G.R. No.

209287 July 1, 2014
MARIA CAROLINA P. ARAULLO, CHAIRPERSON, BAGONG ALYANSANG
MAKABAYAN; JUDY M. TAGUIWALO, PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF THE
PHILIPPINES DILIMAN, CO-CHAIRPERSON, PAGBABAGO; HENRI KAHN,
CONCERNED CITIZENS MOVEMENT; REP. LUZ ILAGAN, GABRIELA WOMEN'S
PARTY REPRESENTATIVE; REP. CARLOS ISAGANI ZARATE, BAY AN MUNA
PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVE; RENATO M. REYES, JR., SECRETARY GENERAL
OF BAYAN; MANUEL K. DAYRIT, CHAIRMAN, ANG KAPATIRAN PARTY; VENCER
MARI E. CRISOSTOMO, CHAIRPERSON, ANAKBAYAN; VICTOR VILLANUEVA,
CONVENOR, YOUTH ACT NOW, Petitioners,
vs.
BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III, PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES; PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., EXECUTIVE SECRETARY; AND
FLORENCIO B. ABAD, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND
MANAGEMENT, Respondents.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 209135
AUGUSTO L. SY JUCO JR., Ph.D., Petitioner,
vs.
FLORENCIO B. ABAD, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT
OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT; AND HON. FRANKLIN MAGTUNAO DRILON, IN
HIS CAP A CITY AS THE SENATE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 209136
MANUELITO R. LUNA, Petitioner,
vs.
SECRETARY FLORENCIO ABAD, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS HEAD OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT; AND EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
PAQUITO OCHOA, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ALTER EGO OF THE
PRESIDENT, Respondents.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 209155
ATTY. JOSE MALV AR VILLEGAS, JR., Petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR.; AND THE
SECRETARY OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT FLORENCIO B.
ABAD, Respondents.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 209164
PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION (PHILCONSA), REPRESENTED BY
DEAN FROILAN M. BACUNGAN, BENJAMIN E. DIOKNO AND LEONOR M.
BRIONES, Petitioners,
vs.
DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT AND/OR HON. FLORENCIO B.
ABAD, Respondents.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 209260
INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES (IBP), Petitioner,
vs.
SECRETARY FLORENCIO B. ABAD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND
MANAGEMENT (DBM),Respondent.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 209442
GRECO ANTONIOUS BEDA B. BELGICA; BISHOP REUBEN MABANTE AND REV.
JOSE L. GONZALEZ,Petitioners,
vs.
PRESIDENT BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III, THE SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
REPRESENTED BY SENATE PRESIDENT FRANKLIN M. DRILON; THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, REPRESENTED BY SPEAKER FELICIANO BELMONTE, JR.;
THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE, REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO
N. OCHOA, JR.; THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY FLORENCIO ABAD; THE DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY CESAR V. PURISIMA; AND THE
BUREAU OF TREASURY, REPRESENTED BY ROSALIA V. DE LEON, Respondents.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 209517

CONFEDERATION FOR UNITY, RECOGNITION AND ADV AN CEMENT OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES (COURAGE), REPRESENTED BY ITS 1ST VICE
PRESIDENT, SANTIAGO DASMARINAS, JR.; ROSALINDA NARTATES, FOR
HERSELF AND AS NATIONAL PRESIDENT OF THE CONSOLIDATED UNION OF
EMPLOYEES NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY (CUENHA); MANUEL BACLAGON,
FOR HIMSELF AND AS PRESIDENT OF THE SOCIAL WELFARE EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND
DEVELOPMENT CENTRAL OFFICE (SWEAP-DSWD CO); ANTONIA PASCUAL, FOR
HERSELF AND AS NATIONAL PRESIDENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN
REFORM EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (DAREA); ALBERT MAGALANG, FOR
HIMSELF AND AS PRESIDENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND MANAGEMENT
BUREAU EMPLOYEES UNION (EMBEU); AND MARCIAL ARABA, FOR HIMSELF
AND AS PRESIDENT OF THE KAPISANAN PARA SA KAGALINGAN NG MGA KAW
ANI NG MMDA (KKKMMDA), Petitioners,
vs.
BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO Ill, PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES; PAQUITO OCHOA, JR., EXECUTIVE SECRETARY; AND HON.
FLORENCIO B. ABAD, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND
MANAGEMENT, Respondents.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 209569
VOLUNTEERS AGAINST CRIME AND CORRUPTION (VACC), REPRESENTED BY
DANTE L. JIMENEZ,Petitioner,
vs.
PAQUITO N. OCHOA, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, AND FLORENCIO B. ABAD,
SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND
MANAGEMENT, Respondents.

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS

The controversy on the constitutionality of the Disbursement
Acceleration Program was triggered on September 25, 2013, when
Sen. Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada delivered a privilege speech in the
Senate of the Philippines to reveal that some Senators, including
himself, had been allotted an additional P50 Million each as
"incentive" for voting in favor of the impeachment of Chief Justice
Renato C. Corona.

As a response to Sen. Estrada’s revelation, Secretary Florencio Abad
of the DBM issued a public statement entitled Abad: Releases to
Senators Part of Spending Acceleration Program, explaining that the
funds released to the Senators had been part of the DAP, a program
designed by the DBM to ramp up spending to accelerate economic
expansion.

Secretary Abad clarified that the funds had been released to the
Senators based on their letters of request for funding; and that it was

not the first time that releases from the DAP had been made because
the DAP had already been instituted in 2011 to ramp up spending
after sluggish disbursements had caused the growth of the gross
domestic product (GDP) to slow down. He explained that the funds
under the DAP were usually taken from (1) unreleased appropriations
under Personnel Services; (2) unprogrammed funds; (3) carry-over
appropriations unreleased from the previous year; and (4) budgets for
slow-moving items or projects that had been realigned to support
faster-disbursing projects.

Thereafter the DBM posted on its website that the DAP releases had
been sourced from savings generated by the Government, and from
unprogrammed funds; and that the savings had been derived from (1)
the pooling of unreleased appropriations, like unreleased Personnel
Services appropriations that would lapse at the end of the year,
unreleased appropriations of slow-moving projects and discontinued
projects per zero based budgeting findings; and (2) the withdrawal of
unobligated allotments also for slow-moving programs and projects
that had been earlier released to the agencies of the National
Government. The DBM listed on its website the legal bases 1 for the
DAP’s use of savings.

The revelation of Sen. Estrada and the reactions of Sec. Abad and
the DBM brought the DAP to the consciousness of the Nation for the
first time, and made this present controversy inevitable. That the
issues against the DAP came at a time when the Nation was still
seething in anger over Congressional pork barrel – "an appropriation
of government spending meant for localized projects and secured
solely or primarily to bring money to a representative’s district" –
excited the Nation as heatedly as the pork barrel controversy.

1 1) Section 25(5), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, which granted to the President the authority to augment an item
for his office in the general appropriations law; (2) Section 49 (Authority to Use Savings for Certain Purposes) and Section
38 (Suspension of Expenditure Appropriations), Chapter 5, Book VI of Executive Order (EO) No. 292 (Administrative Code
of 1987); and (3) the General Appropriations Acts (GAAs) of 2011, 2012 and 2013, particularly their provisions on the (a)
use of savings; (b) meanings of savings and augmentation; and (c) priority in the use of savings.

R. G. 2013. on October 29.R. No. 5. The Court directed the holding of oral arguments on the significant issues raised and joined. on October 8. 209260 (IBP). 6. 2012 of government agencies and offices with low levels of obligations.R. both for continuing and current allotments. No. 209517 (COURAGE). G. on October 7.R. 2013. 2013.R. A decision was promulgated by the Court on these consolidated petitions. 7. the petitioners brought to the Court’s attention NBC No. G. No. 209135 (Syjuco). No. G. 209155 (Villegas). Thereafter respondents filed their Consolidated Comment through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). No. 8. 209164 (PHILCONSA). on October 17. on November 8.R. PROCEEDINGS Nine petitions assailing the constitutionality of the DAP and the issuances relating to the DAP were filed within days of each other. No. alleging that NBC No. 209287 (Araullo). 541. 2013.R. on November 6. on October 16. . In G. and G. G.R. 2013. 2013. No. No. which was issued to implement the DAP. on October 16. No. 209287 (Araullo). 209442 (Belgica). 2013. 2. 2013. 4. 2013. 541 (Adoption of Operational Efficiency Measure – Withdrawal of Agencies’ Unobligated Allotments as of June 30. G.R.II. 3. No.R. as follows: 1. 209136 (Luna). on October 7. G. G. directed the withdrawal of unobligated allotments as of June 30. 209569 (VACC). 2012).

VI of the 1987 Constitution insofar as: (a)They treat the unreleased appropriations and unobligated allotments withdrawn from government agencies as "savings" as the term is used in Sec. B. and (c)They "augment" discretionary lump sum appropriations in the GAAs. 541. 2012 and 2013. Procedural Issue 1. Whether or not the DAP violates Sec. NBC No. and all other executive issuances allegedly implementing the DAP. and the standing of petitioners.III. Whether or not certiorari. (b)They authorize the disbursement of funds for projects or programs not provided in the GAAs for the Executive Department. Art. 541. and mandamus are proper remedies to assail the constitutionality and validity of the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP). 29. . 25(5). National Budget Circular (NBC) No. ISSUES The issues in this case are: A. 25(5). Substantive Issues 1." 2. VI of the 1987 Constitution. in relation to the provisions of the GAAs of 2011. prohibition. Subsumed in this issue are whether there is a controversy ripe for judicial determination. and all other executive issuances allegedly implementing the DAP violate Sec. Art. Whether or not the DAP. which provides: "No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law.

No.R. to wit: Certiorari. the nature of the petitions is individually set forth hereunder. and include applications for the issuance of writs of preliminary prohibitory injunction or temporary restraining orders. No. and 5.R. 209260 (IBP) Prohibition G.R.R. 209442 (Belgica) Certiorari G. 4. No. 209136 (Luna) Certiorari and Prohibition G. Whether or not the DAP violates: (1) the Equal Protection Clause. No. RULINGS Procedural Issue: a) The petitions under Rule 65 are proper remedies All the petitions are filed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Whether or not the release of unprogrammed funds under the DAP was in accord with the GAAs. No.R. 209155 (Villegas) Certiorari and Prohibition G. IV. Whether the doctrine of operative fact is applicable. More specifically. 209287 (Araullo) Certiorari and Prohibition G.R. 209517 (COURAGE) Certiorari and Prohibition G. No. No.R. 209135 (Syjuco) Mandamus G.3.R.R. 209569 (VACC) Certiorari and Prohibition The Court held that the respondents’ arguments and submissions on the procedural issue are bereft of merit: that there is no actual . Prohibition and G. No. (2) the system of checks and balances. 209164 Certiorari and Prohibition (PHILCONSA) G. No. and (3) the principle of public accountability enshrined in the 1987 Constitution considering that it authorizes the release of funds upon the request of legislators.

Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and the doctrine of separation of powers. 541 and related executive issuances UNCONSTITUTIONAL for being in violation of Section 25(5). 541. namely: (a) The withdrawal of unobligated allotments from the implementing agencies. and the other executive issuances implementing the DAP. that the petitioners lacked legal standing to sue because no allegations were made to the effect that they had suffered any injury as a result of the adoption of the DAP and issuance of NBC No. like assailing the regularity of the DAP and related issuances before the Commission on Audit (COA) or in the trial courts. and that even if the petitioners had suffered injury. 541.controversy that is ripe for adjudication in the absence of adverse claims between the parties. National Budget Circular No. It was further held that the special civil actions of certiorari and prohibition are the proper actions for directly assailing the constitutionality and validity of the DAP. and the declaration of the withdrawn unobligated allotments and unreleased appropriations as savings prior to the end of the fiscal year and without complying . Substantive Issues: The Court declared the following acts and practices under the Disbursement Acceleration Program. there were plain. 541 were not in the exercise of the taxing or spending power of Congress. contrary to the contentions of the respondents. that their being taxpayers did not immediately confer upon the petitioners the legal standing to sue considering that the adoption and implementation of the DAP and the issuance of NBC No. speedy and adequate remedies in the ordinary course of law available to them. NBC No.

Issue No. (b) The cross-border transfers of the savings of the Executive to augment the appropriations of other offices outside the Executive. Art. and (c) The funding of projects. with the statutory definition of savings contained in the General Appropriations Acts. Issue No. activities and programs that were not covered by any appropriation in the General Appropriations Act. Impoundment of funds refers to the President’s power to refuse to spend . DAP was merely a program by the Executive and is not a fund nor is it an appropriation. Funds. It is a program for prioritizing government spending. VI of the Constitution. 2 There is no executive impoundment in the DAP. were merely being realigned via the DAP. Art. In DAP no additional funds were withdrawn from the Treasury otherwise. VI of the Constitution. 1 It was held that the DAP did not violate Section 29(1). which were already appropriated for by the GAA. an appropriation made by law would have been required. it did not violate the Constitutional provision cited in Section 29(1). It further declared that the use of unprogrammed funds despite the absence of a certification by the National Treasurer that the revenue collections exceeded the revenue targets for non-compliance with the conditions provided in the relevant General Appropriations Acts is void. As such.

As such. since the statutory definition of savings was not complied with under the DAP. there is no basis at all for the transfers. Although some of these projects may be legitimate. Under the definition of “savings” in the GAA. there’s no impoundment in the case at bar because what’s involved in the DAP was the transfer of funds. among other instances. transfers “within their respective offices” also contemplate realignment of funds to an existing project in the GAA. Thus. Further. Further.appropriations or to retain or deduct appropriations for whatever reason. Under the DAP. The GAA does not refer to “savings” as funds withdrawn from a slow moving project. transfer to such projects is unconstitutional and is without legal basis. these projects are non-existent insofar as the GAA is concerned because no funds were appropriated to them in the GAA. Thus. The transfers made through the DAP were unconstitutional. Nevertheless. It is true that the President (and even the heads of the other branches of the government) are allowed by the Constitution to make realignment of funds. even though some projects were within the Executive. no cross-border transfers/augmentations may be allowed. such transfer or realignment should only be made “within their respective offices”. savings only occur. when there is an excess in the funding of a certain project once it is completed. however. The DAP transfers are not “savings” contrary to what was being declared by the Executive. savings should . or finally abandoned. this was violated because funds appropriated by the GAA for the Executive were being transferred to the Legislative and other non- Executive agencies. finally discontinued. But under the DAP. Impoundment is actually prohibited by the GAA unless there will be an unmanageable national government budget deficit (which did not happen). they are still non-existent under the GAA because they were not provided for by the GAA.

The requirement was not met here. Issue No. Such doctrine recognizes the existence of the law or executive act prior to the determination of its unconstitutionality as an operative fact that produced consequences that cannot always be erased. funds are already being withdrawn from certain projects in the middle of the year and then being declared as “savings” by the Executive particularly by the DBM. such parties would be the few legislators claimed to have been discriminated against in the releases of funds under the DAP. in these cases. no such certification was secured before unprogrammed funds were used. Petitioners claim that the Executive discriminated against some legislators on the ground alone of their receiving less than the others could not of itself warrant a finding of contravention of the Equal Protection Clause. The reason for the requirement is that only such affected legislators could properly and fully bring to the fore when and how the denial of equal protection occurred. The denial of equal protection of any law should be an issue to be raised only by parties who supposedly suffer it. Issue No. Issue No. such funds may only be used if there is a certification from the National Treasurer to the effect that the revenue collections have exceeded the revenue targets. But under the DAP. 3 There is no violation of equal protection. and. In this case. 5 The Court held that the doctrine of operative fact is applicable in this case.only be declared at the end of the fiscal year. . 4 Unprogrammed funds from the GAA cannot be used as money source for the DAP because under the law. and explain why there was a denial in their situation.

including those that are quasi legislative and quasi-judicial in nature. The doctrine of operative fact is applicable to the adoption and implementation of the DAP. but is resorted to only as a matter of equity and fair play. V. ignored or disregarded. and only when the extraordinary . and only when the extraordinary circumstances have met the stringent conditions that will permit its application. It provides an exception to the general rule that a void or unconstitutional law produces no effect. and it cannot be invoked to validate an unconstitutional law or executive act. It applies only to cases where extraordinary circumstances exist. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW OPERATIVE FACT DOCTRINE This recognizes the existence of the law or executive act prior to the determination of its unconstitutionality as an operative fact that produced consequences that cannot always be erased. The term executive act is broad enough to include any and all acts of the Executive. But its use must be subjected to great scrutiny and circumspection. But its use must be subjected to great scrutiny and circumspection. The Court further cleared that the doctrine extends to a void or unconstitutional executive act. It provides an exception to the general rule that a void or unconstitutional law produces no effect. It applies only to cases where extraordinary circumstances exist. It nullifies the void law or executive act but sustains its effects. Its application to the DAP proceeds from equity and fair play. The consequences resulting from the DAP and its related issuances could not be ignored or could no longer be undone.ignored or disregarded. and it cannot be invoked to validate an unconstitutional law or executive act. but is resorted to only as a matter of equity and fair play. DOCTRINES 1. It nullifies the void law or executive act but sustains its effects.

besides being clearly violative of the fundamental. POLITICAL LAW POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW The Legislature is assigned with the task and the power to make and enact laws. Unless the doctrine is held to apply. a final court determination of a case based on a judicial interpretation of the law of the Constitution may be undermined or even annulled by a subsequent and different interpretation of the law or of the Constitution by the Legislative department. Under such a system. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW . Equity alleviates such burden. particularly those governing the separation of powers. This is true with regard to the interpretation of the basic law. the Constitution. If the Legislature may declare what a law means. which is not within the sphere of the Legislative department. or what a specific portion of the Constitution means. To declare the implementation of the DAP unconstitutional without recognizing that its prior implementation constituted an operative fact that produced consequences in the real as well as juristic worlds of the Government and the Nation is to be impractical and unfair. 2. The operative fact doctrine applies to the implementation of the DAP. this would surely cause confusion and instability in judicial processes and court decisions.circumstances have met the stringent conditions that will permit its application. That would be neither wise nor desirable. but not to interpret them. That scenario would be enormously burdensome for the Government. the Executive as the disburser and the offices under it and elsewhere as the recipients could be required to undo everything that they had implemented in good faith under the DAP. especially after the courts have in actual case ascertain its meaning by interpretation and applied it in a decision. 3. principles of our constitutional system of government.

ACCUMULATION AND UTILIZATION OF SAVINGS The Court emphasized that the exercise of the power to augment shall be strictly construed by virtue of its being an exception to the general rule that the funding of Presidential Acceleration Programs shall be limited to the amount fixed by Congress for the purpose. purpose or object of expenditure with an appropriation to which savings may be transferred for the purpose of augmentation. savings may be transferred thereto for augmentation purposes. Accordingly. The utilization and management of “savings” will also be strictly construed against expanding the scope of the power to augment. Article VI of the Constitution. and regardless of whether the DAP is viewed as an effective tool of stimulating the national economy. In a society governed by laws. project or activity. the acts and practices under the DAP and the relevant provisions of NBC No. 541 cited in the Decision should remain illegal and unconstitutional as long as the funds used to finance the projects mentioned therein are sourced from savings that deviated from the relevant provisions of the GAA. and to prevent them from unduly transgressing Congress’ power of the purse. 4. Laudable purposes must be carried out through legal methods. so long as there is an item in the GAA for which Congress had set aside a specified amount of public fund. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW POWER TO AUGMENT CANNOT BE USED TO FUND NON- EXISTENT PROVISION IN THE GAA The Court clarified that there must be an existing item. as well as the limitation on the power to augment under Section 25(5). regardless of the perceived beneficial purposes of the DAP. even the best intentions must come within the parameters defined and set by the Constitution and the law. This interpretation is consistent not only with the Constitution and the . Strict interpretation is essential in limiting the Executive and other budget implementors within their prerogatives during budget execution. Hence.

that. if adopted by the Court. in keeping with his duty to faithfully execute the laws. DEL CASTILLO. will affect not only the present administration but future administrations as well. “no money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law. the theories presented in the instant case have not adequately and accurately taken into consideration the paramount State interests. CONCURRING AND DISSENTING According to Justice del Castillo.” VI. The pooling of savings pursuant to the DAP. He could adopt a plan like the DAP for the purpose. the Executive did not usurp the power vested in Congress under Section 29(1). but also with the degree of flexibility allowed to the Executive during budget execution in responding to unforeseeable contingencies.GAAs. They have serious implications on the very workability of our system of government. SIGNIFICANT DISSENT ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MARIANO C. In such actions. had sufficient discretion during the execution of the budget to adapt the budget to changes in the country’s economic situation. and the identification of the PAPs to be funded under the DAP did not involve appropriation in the strict sense because the money had been already set apart from the public treasury by Congress through the GAAs. 5. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW DAP AS AN APPROPRIATION MEASURE The DAP is not an appropriation measure and does not contravene Section 29(1). Article VI. The President. Article VI of the Constitution. Such theories. He emphasized that the case must be decided beyond the prevailing . He could pool the savings and identify the PAPs to be funded under the DAP.

the Court has no recourse but to interpret and apply them based on their plain meaning. courage and resolve of our people and nation. These do not identify the provisions in the implementing issuances of the DAP which allegedly violated the Constitution and pertinent laws. not fear or passion. I limit the declaration of unconstitutionality to the three admitted cross-border transfers of savings. impoundment. for reasons already extensively discussed. While I find the wording of these laws to be highly susceptible to abuse and even unwise and imprudent. Second. It must be decided based on the Constitution. as quoted: “First. It must. and not to accord them an interpretation that lead to absurd results or render them inoperative. The acts or practices declared unconstitutional by the majority relative to the DAP are a restatement of existing constitutional and statutory provisions on the power to augment and the definition of savings. be decided based on faith in the moral strength. I find it improper to declare the DAP unconstitutional without specifying the provisions of the implementing issuances which transgressed the Constitution. It must be decided based on reason. it transgresses the actual case and controversy requirement. I do not subscribe to the view of the majority relative to the interpretation and application of Section 38 of the Administrative Code. ultimately.climate of public distrust on the expenditure of huge public funds generated by the PDAF scandal. Again. and the GAA provisions on savings. He summarized his vote to limit the declaration of unconstitutionality to the afore-discussed for the following reasons. Third. I am of the view that the Court should not make a broad and sweeping declaration of unconstitutionality relative to acts or practices that were not actually proven in this case. the two- year availability for release of appropriations and the unprogrammed fund. . To rule otherwise would transgress the actual case and controversy requirement necessary to validly exercise the power of judicial review. Hence. not public opinion.

In fine. excluding Mandatory Expenditures and Expenditures for Business-type Activities. Ultimately. the pooled funds could not validly be realigned. to a large extent. CARPIO Justice Carpio viewed that while the Disbursement Acceleration Program to have a noble end: "to fasttrack public spending and push economic growth" by funding "high-impact budgetary programs and projects. the necessity of calling upon the moral strength. 2012 are certainly not savings as defined in the GAAs. Hence. however.” the transparency of the exercise of the power to augment.Last. I am of the considered view that the abuse or misuse of the power to augment will persist if the needed reforms in the subject laws are not promptly instituted. The unobligated allotments of agencies with low-level of obligations as of June 30." its constitutionality is often sacrificed to in pursuit of good intentions. and so on. among others. the remedy resides in the people: to press for needed reforms in the laws that currently govern the enactment and execution of the national budget and to be vigilant in the prosecution of those who may have fraudulently abused or misused public funds. The pooling funds under NBC 541 do not qualify as savings. courage and resolve of our people and nation to address these weaknesses in our laws which have. SEPARATE OPINION ASSOCIATE JUSTICE ANTONIO T. I find that the remedy in this case is not solely judicial but largely legislative in that imperative reforms are needed in. the definition of “savings. precipitated the present controversy. How this is to be done belongs to Congress which must balance the State interests in curbing abuse vis-à-vis flexibility in fiscal management. with the exception of MOOE from January to June 2012. and hence. the limits of Section 38.” VII. The realignment of these funds to augment items in the . the safeguards and limitations on this power.

or the unconstitutional Congressional Pork Barrel. Disbursements of unobligated allotments for MOOE as savings and their realignment to other items in the GAAs. 2012 are unconstitutional for violating Section 25(5). Article VI of the Constitution. The OSG has also expressly admitted in its Memorandum of March 10. and 4. Justice Carpio reiterated in his opinion that the following acts and practices under the Disbursement Acceleration Program and the National Budget Circular No. where the MOOE that are the sources of savings are appropriations for months still to lapse. or prior to the last two months of the second year if the period to obligate is two years. Transfers of appropriations from the Executive to the Legislature the Commission on Elections and the Commission on Audit. Article VI of the Constitution. prior to the last two months of the fiscal year if the period to obligate is one year. No less than the DBM Secretary has admitted that the Executive transferred funds to the COA and the House of Representatives. Thus. 2014 that the Executive transferred appropriations to the COA. such realignment under the DAP. 3. Article VI of the Constitution: 1.GAAs patently contravenes Section 25(5). The Executive transferred DAP funds to augment the PDAF. 2. making the augmentation also unconstitutional. Disbursements of unobligated allotments for Capital Outlay as savings and their realignment to other items in the GAA. the House of Representatives and the COMELEC. Disbursements of unobligated allotments as savings and their realignment to items or projects not found in the GAA. He further averred that the DAP also violates the prohibition on cross- border transfers enshrined in Section 25(5). NBC 541 and other Executive issuances related to DAP is clearly unconstitutional. . 541 dated July 18.

VIII. Justice Lucas P.The use of the Unprogrammed Fund without the certification by the National Treasurer that the revenue collections for the fiscal year exceeded the revenue target for that year was also declared VOID for being contrary to the express condition for the use of the Unprogrammed Fund under the GAAs. excluding retired justice Roberto Abad. Bersamin penned the main decision. the High Court ruled 3 schemes under the DAP unconstitutional. PUBLICATION Understanding the SC ruling on the DAP What are the main points and highlights of the Supreme Court decision on the controversial Disbursement Acceleration Program? By Chay F. Philippines – On July 1. 2014. Voting 13-0-1. 2014 MANILA. the Supreme Court ruled on the controversial Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP). with 6 Justices . Hofileña. July 17.

while Velasco. capitalization of the Bangko Sentral. Arturo Brion. National Housing Authority programs. Estela Perlas-Bernabe.11 billion (about $1. Presbitero Velasco Jr. in effect. When exactly did the DAP start? The closest indication is a memorandum dated October 12. The High Tribunal ruled as unconstitutional the following:  the creation of savings prior to the end of the fiscal year and the withdrawal of these funds for implementing agencies  the cross-border transfers of the savings from one branch of government to another  the allotment of funds for projects. The memo listed funding sources that amounted to P72. characterized unreleased appropriations and unobligated or unused allotments as savings. which was intended by the Aquino administration to accelerate government spending. and programs not outlined in the General Appropriations Act Here are highlights of the 92-page ruling in Question and Answer format: What is the issue that the Supreme Court addressed in its resolution pertaining to the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP)? Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of DAP. 2011 from Budget Secretary Butch Abad seeking approval from the President to implement DAP.7 billion) which could be used for other proposed priority projects – among them.writing separate opinions – Antonio Carpio. They also questioned National Budget Circular 541 which. gave his vote to Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno. who was on official leave. The question brought to the Court was whether the Executive exceeded his powers to augment items in the budget within the executive branch of government. How was DAP supposed to be implemented and funded? There were 3 ways identified: (1) by declaring savings from various departments and agencies derived from pooling . and Marvic Leonen. Justice Teresita de Castro inhibited from the voting. Mariano del Castillo. activities. and peace and development interventions in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao.

This shortened the period that funds were supposed to be available for. 2013 memo. the Speaker. While the power to transfer funds from one item to another within the executive branch existed since 1909. In 2011.2 billion) was released in 2012. How were funds under DAP spent? What are related issues? According to the Department of Budget and Management (DBM). activities or projects (PAPs) or to support other priority PAPs. but the Court found that there were projects not covered by an existing appropriation – for example. Assessment and Mitigation. How is "savings" defined? How did this issue make DAP problematic? The Court defined savings as funds that remain unspent after the completion or discontinuance of a project. But in a May 20.4 billion (about $3. and heads of Constitutional Comissions to transfer funds “within their respective offices”. the Senate President. DREAM refers to Disaster Risk. when these funds involve savings generated from appropriations also for their respective offices. Can the President transfer funds? With limits. Budget Secretary Butch Abad sought omnibus authority to consolidate savings and unused funds to finance the DAP on a quarterly basis. (3) by applying the “savings” and unprogrammed funds to augment existing programs. P144.8 billion (about $1. as of 2013.5 billion (about $1.8) was released. giving rise to questions about the budget department’s own definition of savings. during the time of American Governors-General. projects (PAPs). items under the P1.unobligated allotments and withdrawing unreleased approprirations.3 billion) was released to implement programs. The DBM also said that 116 PAPs were financed by DAP. The Constitution authorizes the President. while P54. Exposure. P82. The Office of the Solicitor-General submitted 7 evidence packets in support of this claim. . The 1987 Constitution put limits on the President’s discretion over appropriations during the budget execution phase (when the budget law is being implemented). this power was reduced to merely augmenting items from savings. the Chief Justice. and when the purpose of the transfer is to augment items in the Appropriations Law again for their respective offices.6-billion DREAM project under the Department of Science and Technology. About 9% of the total DAP applied to PAPs were identified by lawmakers. activities. each of which had existing appropriations in the budget. Congress provided that appropriated funds are available for a period of one fiscal year. (2) by releasing unprogrammed funds.

because the consequences resulting from DAP could no longer be undone. homes for the homeless. hospitals. or about $5. and anti-corruption rallies. – Rappler. impeachment and plunder complaints against government officials.rappler. What is the operative fact doctrine and why is it relevant to DAP? In effect.com Source: http://www. Not applying the operative fact doctrine would require the physical undoing and destruction of these infrastructure – a considerable waste. it says let it be. classrooms.com/newsbreak/63267-understanding-supreme-court-ruling- dap INFOGRAPHIC: What’ s DAP? FAQs about the Disbursement Acceleration Program Published August 1. a nationwide address from President Benigno Aquino III. does not exonerate the proponents and implementors of the DAP – unless it is established that they acted in good faith. For instance. Cross-border transfers refer to the movement of funds from one branch of government to another. the positive results of DAP funding could include roads.Are “cross-border” transfers or augmentations of the budget allowed? No. . These are allowed only within respective offices – thus the use of DAP funds to augment funds of the Commission on Audit (for its IT infrastructure program and the hiring of litigation experts in the amount of P143.7 million. or about $3.2 million) and the House of Representatives (for a legislative library and archives building/e-library in the amount of P250 million. bridges.6 million) violate the Constitution. 2014 1:35pm The Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) has triggered an adverse Supreme Court (SC) ruling. The application of the doctrine. however.

—RSJ/KG/YA.What exactly is this controversial spending mechanism all about? Did the executive branch really overstep its bounds by implementing the DAP? GMA News Online went over the SC decision declaring certain acts under the DAP as unconstitutional. GMA News . and several documents from the Department of Budget and Management to answer frequently asked questions about this economic stimulus initiative.

com/news/story/372936/news/specialreports/infographic- what-s-dap-faqs-about-the-disbursement-acceleration-program .gmanetwork.Source: http://www.

violates Section 25(5). Edd Gumban MANILA.com) | Updated February 3. Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and the doctrine of separation of powers of the executive and legislative branches. 2015 . supposedly created to speed-up public spending. Philippines — The Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday affirmed the unconstitutionality of the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) while partially granting the government's motion for reconsideration. .3:14pm File photo of the magistrates of the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno convening for oral arguments. The magistrates affirmed that a significant portion of the administration's DAP.Supreme Court affirms DAP unconstitutionality By Camille Diola (philstar.

heeded the Aquino administration's motion in reconsidering the third scheme on the allotment of funds for projects. however. Citing the operative fact doctrine. . He added that the Constitution does not require the augmentation of funds to be under the expense category or allotment class of the GAA. The doctrine on operative fact sustains the effects of projects under the DAP even as it was declared invalid. SC spokesperson Theodore Te said two of the three acts and practices outlined in the July 2014 ruling of the high court are still considered unconstitutional. activities and programs not covered by the GAA. the high court." Te explained. so long as there is an item in the GAA that Congress has set aside a specified amount of public funds. "The court further declares void the use of unprogrammed funds despite the absence of a certification by the national treasure for non-compliance. The creation of savings from un-obligated allotments prior to the end of the fiscal year without complying with the statutory definition of savings under the General Appropriations Act (GAA). The executive department's cross-border transfer of savings to another branch of government." Te said in a televised press briefing. These are: 1. "Accordingly." Te said. savings may be transferred thereto for augmentation purposes. "There is no constitutional requirement for Congress to create allotment classes within an item. and 2.

which forced government to terminate its implementation. He said that this modification in the language of the earlier ruling is consistent with the operative fact doctrine. Te added." he said. with critics saying the DAP was the executive's version of the illegal "pork barrel" funds of the legislative. "It would be more unproductive or disastrous for the court to declare all of these projects invalid. Possible liable individuals narrowed The court. clarified the language of its earlier ruling by removing "proponents" and "implementors" among those who can be held liable for the DAP.philstar. Source: http://www. moreover.The court's 2014 decision on the DAP.com:8080/headlines/2015/02/03/1419749/supreme- court-affirms-dap-unconstitutionality . The issue contributed to a significant drop to satisfaction ratings of the Aquino administration. and therefore sustains those projects as valid. provoked President Benigno Aquino III to address the public and the Supreme Court to insist on its constitutional basis. Te said that "authors" under the DAP identified in appropriate courts can still be sanctioned under the recent decision. It is important to identify and point to specific authors of the DAP in subsequent filing of cases.

There’s a catch to using emotional blackmail though. More importantly. At some point during his speech. most of the President’s supporters think it is acceptable simply because BS . Since President BS Aquino can’t discuss the DAP without becoming distressed and irrational.7 reasons why PNoy’s Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) is wrong President BS Aquino: Enjoys full power of the purseDuring his fifth State of the Nation Address. either you will come across as a spoiled brat or an emotional wreck – something of a weakling. It only works in the short term. What is wrong with the DAP anyway? The answer to that question is: A LOT. The lesson here is simple: emotional blackmail always work with gullible people. President BS Aquino appeared frustrated at having to keep defending his Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) to the Filipino people. Kris Aquino’s love life and then the controversy surrounding DAP will be forgotten. it is up to the Filipino public to keep the discussion sober or more level-headed. A lot of those who witnessed him being emotional felt sorry for him and sympathized with him. hate. Soon. people’s sympathy will fade and turn into annoyance or worse. There is always a danger that people’s short attention spans could be diverted again to the next viral sex video or to Presidential sister. If you keep using it to get what you want. he became flustered and tried to fight back his tears. While the average Filipino – those who are not lawyers – readily agree that DAP is wrong simply because the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. they have to keep the discussion alive. His emotional speech paying homage to his father’s so-called “legacy” managed to distract some people from the real issue.

who has the power to approve the budget. the President assumed control of public funds and in essence took the “power of the purse” away from Congress. Since public funds coursed through the DAP were spent without Congress approval. (2) The DAP was used to continue the tradition of patronage politics. assuming they actually study the items thoroughly. This is where it gets complicated. It doesn’t help that Budget Secretary Florencio Abad’s explanation is both dubious and convoluted. the Executive through his Budget Secretary submits a budget proposal to Congress outlining where the President thinks the public funds should be spent. simply fly over most people’s heads.Aquino says it was used in “good faith”. All this talk about the General Appropriations Act (GAA). deliberates on the merits of the items. lay man’s explanation of why the DAP is wrong: (1) The DAP gave the President or the Executive branch of government too much power over public funds. He could not comprehend why members of Philippine Congress or public auditors would . If they think some of the items should not be prioritized. Philippine Congress: Consent given to PNoy to usurp power of the purseEvery year. Congress. the arguments over DAP. the Administrative Code of 1987 and a new meaning for “savings” is doing people’s heads in. I have come up with a simple. A few days ago I tried to explain this to a foreigner but he looked at me like I was talking out of my ass. And it doesn’t help as well that lawmakers allied with the President keep asking the wrong questions. they can strike these out from the budget — that is. With that in mind. whether for or against it. In other words.

his purpose was to “strengthen the Legislature’s power over how the Executive spends appropriations”. I told him that most members of Congress are always happy to receive pork barrel funds from the President no matter where it came from and so naturally. (3) The DAP is promoting impunity. In an ideal world. . Former Senator Joker Arroyo likened DAP to the President “raping” Congress with its consent.allow the DAP to happen. Sadly. they would help defend the DAP. there will be no end to rival politicians seeking revenge once they are in power. In the Philippines however. The circus show called “Congressional hearings” will continue to be popular programming in local TV channels. even locals loyal to the Aquino regime are in denial of this. President BS Aquino knew very well that this can happen when he was still a senator. this will continue to be a problem in the future of Philippine politics. Doing the opposite would implicate them in the offense. Back in 2008 when he authored Bill 3121 or the Budget Impoundment Control Act. The next President will have an excuse to justify playing around with public funds using his own “discretion”. In an ideal situation. the bill just sat on the drawing board and now the very author of the bill has chosen to weaken the Legislature’s power over how the Executive spends appropriations without changing the Constitution. Those who felt wronged during President BS Aquino’s term will do the same thing — buy favors from lawmakers using public funds to persecute their enemies. He said where he comes from. As a matter of fact. the President and most members of Congress are in cahoots in the mismanagement of public funds. a cunning deception like this would cause public outrage. Unfortunately. Because most members of Congress from the Legislative Branch of government do not want to hold the Executive accountable for the DAP. members of Congress actually use their heads. Congress would have impeached the President immediately after finding out his unlawful acts in the management of the national budget even before the matter is brought to the Supreme Court. If the DAP becomes legitimate and if the Executive resumes allocating funds to members of Congress. (4) The DAP will help continue the cycle of retribution among those in power.

Briones said incumbent politicians usually have an advantage against their opponents because ”projects are credited to officials as part of their track record as the ruling parties would spend for projects in their allies’ jurisdictions. Former National Treasurer Leonor Briones likewisewarned of the same thing. public servants who got fund allocations from the Executive through the DAP had funds to buy voters.(5) The DAP will continue the tradition of vote buying during Philippine elections.” Briones said in a statement. though it is a challenge to sustain this growth for the next years. . Opposing parties can be deprived of this spending. putting them at a disadvantage. Concrete projects create the impression of growth. Here’s what she had to say: Former National Treasurer Leonor Briones on Friday warned that the huge lump sums in the 2015 national budget might be used by the government to prepare for the 2016 elections. The government cranks up spending for infrastructure and construction the year before elections. This is similar to the 2012 budget that preceded the 2013 elections. Just like the now defunct Priority Development Assistance Funds (PDAF) or pork barrel funds.

This is similar to what some of the victims of typhoon Yolanda were saying – that relief goods were only given to those who promise to vote for the members of the Liberal Party. They say an empty cart rattles loudly. as soon as President BS Aquino put government spending on hold in 2010. which is the accumulation of debt. The more people spend.Past TESDA scholars thanking former President Gloria ArroyoThere’s also loose talk going around that some of the individual recipients of the DAP like the iskolar ng bayan had to pledge allegiance to the yellow ribbon before they could receive government funding for their training. (6) The DAP’s role in stimulating economic growth is not sustainable. which would have had a long-term effect on the economy was to give support to local industries to promote local employment. the more they get into debt. However. a bad public transport system. The Philippines still has the worst airport. One of the reasons why it is so hard for some people to believe public funds were spent wisely through the DAP is because the average Filipino can’t find any evidence of improvement in the public infrastructure that they use on a daily basis. the government should have fixed tax collection by providing incentives to business owners to encourage them to pay the correct tax and push more investors to join the club. road traffic congestion and power interruptions. it will only work in the short- term. The reason why former President Gloria Arroyo had to use spending to stimulate growth was to “counteract” the effects of the Global Financial Crisis that ravaged global markets in 2008. economic growth drastically slowed. Spending to stimulate the economy has a lasting legacy. Likewise. President BS Aquino’s defense of DAP sounded like an empty cart. When you use spending to stimulate growth. An alternative that President BS Aquino should have done. still suffers from flooding. The government could have given low-interest loans to small business operators that would foster innovation. The funds to stimulate the economy then were approved by Congress and the move was even lauded by a few economists because the country managed to avoid going into depression similar to what happened to Iceland and Greece. indeed. The high credit rating the government received from such agencies like Fitch Rating could only result in the country going into more debt for nothing if the funds are not used wisely. (7) Projects funded through the DAP are not visible to the naked eye. .

getrealphilippines. the disbursement of the funds lacked transparency. he chose to prioritize projects he thinks are more important. in its ruling earlier this month. This includes funding the persecution of his political enemies. However. Brion want Aquino. You see. said that authors of the DAP should be held accountable for the DAP acts declared as illegal. The high court.If I were in President BS Aquino’s shoes and have billions of public funds at my disposal. 2015 MANILA. .com/blog/2014/08/7-reasons- why-pnoys-disbursement-acceleration-program-dap-is-wrong/ Carpio. But in separate opinions made public Thursday. Abad held liable for DAP By: Tetch Torres-Tupas . Source: http://www. I would have prioritized fixing those things the minute I stepped inside Malacanang. There’s no doubt that some of the funds went to legitimate projects that would benefit the public.Reporter / @T2TupasINQ INQUIRER. it did not specify who the authors are. Philippines—Two senior justices of the Supreme Court said President Benigno Aquino III and Budget Secretary Florencio “Butch” Abad should be held liable for unconstitutional acts under the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP). Not to mention. it’s not surprising that President BS Aquino gets frustrated when defending the DAP. However. still unaccounted for.net / 06:01 PM February 12. Unfortunately. Associate Justices Antonio Carpio and Arturo Brion said President Aquino and Abad cannot invoke good faith.

Carpio said it was the President who signed the NBC on DAP and it was Abad who implemented it. As a consequence. 2012 to augment or fund priority and/or fast moving programs and projects of the government. cannot invoke the doctrine of operative fact because only those who merely relied in good faith on the illegal act. “Those directly responsible for an illegal or unconstitutional act cannot invoke the doctrine. The NBC allowed the withdrawal of unobligated allotments of agencies of low- level obligations as of June 30. they are considered the authors of the unconstitutional act. “Since the President and the DBM Secretary approved and issued NBC (National Budget Circular) 541.” Carpio said in his 13-page opinion. according to Carpio. they have to answer for such act. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO Carpio pointed out that unobligated allotments are not savings.” he added. Budget Secretary Florencio “Butch” Abad and President Benigno Aquino. He who comes to equity . Both Aquino and Abad. without any direct participation can invoke it. He added that the NBC authorizes augmentation of projects not considered in the 2012 budget which is contrary to the 1987 Constitution. “As authors of the unconstitutional act. neither the President nor the DBM Secretary can invoke the equitable doctrine of operative fact although they may raise other defenses.

“They were in fact the parties responsible for establishing and implementing the DAP’s unconstitutional terms and in these capacities. . Voting 13-0 last Feb. Brion agreed with Carpio.” Carpio said. But the high court reversed its ruling on the act under DAP pertaining to the funding of projects. cannot rely on the unconstitutionality or invalidity of the DAP as reason to escape potential liability for any unconstitutional act they might have committed. The high court again held that these acts and practices under the DAP violated the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers and the provision prohibiting inter- branch transfer of appropriations. which was earlier declared unconstitutional.” he added.” Brion said in his 34-page opinion. activities and programs that were not covered by any appropriation in the GAA.must come with clean hands and he who seeks equity must do equity. justices of the high court unanimously denied the appeal of the Palace on its decision in July last year striking down the withdrawal of unobligated allotments from implementing agencies and their use as savings prior to end of fiscal year as well as the cross- border transfers of savings of the executive to augment funds of agencies outside the department.” “There are indicators showing that the DBM Secretary might have established the DAP knowingly aware that it is tainted with unconstitutionality.3. They likewise stood by their earlier finding that the use of unprogrammed funds despite the absence of a certification by the national treasurer that the revenue collections exceeded the revenue targets for non-compliance with conditions in the GAA was illegal. Brion said Abad’s actions “negate the presumption of good faith that he would otherwise enjoy in an assessment of his performance of duty.

Tarra Quismundo .net/672523/carpio­brion­want­aquino­abad­ held­liable­for­dap SC ruling on DAP pleases Speaker Belmonte By: DJ Yap. “On the whole. and that funding authorities retained the right under the Constitution to augment projects identified in the budget law. as we thought the first one had done. I was very happy about that ruling. Source: http://newsinfo. It did not leave the executive with its hands tied. But it clarified that the ruling did not mean the invalidation of the 116 DAP projects discussed in its earlier decision in July. for certain unconstitutional practices involving the use of government savings and budget realignments. . Voting 13-0.Partially granting the motion for reconsideration of the office of the solicitor general. It clarified what can be done and what cannot be done. a stimulus program launched in 2011. Philippines–Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr.@inquirerdotnet Philippine Daily Inquirer / 04:10 AM February 05. the court on Tuesday affirmed its earlier decision striking down the DAP. Leila B. Salaverria. 2015 MANILA.inquirer.” he told reporters. the High Court now declared such act as constitutional. on Wednesday said he was pleased with the Supreme Court decision on the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) for acknowledging its positive effects on the economy and clarifying the powers available to the executive.

“My call on the President to fire Secretary Abad or for Secretary Abad to resign irrevocably was never dependent on the issue of bad faith on the part of Abad. said the court’s decision made no difference on his call for the resignation of the DAP’s chief architect. Fire Abad “We noticed that the ruling took note of the good things that came out of the DAP but still [noted] some things that should be done. leading to practices that were judged then and now upheld to be unconstitutional. Budget Secretary Florencio Abad. Jinggoy Estrada slammed the P50 million in additional pork barrel funds given by the administration as “incentive” to senators who voted to convict Chief Justice Renato Corona in his impeachment trial in 2013. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO / LEO M. Belmonte. Abad later said the funding came from the DAP. said he considered the high tribunal’s ruling to be a step in the right direction. On the other hand. I based my strong recommendation for his dismissal on his recklessness and bad judgment in the deployment of appropriated funds. it’s good that they made a clarification on the people being presumed innocent because that’s a cornerstone of the Constitution. an ally of President Aquino.” he said. SABANGAN II Little was known of the DAP until Sen.” he said.Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. Walden Bello. But Akbayan Rep.: Happy. vice chair of the ruling Liberal Party. .

” he said. The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) called for an immediate investigation and prosecution of those “who knowingly and deliberately misused public funds in the manner declared illegal by the Supreme Court. Aquino’s removal or resignation. bribery and malversation of public funds.” Reyes said. Investigate authors “We simply cannot tolerate traditional politicians masking as reformers. “Abad concocted the DAP while Aquino signed all DAP memoranda that illegally pooled the savings from various implementing agencies. which had the effect of contributing to his wife’s reelection in 2013. following the release of the court decision that found his stimulus program unconstitutional.” said Renato Reyes Jr. Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan) said the ruling announced on Tuesday on the government’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s July 1 decision should now pave the way for holding Aquino and his Department of Budget and Management (DBM) secretary accountable for “large-scale corruption. Henedina Abad.. a Deputy Speaker. referring to Rep.” .” He said the group would “pursue cases and push for Mr.” Bello said. CBCP urges probe “The legal and moral grounds for Aquino’s removal from office are now stronger than ever.“I must also reiterate my continuing condemnation of his allocation of a huge proportion of DAP funds and projects allocated to members of Congress to the tiny province of Batanes.” “They are the principal authors of the DAP who should be investigated and made accountable.” citing how the high court ruling “in a way vindicates” those behind the failed impeachment move against Aquino last year. Bayan secretary general.

Precisely. a wide array of expenditures under the DAP have been made outside the GAA (General Appropriations Act).” Roque said in a statement on Wednesday. Time to move on With the ruling. . the reversal by the Supreme Court reinstates and legitimizes the presidential pork barrel system without benefit of congressional approval and oversight.” he said. Vicente Sotto III. said he would appeal Tuesday’s ruling. according to Senate President Franklin Drilon and acting Minority Leader Sen.” Drilon told reporters.” Harry Roque. Sotto shared Drilon’s position. lawyer for one of the petitioners. “For all intents and purposes. in a statement also called on legal academics and other concerned citizens to study the implications of the latest court ruling on the DAP.” “This defeats the whole purpose of giving the power of the purse to the legislature. “I think everyone has accepted the decision. Let us move on. it’s time to put the issue to rest and move on. Villegas said “some are disturbed by the fact that the resolution apparently lends its judicial fiat to disbursements for unappropriated items or projects. the CBCP president. there are still pertinent concerns. Roque cited how the court’s favorable ruling on fund augmentation “just about restores a wide swath of unappropriated and not legislatively considered expenditures to the sole discretion of the Chief Executive. The Supreme Court has spoken.” He said that “while it does seem like the court has maintained its initial characterization of transfer of funds from one branch of government to another.Archbishop Socrates Villegas.

the decision strengthened calls and moves for accountability and liability for such gross and wholesale juggling of public funds into one huge presidential kitty. Nancy Binay said the Senate should shed light on how P167 billion in public funds were pooled and spent for other government projects. Aquino’s ouster for plundering multibillion pesos in public fund and converting the national budget as presidential pork barrel. “The Supreme Court has ruled that what the DBM did was unconstitutional. “Farmers have all the more reasons to demand Mr.” Patently unconstitutional The National Union of People’s Lawyers (NUPL) said in a statement that the court ruling “essentially and basically affirms the patent unconstitutionality of the acts” of both Aquino and Abad.But Sen. “Contrary to another contorted and self-serving reading by the Palace. Tina G.–With reports from Jerome Aning.” Olalia said. and uncover the persons responsible for hijacking the national budget.” said Rafael Mariano. Santos and Rima Granali Source: http://newsinfo.” Binay said in a statement. “It is about time that we get to the bottom of this issue.net/670593/sc­ruling­on­dap­pleases­speaker­ belmonte .inquirer. “The message is loud and clear except to those who remain incurably narcissist and self-righteous [that] they could do no wrong. chair of the peasant group Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas. and someone must be held to account for this.” said NUPL secretary general Edre Olalia.