Finally, from our media ranks, a summary of what netizens have been discovering on their own about DAP - and then some. All the better that the writer, Philip Lustre Jr., is an independent journalist. Remember the accusations that have flown thick and fast since the Supreme Court decision? Now ask yourself what they were saying about their sources. MYTHS ON DAP 1. DAP IS STOLEN MONEY. Partly true; mostly wrong. Joy Aceron, a netizen, described the Disbursement Acceleration Program in the following words: “DAP is NOT a case of persons/individuals using the machinery of the state to benefit themselves. It is a case of a branch of government, an institution, trying to do its job better. The actions taken were official and therefore considered as acts of the State. It aimed to incentivize good performance and disincentivize under-performance to promote efficiency. It was meant to develop meritocracy to thwart padrino system.” A big part of DAP went to state projects, which require a jump start because the people need them. Its inconceivable how DAP would be stolen when the funds underwent the usual audit practice. What could have been probably stolen were DAP funds that went to the senators. Jinggoy Estrada, Bong Revilla, Bongbong Marcos, Tito Sotto, and Juan Ponce Enrile were said to have used the same implementing agency, the National Livelihood Development Program (NLDC) whose president Gondelina Amata, has close ties with Janet Napoles. Moreover, their DAP funds were said to have gone to the fake NGOs, which Napoles controlled. It is about time for the Commission on Audit to make public its special audit report on how the senators had used their DAP funds on their purported projects. Some senators, particularly Franklin Drilon and Antonio Trillanes III, are quite keen on the issue of transparency, i.e. how they had used their DAP. The two senators have made a public disclosure on the details of their DAP, particularly the projects it had financed and other relevant details. Anybody who has a beef against them can challenge their public reports on the use of their DAP. 2. DAP WAS CONCEIVED AND PURSUED IN SECRECY. This is a big LIE. The website of the Department of Budget and Management has been carrying the DBM administrative order for the DAP since the day it was first announced in 2011. The Official Gazette website contains it. The mass media reported it. Philippine Daily Inquirers Solita Monsod discussed in one of her recent columns the transparency the DBm has exercised in its management of DAP. Netizen Joy Aceron said: “It was not undertaken in secrecy. It was undertaken alongside transparency and participatory efforts in government. It was an undertaking aim to focus efforts and spending of government around priority programs and projects critical to achieving certain economic and development targets, which also went through consultation processes. Such is institution-building too! The establishment of a rational, efficient and responsive bureaucracy.” DAP became the talk of the town after Jinggoy Estrada delivered a privilege speech about it in September last year. But Jinggoy was not exactly moved by his sense of patriotism. He delivered the privilege speech to save his own skin after his name came out as one of the major beneficiaries of PDAF funds. His privilege speech on DAP was part of his strategy to get even with the Aquino administration, which has filed plunder charges against him before the Office of the Ombudsman. It is also part of his strategy to spread the blanket of blame to make it appear that the Aquino administration, which is running after him, is equally dirty and guilty of corruption as he is made to appear before the public. 3. DAP IS BRIBE MONEY FOR SENATORS TO REMOVE RENATO CORONA AS SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE. This is something inconclusive and debatable but emerging public data show this is wrong and unsustainable. Official records showed certain senators received their DAP funds in late 2011 even before the Senate had convened as an impeachment court. Other senators received theirs at the height of the Corona impeachment trial in 2012. Others had theirs after the impeachment trial, i.e. when the Senate decided to remove Corona as chief justice of the Supreme Court. Bongbong Marcos was among the senators, who received the largest at P100 million, but he voted AGAINST Corona’s removal. Besides, some senators received it AFTER the Senate voted to remove Corona. As a rule, bribery happens before the actual fact, not after. So how could it be considered bribery? 4. DAP IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Partly correct. This is because the Supreme Court did not declare the whole of DAP as unconstitutional, only certain parts of it. But certain parties, particularly those identified with Jinggoy like Liling Briones and Ben Diokno, two retired academics, have been trying to twist DAP to portray the administration as guilty of a crime. They have ascribed ill motives. Netizen Joy Aceron said: “There are legal and ethical questions on the means of the DAP. We are exacting accountability on that. But let us be fair on the target of our attack. We are criticizing without first understanding more carefully what we criticize. We raise criticisms based on our own description of what we are criticizing. Worse, some resort to ad hominem and name-calling -- with seemingly no intention to deepen the discourse and see how our country can be better from this, but seemingly only with the goal of aggravating the situation to drag this country to a quagmire of confusion, cynicism and disappointment. When are we going to mature politically?” 5. BECAUSE OF DAP UNCONSTITUTIONALITY, PRESIDENT AQUINO CAN BE IMPEACHED. Wrong. The 1987 Constitution says that one of the grounds for the President’s impeachment is “culpable violations of the Constitution.” Even Fr. Joaquin Bernas, a constitutional law expert, said the incumbent President cannot be impeached on ground of “ignorance of the law”, but only on “culpable violations of the Constitution.” Political pundits have admitted the extreme difficulty of impeaching the President because of the lack of solid basis to pursue it. So far only Oliver Lozano and a pair of mentally deranged lawyers have filed impeachment raps against the President, indicating the public perception of its difficulty. 6. BECAUSE THEY COULD NOT FILE IMPEACHMENT RAPS AGAINST THE PRESIDENT, DBM SECRETARY BUTCH ABAD IS THE PRIMARY TARGET. Correct. This is happening. They are forcing Abad to resign. He did resign but the President did not accept it. Why should he let Abad resign? Abad is effectively protecting one of the President’s flanks. Abad, as a Cabinet member, has to protect the President. That is part of Abad’s job description. Only fools do not understand this basic fact. Abad is facing plunder raps, which a leftwing organization has filed. But a noted lawyer noticed that the charge sheet did not include how Abad used DAP for private gain. Most likely, the plunder charge would be dismissed because the anti-plunder law says private gain is an essential element of plunder. 7. DAP DID NOT BENEFIT THE PEOPLE. The President will speak on DAP tomorrow at 6 pm over major TV channels. Let’s hear what he will say on this issue. Secretary Abad will appear before the Senate public hearing on July 21 to explain details of DAP. The President will give his fourth State of the Nation Address on July 28 and he will likely dwell on DAP again, particularly the remedial legislations to address it. It pays to listen to the other side, not to toxic people blinded by their rage, ignorance, and incapability to understand the intricacies of the issues.
Posted on: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 11:38:56 +0000