DAP IS GOOD DAP..the Palace money pool as the private purse of Noynoy and his Liberal Party (LP) cohorts. It seems the DAP was created as a slush fund for the LP and allies to augment what is being apportioned out under the PDAF. The PDAF is included in the budget while the DAP which has been morphed into a program is not a budget item but both are under the discretion of Noynoy. That brings up the question about the illicit affair between Congress and the Palace through the use of the PDAF and the DAP. A review of both decisions of the SC on the PDAF and DAP provides a discernment that both schemes are complementary in that both are a toleration of the usurpation of powers between the Executive and the Legislative. The SC ruled both the PDAF or whatever legislative pork barrel system and certain “acts” in creating the DAP as violating the principle of separation of powers, with Congress intruding into the power of appropriation of the Executive under the PDAF scheme while in the DAP ruling the Palace was found encroaching on Congress’ power of the purse. The SC decisions on PDAF and the DAP taken together thus put back the delineation of powers between the Executive and the Legislative within the bounds of the Constitution. It is for those reasons that the Palace and Congress are now raising hell against the SC for striking down both the PDAF and the DAP since both schemes are avenues for discretion over public funds, through lump sums, which are then cloaked in public service. It is a well accepted fact that discretion in government in whatever form breeds corrupt practices and it has been the call of the public to remove all forms of discretionary funds in government, whether found in the budget or not. The SC ruled that the PDAF scheme “allowed legislators to wield, in varying gradations, non-oversight, post-enactment authority in vital areas of budget execution.” On the DAP, the SC indicated that while the Executive has the power to implement measures to stimulate the economy, as what the Palace is claiming through the program, the particular acts of Abad creating the DAP violated the doctrine of separation of powers as a result of the creation of supposed savings prior to the end of the fiscal year and without complying with the statutory definition of savings contained in the budget law; the act of cross-border transfer of savings among agencies; the funding of projects, activities and programs not covered under the budget law; and the use of unprogrammed funds without hitting the required excess in revenue targets. The SC required accountability from public officers on the unconstitutional DAP and PDAF in both its rulings. In both cases, Noynoy had vigorously protested the SC decisions, defending the PDAF saying that “Filipinos need the PDAF” while stating in a recent nationwide address that “DAP is good.” The result is that both the House and the Palace are now besieging the SC with apparently orchestrated efforts to look into varied funds under its control. There was once a Cabinet official under Gloria Arroyo who asked his colleagues to moderate their greed. The ruling power seems impervious to such an appeal. Tribune Editorial Tuesday, 22 July 2014
Posted on: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 14:03:40 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015