culminate in a rally on August 25.
Monet Silvestre, #AbolishPork spokesperson, accused President Benigno Aquino III of attempting to institutionalize the DAP and maintain “congressional pork” or mechanisms similar to the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF).
But Lacierda said there was nothing wrong in making the unconstitutional aspects of the DAP constitutional.
He said the problem only lies in how the executive branch interpreted savings.
“So what’s wrong with redefining our savings to make Congress also agree with it? Nobody has questioned the beneficial effects,” Lacierda explained. “We know already how the Supreme Court defines it, so let’s find a way to make it constitutional, and that’s what we’re doing.”
Lump sum inevitable
The spokesperson also pointed out that doing away with lump sum funds was “impossible.
“For instance, you cannot define with exactitude the amount that you’re going to identify to a particular storm or particular natural calamity. These things are force majeure (superior force) and we (can) only provide a fund for that,” he said.
“If you’re asking people to just say ‘put a budget, strict budget, for that—for this and that—for a particular natural calamity,’ that is an impossibility,” he said of the contingent funds.
Lacierda said even those critical of the lump sum funds know that funds allotted for calamities cannot be broken down into specific amounts.
RELATED STORIES
Gov’t can’t do away with lump sums—Palace
SC declares parts of DAP unconstitutional
