SC ruling doesn’t invalidate all DAP projects
MANILA, Philippines–The Supreme Court on Tuesday clarified that it did not invalidate en masse the 116 projects funded by the government’s Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP).
“The court asserted that its decision did not declare the en masse invalidation of the 116 DAP-funded projects as the court itself recognized the encouraging effects of the DAP on the country’s economy and acknowledged its laudable purposes, most especially those directed toward infrastructure development and efficient delivery of basic social services,” Theodore Te, the high court spokesperson, said.
In its recent ruling, the high court modified its decision last year as it removed from the list of unconstitutional acts under DAP the “funding of projects, activities and programs that were not covered by any appropriation in the General Appropriations Act.”
The high court clarified that even with the modified interpretation of the DAP it “does not take away the caveat that only DAP projects found in the appropriate GAAs may be the subject of augmentation by legally accumulated savings.”
The high court said whether the 116 DAP funded projects “had appropriation cover and were validly augmented require factual determination which is not within the scope of the present consolidated petitions.”
In its recent ruling, the high court said the following acts are unconstitutional:
- The withdrawal of unobligated allotments from the implementing agencies, and the declaration of the withdrawn unobligated allotments and unreleased appropriations as savings prior to the end of the fiscal year and without complying with the statutory definition of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 Act.
- The cross-border transfers of the savings of the Executive to augment the appropriations of other offices outside the Executive.
- 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.
RELATED STORIES
SC modifies ruling against DAP, partly grants gov’t MR
