The draft bill -- titled: “An Act Clarifying the Definition of Savings and Related Concepts and the Use and Release of the Unprogrammed Fund in the Appropriations Law and Validating the Implementation thereof by the Executive Branch” -- defines savings as “portions or balances of any programmed items of appropriations... which have not been released or obligated...” LIFE AFTER DAP EYED FOR AFFECTED PROJECTS August 13, 2014 By Imee Charlee C. Delavin, Reporter IN ITS bid to continue the implementation of projects funded under the Supreme Court-disallowed Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), the government has submitted to Congress its version of the bill redefining savings, a Cabinet official said. “We submitted a draft of a proposed bill last Friday to Speaker [Feliciano R.] Belmonte [Jr.] and Senate President [Franklin M.] Drilon,” Budget Secretary Florencio B. Abad said in a text message Monday. The Budget chief, in the cover letter attached to the draft bill submitted to the Senate and the House of Representatives, asked that the measure be endorsed for filing and “be considered a priority bill given its impact on the disbursement of public funds.” “This intends to clarify the legislative intent on what constitutes savings and the rules of augmentation, and when the unprogrammed fund may be utilized,” Mr. Abad said in his letter. “This will effectively clarify the effects of the Supreme Court decision.” The Supreme Court last July 1 struck down “acts and practices” under the DAP -- including declaring savings before a fiscal year ends and cross-agency transfer of funds -- for violating constitutional provisions on the separation of powers, among others. The draft bill -- titled: “An Act Clarifying the Definition of Savings and Related Concepts and the Use and Release of the Unprogrammed Fund in the Appropriations Law and Validating the Implementation thereof by the Executive Branch” -- defines savings as “portions or balances of any programmed items of appropriations... which have not been released or obligated...” Allocations can be considered savings if these were not used due to several reasons. One such instance, the measure notes, is the “discontinuance or abandonment of the program... or project for justifiable causes, at any time during the validity of the appropriations.” Another is failure to start a program or project, “which shall refer to the inability of the agency or its duly authorized procurement agent to obligate an allotment by June 30 of the fiscal year,” unless the specific appropriation is not authorized by June 30 or the agency concerned is able to show that the initiative can still be accomplished within the year. Savings may also be realized from “decreased cost” of project implementation, it said. It may likewise refer to “unreleased appropriations realized at any time during the fiscal year resulting from unused personnel-related costs,” such as unfilled, vacant or abolished positions; non-entitlement to allowance and benefits; leaves of absence without pay; or unutilized pension, among others. On the other hand, augmentation, the draft bill states, “is the act of filling up a deficiency and/or adding beyond the amount appropriated in an item of appropriations...” Such a deficiency, it notes, may result from “unforeseen modifications or adjustments” in programs or “reassessment in the use, prioritization and/or distribution of resources.” Expenditures to be funded or augmented out of savings, then, should be within the scope of any programs or projects authorized in the enacted budget. “In no case shall a non-existent program or project be funded by augmentation from savings or by the use of an appropriations otherwise authorized in the appropriations law,” the measure notes. “The existence of a program or project regardless of the availably of allotment class/es is sufficient for the purpose of augmentation.” NOT ACROSS AGENCIES Mr. Abad however said yesterday that cross-agency transfers of funds -- one of the acts voided by the high court’s ruling -- will not be allowed under this proposal. “[T]hat cannot be remedied by the law on savings as that involves a constitutional question. Only the SC can clarify that,” he explained. Priority in use of savings will be be given to augmentation of amounts set aside for the payment of compensation, old-age pension of veterans, and other personnel benefits authorized by law, the bill states, as well as implementation of priority programs and projects. The measure likewise requires regular reporting on the use of savings by agencies, which should include the amount and sources of savings generated, among others. The bill goes on to clarify the use of the Unprogrammed Fund under the national spending plan. It says such appropriations “shall be availed of... at any time during the fiscal year” upon the occurrence of any of three instances and subject to the Fund’s special provisions under the budget. These instances are: when excess revenues are generated in any of the identified non-tax revenue sources under the Budget of Expenditures and Sources of Financing (BESF); when new sources of tax or non-tax revenues are generated that are not part of BESF; and when there are loan proceeds from perfected loan agreements for foreign-assisted projects. Releases from the Unprogrammed Fund will entail securing certification from the Finance department or the Bureau of the Treasury in case of excess revenues or new revenue sources, and the loan agreement for loan proceeds. RETROACTIVE The provisions of the proposed bill, it states, “shall be retroactive and curative in nature.” “Accordingly, all previous acts relating to the definition of savings, rules on 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,” it notes. Asked to explain, Mr. Abad replied: “[I]f Congress enacts the bill on savings with retroactive application, the funds stalled because of the SC ruling on savings and the activation of the Unprogrammed Fund will become available for use by the Executive.” “Retroactive application, I believe, that is within the power of Congress to do,” he added. On the “operative doctrine” of the DAP case -- which recognizes that implementors do not have to be held accountable as long as the edict was carried out “in good faith” -- the Budget chief said: “Only the SC can clarify its application in the DAP case should Congress pass this measure.” United Nationalist Alliance Secretary General Rep. Tobias M. Tiangco of Navotas, in a statement Wednesday, said the fact the Budget chief asked the House Speaker to accommodate the redefinition of savings is “a clear admission of his criminal liability” and shows that Mr. Abad would “want to use Congress to absolve him.” The proposed bill, Mr. Tiangco said, seeks to “cure” the DAP decision and effectively make the SC ruling on “savings” moot. He added that Mr. Abad asked 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.” “He has no shame, he will even use Congress to try to circumvent the SC ruling and to save himself from criminal liability,” Mr. Tiangco said. Sought for comment yesterday, University of the Philippines economist and former Budget chief Benjamin E. Diokno described the proposed bill as “a mindless idea.” The draft measure comes as the high court’s ruling on DAP has effectively invalidated parts of the program, halting implementation of some projects funded under the initiative. Malacañang had already appealed the high court ruling last July 18, warning of possible economic “paralysis” should implementation of DAP-funded projects -- which government insists has led to uncounted economic and social benefits -- be stopped. President Benigno S.C. Aquino III, in his penultimate State of the Nation Address (SONA) late last month, called on Congress to approve a joint resolution that will clarify terms of the Supreme Court ruling and to pass a supplemental budget to continue implementation of DAP-funded projects. But Mr. Abad said last Aug. 1 that should Congress pass the bill redefining savings, a supplemental budget may no longer be necessary. The Budget chief said he hopes for immediate action on the proposed legislation, citing the urgent need to continue projects funded under DAP. Asked who will sponsor the bill, Mr. Abad replied: “I leave that to their (Congress) discretion.” “They can even file their own version or a modified one, if they so choose. But we expressed to them the sense of passing the bill early and providing for its retroactive application so stalled funds can still be used,” he said. “Realistically, end of September is a more feasible target.” House Speaker Feliciano R. Belmonte, Jr., in a text message, said the House of Representatives will be “prioritizing” the bill, along with other measures mentioned by the President in his SONA. “We’re still studying it. We are aware of its importance,” Mr. Belmonte said. Asked for a timeframe for the bill’s approval, he replied: “We’re giving it utmost priority [but] very hard to give a precise date.” The DAP was positioned as a “stimulus” package to fast-track public spending and push economic growth. It was approved by the President on Oct. 12, 2011, with funds to be sourced and augmented out of savings generated during the year and additional revenue sources. Funds made available for the DAP from October 2011 to July 2013 totaled some P167.06 billion, according to data from the Budget department, with P144.38 billion actually disbursed for 116 projects.### bit.ly/1BfuJeW
Posted on: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 02:28:43 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015