Budget Secretary Florencio Abad (left) and his deputy, Undersecretary Mario Relampagos. INQUIRER FILE PHOTOS
The Office of the Ombudsman has cleared the way for the investigation of Budget Secretary Florencio Abad and his deputy, Undersecretary Mario Relampagos, in connection with the alleged irregular release of P393.7 million in Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) funds from 2011 to 2012.
In a statement issued on Wednesday, the Ombudsman said Abad and Relampagos, who is already facing a string of graft, malversation and bribery cases in the Sandiganbayan in connection with the P10-billion pork barrel scam, would undergo a preliminary investigation for technical malversation and administrative charges.
Technical malversation “is committed by a public officer who disburses public funds or property for a purpose different from which they were originally appropriated by law or ordinance,” the Ombudsman said, citing Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code.
Abad denied wrongdoing, adding he welcomed the investigation.
“Technical malversation does not suggest that the individuals in question committed acts of graft and corruption,” he said in a statement.
‘Good faith’
Abad said he and Relampagos “acted in good faith and with regularity in the performance of their official duties” and their action helped accelerate public spending and boosted the economy.
The Ombudsman refused to provide a copy of the resolution of its Field Investigation Office (FIO) to the media.
Instead, the Ombudsman issued a press release about its approval of the FIO’s recommendation to place Abad and Relampagos under investigation.
The statement did not say if President Aquino had been cleared of complicity in the implementation of the DAP, an economic stimulus program that the Supreme Court had declared unconstitutional.
‘Technically absolved’
But a senior official in the Office of the Ombudsman said the President had been “technically absolved” from charges relating to the contentious cross-border transfer of some P31.9 billion in unobligated appropriations without congressional approval from 2011 to 2012.
“The FIO investigators believed that the President should not be held liable for the DAP disbursements,” said the source, who asked not to be named for lack of authority to talk to the media.
The Ombudsman said a special panel of government lawyers had been formed to investigate Abad and Relampagos.
It also asked the Commission on Audit (COA) to conduct a special audit of all DAP-financed projects that the executive department had approved.
“The special panel of field investigators disclosed that Secretary Abad and Relampagos authorized the DAP sourced from pooled savings as ‘a plan to boost disbursements’ and ‘to jumpstart the implementation’ of the government’s expenditure program,” the Ombudsman said.
“As authorized, the DAP projects were identified based on their ‘multiplier impact on the economy and infrastructure benefit, beneficial effect on the poor and translation into disbursements,’” it added.
Irregularities found
According to the antigraft body, documents gathered by the FIO “noted irregularities” in the release of P250 million in DAP funds to the House of Representatives and P143.7 million to the COA.
The House used the funds for the “construction of its legislative library and archive building/congressional e-library,” the Ombudsman said.
But the FIO said the project was not “among those approved by the President.”
The COA used its DAP allocation to bankroll the improvement in its “IT (information technology) infrastructure program and hiring of additional litigation experts,” as shown in the special allotment release orders (Saros).
“Abad prepared and signed all memoranda and issuances concerning [the] DAP implementation while Relampagos signed the corresponding Saros to [the] COA and [the House],” the Ombudsman said.
Remaining issues
Abad said the investigation would “enable the parties to present their views on all remaining issues involving [the] DAP.”
“[W]e likewise trust that the Ombudsman will conduct the investigation with the soundest judgment,” he said.
Abad said the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) would cooperate with the Ombudsman in the investigation.
“We look forward as well to the inquiry’s swift and fair conclusion,” he said.
Abad said the investigation involved the application of excess or unused public funds to existing priority government projects and programs that required 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,” he said.
Abad insisted that the declaration of the public funds that were used through the DAP, “to augment deficient items of appropriations, were authorized under the General Appropriations Act and other laws.”
Not unconstitutional
He also reiterated that the Supreme Court did not declare the DAP unconstitutional.
“[T]he final Supreme Court ruling stresses that the doctrine of operative fact holds sway over the implementation of [the] 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,” Abad said.
“It is also worth noting that [the] DAP is not a novel program. Its implementation only followed precedents set by previous Presidents and their respective budget secretaries,” he added.
Abad defended the DAP, saying its “positive impact” on the economy must not be overlooked.
“The Supreme Court itself observed that [the] DAP was instrumental in accelerating public spending, and in such a manner that allowed the country to achieve significant economic progress,” he said.
Communication Secretary Herminio Coloma Jr. said the Ombudsman investigation would provide “an opportunity to clarify the legal issues in the implementation of [the] DAP.”
Coloma said the Supreme Court, on the government’s appeal, “upheld the principle of operative fact.”
“We affirm our position that the government acted in the public interest,” he said.
Not linked to pork scam
Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. said the DAP should not be associated with the pork barrel controversy.
Belmonte said the pork barrel scam was about public money going into private pockets instead of to government projects.
“[The] DAP is a different thing from the [Priority Development Assistance Fund] issue, [which] involved [public funds ending] up in private hands. You give them to (Janet) Napoles, who doesn’t do the job or does only part of it and yet money is expended. In the case of [the] DAP, there is no such implication,” Belmonte said.
He said Abad’s goal in introducing the DAP was to “use money appropriated for a certain purpose [that] in his mind or in his judgment was no longer as important as before or had been accomplished or to the point these [were] now savings and realigning them to other public use, which [did] not end up in anybody’s pocket.”
Belmonte said the DAP spending had resulted in infrastructure and other projects.
Abad, he said, only wanted to use idle funds for the public good.
“As far as [the] DAP is concerned,it is really more of the infringement on the powers of Congress and in fact the Supreme Court said this. If Congress was part of the decision-making, there was nothing wrong with it,” Belmonte said.
He said Abad might have decided to do it on his own, but he did it in “good faith.”—With reports from Jerry E. Esplanada and wires
RELATED STORIES
Ombudsman to probe Abad over DAP
Palace welcomes probe of Abad over DAP