DBM: Ombudsman probe over DAP ‘not a matter of stealing’
The Department of Budget and Management (DBM) on Wednesday welcomed the Office of the Ombudsman’s order to investigate Budget Secretary Florencio “Butch” Abad for technical malversation over the controversial Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), but emphasized that the probe was not a matter of stealing.
Vowing cooperation in the inquiry, the DBM said it was hoping that the Ombudsman would exercise “soundest judgment” in the investigation as the department looked forward to a “swift and fair conclusion.”
“The preliminary investigation on DAP is a welcome move from the Office of the Ombudsman. Not only will the inquiry enable the parties to present their views on all remaining issues involving DAP, we likewise trust that the Ombudsman will conduct the investigation with the soundest judgment,” DBM said in a statement.
“At the same time, we wish to clarify certain terms relevant to the investigation, particularly those that may invite specific public attention. First, technical malversation does not suggest that the individuals in question committed acts of graft or corruption. Nor does the investigation imply that these individuals used public funds for their personal gain or benefit. Certainly, the inquiry is not a matter of whether individuals had stolen from public coffers,” it added.
Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales on Wednesday ordered the investigation of Abad, who was said to be the brains behind DAP. Parts of the savings-impounding mechanism said to be the pork barrel of President Benigno Aquino III were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
READ: Ombudsman to probe Abad over DAP
The order for an investigation came after Morales approved the fact-finding probe of the Ombudsman field investigation office which found Abad and Budget Undersecretary Mario Relampagos liable over DAP. Relampagos, who is currently facing graft chargers over the pork barrel scam, is also ordered investigated.
The DBM maintained that the declaration of public funds as savings and their use to “augment deficient items of appropriations” were authorized by law, particularly under the General Appropriations Act.
“The inquiry involves the application of excess or unutilized public funds to existing priority government projects and programs that require additional funding. The investigation seeks to determine whether these uses of public funds constitute technical malversation, where public funds are used for a public purpose that differed—in a very technical sense—from the original plan,” the statement read.
The budget department stressed that the high court ‘s final decision on DAP did not declare the program itself unconstitutional.
“Furthermore, the final Supreme Court ruling stresses that the doctrine of operative fact holds sway over the implementation of DAP. In other words, the program’s authors, sponsors, and implementers must be presumed to have acted in good faith and with regularity in the performance of their official duties. It is also worth noting that DAP is not a novel program. Its implementation only followed precedents set by previous presidents and their respective budget secretaries,” it added.
READ: SC affirms ruling vs DAP
The DBM also underscored DAP’s supposed contribution to economic growth, particularly in accelerating public spending.
“Finally, the positive impact of DAP on the Philippine economy—in line with the program’s purpose—must not be overlooked. The Supreme Court itself observed that DAP was instrumental in accelerating public spending, and in such a manner that allowed the country to achieve significant economic progress,” the statement read.
DAP first became controversial in September 2013 when Sen. Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada revealed in a privilege speech that senator judges were bribed P50 million in DAP to convict then Chief Justice Renato Corona. Yuji Vincent Gonzales/RC
