How does the DAP work and what is wrong with it? July 14, 2014 at 3:15pm The Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court (SC) last July 1, 2014. Today, 13 days after the decision was released, the Palace will finally break its silence on the matter and will let the President himself speak. Before they effectively eradicate all criticism and rationality toward the issue with a hi-hello-ako-po-nga-pala-ang-Presidente-niyo broadcast, I would like to do my part and put out a briefer on the situation—a statement, if you may—the way I believe, the DAP must be understood. 1. Quoting a Senator, the DAP is a work of “evil genius.” Here is how it works. Before we begin, we must explain how the DAP works in simpler terms so that we can place things in the right context. (The Aquino administration is lucky because people don’t like reading legalese/won’t take time to understand legal documents.) For this part of the piece, I will not state anything that will veer too far from the SC’s decision on the DAP (which you will see if you click here: newsinfo.inquirer.net/615833/sc-declares-dap-unconstitutional-source). I will just state what exactly made the DAP unconstitutional according to the SC in simpler words and will later explain why these are bad. The SC struck three parts of the DAP as unconstitutional. By unconstitutional, it means that the highest authority of the land in interpreting laws says it is wrong because: A) The fact that the executive branch can funnel funds (which Abad insists are “savings”) to itself and, afterwards, has all the power to distribute it to whoever they deem worthy. B) The fact that they can distribute these funds outside the executive branch. C) The fact that these funds are not covered in the General Appropriations Act. So, what does these mean? Let’s explain step-by-step. Item “A” states that it is unconstitutional for the executive branch (under the guidance of the President and the Budget Secretary) to accumulate savings and give these savings to other branches of government. Why is this wrong? For normal people like us, saving up should be a perfectly logical thing to do (if not encouraged). If you avoid spending your gas money by not using the car often, you can spend that money on something more useful—on a bike, or your children’s tuition, on insurances, whatever. It makes perfect sense for individuals BUT this can’t work when you’re thinking about the government. Why? Because, as stated by the SC decision, it ultimately ruins the balance between the three branches of government. How? If, for example, the Department of Health asks for 100 billion pesos for its budget for 2013, but only spends 50 billion—or half—then the President can opt to spend the other 50 billion pesos elsewhere. In essence, the savings from the DAP is just like the kickback our Congressmen and Senators get from their pork barrel. But there are two things that make the DAP more “evil” than the Pork Barrel (a.k.a. PDAF): 1) As stated in item “C” of the SC’s decision, there is no need to liquidate exactly where these savings are going; and 2) the DAP is not really “savings” because it works hand-in-hand with another Abad wonder—the Zero-Based Budgeting System. How does the Zero-Based Budgeting System work? In much simpler terms, the Zero-Based Budgeting System works this way: The Department of Budget Management (DBM) makes assessments on how your department worked the year before. If they see that you are profitable (their number one criteria), then they’ll give you more funding. Unlike previous budgeting plans, Abad’s zero-based budgeting assumes that all departments are to get no budgets unless they show that they are productive. (Side comment: So, even if you’re a school like UP, you better profit or else the DBM won’t fund you—because, yeah, schools are legit businesses now.) So, what’s wrong with this? Let’s go back to the DAP. The fact that the DBM is given the final say in who gets major funding and who goes broke in the coming year is exactly what’s wrong with it. Abad has all the right to say that the Department of National Defense (DND), for example, will get 250 billion next year, fully knowing that the DND will only need 100 billion. This makes a “savings” of 150 billion. This 150 billion will go to the DAP. Where will this 150 billion go? Because the DAP’s provisions say that it need not be liquidated, then we’ll never know. This is not a conspiracy theory. This is exactly how it works and they’ve been at it since 2010. That’s why it was declared unconstitutional. What about item “B”? What makes it so bad if the executive branch can give the money to other branches of government? I shall answer this in the next part. 2. The issue is not about where the money went but why was the DAP created. Some people argue that it’s okay that the President spent the DAP. Some argue that the President and Butch Abad are of impeccable moral character and can, therefore, spend these “savings” whichever way they desire. Senator Bambam Aquino uses this argument to divert the issue away from the “why’s” and into the “how much was wasted,” as if one peso was different from 50 million pesos when used for the same evil. Senator Escudero, to wash his hands clean of accepting the 50-million peso “stimulus package”, also argues that it’s a question of where the funds went, not what the funds stood for. Let me use this analogy for that claim: You asked your child to buy you a drink from the sari-sari store. You gave him 100 pesos, so you have a change of around 80 pesos. You love your child and you knew that he deserved the 80 pesos, and yes, he’d probably spend it on something useful. So, yeah, never mind that he never returned the change. Anyway, it’s okay for him to use it and spend it on whatever he likes. Is this analogy right? If that’s the way you see the DAP, then that’s an odd and small-minded way to look at this issue because the DAP entails something greater than that. The thing about the DAP is that it can be used across branches of government. This is where item “B” comes in. The government’s three branches must work in a balanced manner—that is why there are checks and balances working within the three. Ideally, no branch of government should encroach on the other’s responsibilities and freedoms. If the legislative branch suddenly decides that it should, instead, implement law and order then they take away the job of the executive. If the judiciary branch suddenly decides that it should write new laws, then that takes the job away from Congress. If the executive branch decides that it should take control of the two other branches, then that’s a dictatorship. You see, these three branches must work together in a conscientious and balanced way. One of Congress special roles is to appropriate the budget yearly. Being our elected representatives in handling our taxes, they discuss how much money goes to where through the General Appropriations Act (GAA), one of the important bills it passes every start of the session. (Note: The executive branch can only make augmentations on the GAA, not create new deeds altogether, because the President is not the peoples representative in the same way that congressmen are.) How is this related to the DAP? If the DAP can freely be given out to other branches of government, then the executive can exercise influence on Congressmen, Senators, Judges, and Senator-Judges in a legitimate and hassle-free method. The President no longer needs to declare Martial Law to make itself omnipotent. How does the DAP allow him to be omnipotent? The President can use the DAP—a perfectly legal function until June 30, 2014—to give out “money for projects/judiciary function” to people they need to exercise their influence upon. Best part is that, under the DAP, these “projects” need not be liquidated. The DAP tilts the balance by giving the executive branch the power of the purse which is traditionally held by Congress during the short period of budget hearing that happens only once a year. The DAP renders the other branches of government inutile by making the government’s money (from taxpayers’ wallets) largely in the executive branch’s control. The 50 million pesos the Senators got after voting for Corona’s impeachment is not imaginary. Aside from being confirmed by Senator Jinggoy Estrada, a letter for Senator Cayetano was posted online. (See it here: tribune.net.ph/headlines/pia-tries-to-dodge-dap-links-but-fails) True, these cannot be qualified immediately as bribes. But it also can’t be qualified as not-bribes because nobody will ever know for sure where the money went and why the money was given. That’s the deceiving nature of the DAP. That’s the “evil genius” Joker Arroyo was saying behind the DAP. 3. Noynoy is not an angel and it was not done in “good faith.” It is true that the DAP, like the PDAF or the Pork Barrel, has been around since time immemorial. But just because PGMA, Erap, and the rest used it, that doesn’t mean Noynoy is absolved from using it. Noynoy gave PGMA’s and Erap’s once-in-a-blue-moon “prerogatives” a name and institutionalized it for his everyday use. Noynoy cannot feign innocence because he himself petitioned against it when he was a still a Senator. (Surprise! Noynoy did something useful as a Senator!) You can view that bill here: senate.gov.ph/lisdata/105799392!.pdf 4. The DAP was not a stimulus fund and it had no effect in our economy. The DAP has no effect whatsoever with the GDP; there is no detectable correlation between the two. It is not a “stimulus package” in the same way that the US government gave stimulus packages for companies during the recession; it is not a bailout measure. It is too small to make an impact on the economy but too big to be in the hands of a few individuals. More importantly, it did not come out from loans from abroad, nor did it come from any peso-stretching measure. It was simply a transfer of money from some people’s bank accounts to other people’s bank accounts in order to court influence. Tell me, please, how did our economy benefit from the 50 million pesos our Senators received? To be fair, the DAP may or may not have been given for projects that needed urgent fundings. But theres something odd with using the DAP when the President has more than 200 billion pesos in his Special Projects Fund (a much bigger amount than what they claim to have spent during the DAPs existence). But why use the DAP instead of the 200 billion pesos allocated in the Special Projects Fund? Only one logical reason arises: Because unlike the DAP, these funds need to be included in the GAA and afterwards, liquidated. 5. It is never a waste of time to fight for accountability. Heads must roll with the DAP. Huge crimes were made against our Constitution and we can’t just let it pass. While, personally, I know that the impeachment complaint won’t get far with Congress being occupied by Aquino’s allies, there’s no harm in standing up for the right. However, there is harm in just letting things pass when you know you were wronged. Fr. Bernas, the “constitutionalist,” said that it’s a “waste of time.” We see his point, yes. But I can’t help but feel pity for the guy—he obviously sees that the Constitution he has worked so hard to make and to teach only falls flat on the feet of politics. Lean Alejandro once said, “The struggle for freedom is the next best thing to actually being free.” I know I won’t stand for this. I hope you don’t, too. --- Please feel free to share this note. You can copy-paste it on your blog (in fact, I encourage you to) or even improve on it if you want by turning it into an infographic or something. My goal was simply to make a clear analysis of the DAP. Thank you for taking the time to read!
Posted on: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 02:32:06 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015