PALACE DRAFT BILL SEEKS TO NULLIFY SC’S DAP RULING by Paul Atienza 14 August 2014 00:00 PROVISION SEEKS RETROACTIVE, CURATIVE APPLICATION The Palace-backed bill to redefine savings was specifically meant to skirt the Supreme Court decision declaring Executive acts in creating the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) as unconstitutional through a section that specified the retroactive and curative application of the law. A copy of the proposed measure submitted by Budget Secretary Florencio Abad to Speaker Feliciano Belmonte to be called “An act clarifying the definition of savings and related concepts and the use and release of the unprogrammed fund in the appropriations laws and validating the implementation thereof by the Executive branch” sought to include a provision that would in effect nullify the SC ruling. The provision on Section 7 for retroactive and curative application stated the provision “clarifying the definition of savings, rules on augmentation and related concepts, as well as the utilization and release of the unprogrammed fund, are the same definitions and rules that Congress intended in the previous appropriations laws.” “To dispel any doubt as to this legislative intent, the provisions in this Act shall be retroactive and curative in nature,” it added. “Accordingly, all previous acts relating to the definition of savings, the rules of augmentation and other related concepts, as well as the use and release of the Unprogrammed Fund made, applied, consummated, executed, undertaken, and implemented prior to the passage of this Act are hereby confirmed, ratified and validated,” the provision stated. United Nationalist Alliance (UNA) secretary general Toby Tiangco said the letter of Abad to Belmonte proved efforts of the Palace to manipulate the House of Representatives into adopting the Executive department’s own definition of the term “savings”. Citing the letter, dated Aug. 1, 2014, Tiangco said Abad wants Congress to adopt and prioritize a proposed bill that effectively redefines the practice of impounding savings which the Supreme Court ruled as illegal and unconstitutional. “The fact that Abad requested the Speaker to accommodate the redefinition of ‘savings’ is a clear admission of his criminal liability, and now he wants to use Congress to absolve him,” Tiangco pointed out. Abad sent Belmonte a draft bill which the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) crafted requesting that it be considered a priority bill. “It was so brazen, that effort to use Congress to try to circumvent the SC ruling and to save himself (Abad) from criminal liability,” he added. The draft bill if passed into law, seeks to “cure” the DAP decision and effectively make the SC ruling on “savings” moot, according to Tiangco. Tiangco wanted to know if Abad’s move had been cleared and approved by the President. “If Abad did not clear this with the President, then PNoy should fire him now. This also explains the fear of the Abad-Mar Roxas faction in the Liberal Party (LP) in losing hold of power since many of their hideous secrets will be revealed,” he said. Presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda continued to parrot the Palace line that the DAP remained constitutional despite the SC decision. Lacierda disputed the allegations that the Aquino administration is institutionalizing the DAP as manifested in the clandestine meetings between heads of the executive and lawmakers to maintain congressional pork through informal arrangements. “DAP is constitutional. Let’s lay the groundwork,” Lacierda said. Lacierda insisted that in the SC decision, only a portion was declared unconstitutional, while some of the DAP schemes were justified. The decision, nevertheless, declared unconstitutional all the acts that pooled the funds under the DAP, which in effect made the whole program illegal. “DAP is constitutional, only certain acts were declared (as) not in keeping with the Constitution. What are they? The definition—the way the executive branch interpreted savings. On the other hand, you also have the Supreme Court saying without doubt, without reservation that, DAP produced beneficial effects for the country,” Lacierda said. In justifying the DAP, Lacierda said other national projects had been moved faster when President Aquino had decided to juggle the gargantuan funds without consent from Congress. “We are able to move slow-moving projects to fast-moving projects. So what’s wrong with redefining our savings to make Congress also agree with it?,” Lacierda said. Lacierda said even the 13 magistrates in the SC who voted to strike down the DAP system were convinced about the positive effects of the scheme. The claim of Lacierda was not entirely accurate since the SC ceded that benefits from the DAP cannot be reversed at the risk of hurting public welfare, citing the doctrine of operative fact. “Nobody has questioned the beneficial effects, and importantly, by a third party like the Supreme Court,” Lacierda said. Lacierda, however, did not say that they have still to await the resolution of the SC on their motion for reconsideration, and the issue of proving “good faith” in implementing the DAP. “We know already how the Supreme Court defines it, so let’s find a way to make it constitutional, and that’s what we’re doing,” Lacierda said. On Aug. 25, various groups who were pressuring Aquino for the abolition of the pork barrel system would march to the Luneta Park on Aug. 25 to gather 5 million signatures. The #abolishpork Movement had earned the support of at least 73 Catholic bishops. Other groups joining the August 25 protest include the Scrap Pork Network, Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption, Concerned Citizens Movement, Babae Laban sa Katiwalian, Youth ACT Now, Whistleblowers Association, Bagong Alyansang Makabayan, Artista Kontra Korapsyon, and various sectoral groups, unions and associations. Lacierda defended that discretionary funds cannot be abolished from the budget of Aquino which would normally be intended for the disaster program. “There are certain funds there, which, Abad has already explained this for practical purposes. For instance, you cannot define with exactitude the amount that you’re going to identify to a particular storm or particular natural calamity. These things are force majeure and we only provide a fund for that,” Lacierda said. Lacierda said it would be hard for the Aquino administration to be so rigorous in the discretionary funds. “If you’re asking people to just say ‘put a strict budget for this and that, for a particular natural calamity,’ that is an impossibility. There are funds by its very nature, by the very response that you’re going to make, would require that this cannot be identified and would have to remain as a contingent fund,” Lacierda said. Lacierda said those who demand to scrap the discretionary that were from the “Left” would serve nothing. “But they themselves know it can never happen that way by the sheer nature of the natural calamities that are visiting in this country. There’s no way that you can define with exactitude specific amounts for that, and for that particular reason, we have those funds in existence,” Lacierda said. Lacierda added that ”this is a reality that is present not only in this country”. “It’s a part of the budget that is always expected, that it should be reserved for these types of situations,” Lacierda said. On the 5 million signatures, Lacierda said,” we don’t want to speculate on whether they can gather the five million signatures”.### tribune.net.ph/headlines/palace-draft-bill-seeks-to-nullify-sc-s-dap-ruling
Posted on: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 02:39:06 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015