A group of mostly leftwing activists have appealed the Ombudsman’s decision that “attempted to shield” former President Benigno Aquino III from liability over the outlawed Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP).
The activists said the March 3 resolution by Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales had absolved Aquino and indicted only Budget Secretary Florencio Abad for usurpation of legislative powers in the unlawful use of P72 billion in savings of certain government agencies to fund certain DAP projects.
Bayan Muna Party-list Rep. Carlos Isagani Zarate said the Ombudsman ignored Aquino’s own DAP-related directives and that she made logical errors and misapplied Supreme Court rulings in order to clear the former president of technical malversation and graft.
In a statement, Zarate insisted that “the main person who carried out the crime should not have been spared from punishment.”
“Otherwise, there’s no use to this case. It will only further the state of impunity in the budget system of our government,” he said.
In a 17-page motion for reconsideration filed by the National Union of People’s Lawyers on Monday, the activists said Abad could not have been the only official who had usurped Congressional powers.
The Ombudsman’s resolution found that Abad’s National Budget Circular 541 had illegally redefined “savings” under the 2012 General Appropriations Act (GAA). However, the activists noted that the Ombudsman did not hold Aquino responsible for approving the circular.
“Glaring is the lack of mention with respect to Aquino,” they said in their motion.
They said Aquino approved DAP in October 2011 and Abad’s request to withdraw and pool the unutilized funds for the first half of 2012. The budget circular merely confirmed Aquino’s prior actions and Abad could not have issued it without the president’s approval, they said.
“The Decision, in its attempt to shield Aquino, mentioned only NBC 541 apparently as the only document/act which ‘unduly modified, expanded the meaning of savings under the GAA,’” they said.
The activists also rejected the Ombudsman’s finding that Aquino and Abad were not liable for graft because they acted in good faith.
They maintained that the officials knowingly caused undue injury to the government by curtailing the agencies’ spending power through the premature declaration of unused funds as “savings.”
“With due respect, Complainants cannot subscribe to the Decision’s apparent perspective pertaining [to] the duties and responsibilities of our public officials, that is, they are stupid or idiots until proven otherwise,” the motion said.
“The President and his alter egos are thus presumed, like ordinary people, to know the law, and as such ignorance, feigned or otherwise, is not an excuse,” it added.
The complainants said the Ombudsman’s decision to dismiss the technical malversation charge against Aquino and Abad was a logical “flaw.”
The Ombudsman said the two former officials were “policy-makers” who did not directly misapply funds for other purposes. Objecting to the rationale used to clear the two of any liability for technical malversation, the complainants said Aquino and Abad were the “clear masterminds/authors” of the fund diversions.
The complainants also disagreed with the Ombudsman’s pronouncement that the premature declaration of “savings” does not itself consummate the violation of the law.