Why SC justices not biting Abad’s ‘good faith’ defense?
Budget Secretary Florencio Abad. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO
MANILA, Philippines—Supreme Court Justices are not biting the story of Budget Secretary Florencio “Butch” Abad that he does not know the legal implications of the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP).
The high court declared DAP as unconstitutional. Still, the decision said programs, activities and projects where DAP funds were used can no longer be undone and will remain valid.
However, authors, implementors and proponents of DAP should be held liable unless they can prove that they acted in good faith.
Abad is the author of Budget Circular 541, the so-called “bible for DAP.” The circular has been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
“As a lawyer and with at least 12 years of experience behind him as a congressman who was even the Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, it is inconceivable that he did not know the illegality or unconstitutionality that tainted his brainchild,” Associate Justice Arturo Brion said in his separate opinion.
Article continues after this advertisement“Consider, too, in this regard that all appropriation, revenue and tariff bills emanate from the Lower House so that the Chair of the Appropriations Committee cannot but be very knowledgeable about the budget, its processes and technicalities. In fact, the Secretary likewise knows budgeting from the other end, i.e. from the user end as DBM Secretary…With all these knowledge, it is not hard to believe that he can run circles around the budget and its processes, and did, in fact, purposely use this knowledge for the administration’s objective of gathering the very sizable funds collected under the DAP,” Brion said.
Article continues after this advertisementBrion also took note that fellow Justice Antonio Carpio, the most senior justice in the Supreme Court, “had occasion to cite examples of why Secretary Abad could not have been in good faith.”
Carpio said the Budget Department implemented DAP contrary to high court decisions on savings and the power to realign. Also, while the DBM through Abad told the Supreme Court during the one of the oral arguments that the Bureau of Treasury had certified that revenue collections for fiscal year 2011, 2012 and 2013 exceeded original revenue targets, they failed to present evidence to prove their claim.
Brion said that Abad, when questioned by Associate Justice Lucas Bersamin’s during one of the oral arguments admitted that fund transfers made to the Commission on Audit and the House of Representatives pushed through despite constitutional prohibition.
“In this light, we should take the utmost care in what we declare as it can have far reaching effects. Worse, for this Court, any advocacy or mention of presumption of good faith may be characterized as an undue and underserved deference to the Executive, implying that the rule of law, separation of powers and checks and balances may have been compromised in this country,” Brion said.
RELATED STORIES
