SC urged to deny DBM motion on DAP ruling

MANILA, Philippines - The Philippine Constitution Association of the Philippines (Philconsa) urged the Supreme Court to deny the motion for reconsideration filed by Budget Secretary Florencio Abad on the court’s ruling against Malacañang’s Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP).

In the 22-page Opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration, the petitioners urged the high court to instruct the Commission on Audit to “recover unused funds from the recipient agencies and file the appropriate administrative, civil and criminal actions against the persons who participated in the approval, release and use of funds.”

Philconsa also requested the high court to direct the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to investigate and unmask those responsible for every fund released.

Last month, the SC deferred its ruling on the appeal filed by the government questioning its declaration of parts of the DAP illegal and decided to seek comments from the anti-DAP groups such as Philconsa before resolving the appeal.

The Philconsa, former budget secretary Benjamin Diokno and Leonor Briones filed the opposition to the motion for reconsideration of the government.

They believe they have the legal standing to be a petitioner in the case and this should not be questioned.

“The MR fails to consider that the issues presented before the honorable court involves the disbursement of billions of taxpayers’ money via the collusive machinations of the legislative and executive departments in violation of the Constitution. Thus, this matter is of transcendental importance, of overreaching significance to society, or of paramount public interest,” the petitioners said.

They also mentioned that “savings” is a term of the Constitution and that its meaning, in the context of law or the Constitution, may only be conclusively be interpreted by the SC.

They also argued that Congress may not legislate to supersede/overrule SC decisions interpreting the Constitution.

“Congress’ attempt to redefine ‘savings’, contrary to judicial interpretation, is an invasion of the well-defined and established province and jurisdiction of the judiciary,” it added.

They said the executive department’s interpretation is not binding and cannot override the interpretation of the judiciary.