SC to rule today on DAP appeal

MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court (SC) is set to rule with finality today on the legality of the controversial Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), the economic stimulus program designed to accelerate public spending.

According to an insider, justices will tackle in session the appeal of Malacañang on their unanimous decision in July last year declaring acts under the DAP illegal.

The source said that the case would be included in the high court’s agenda after deliberations were reset twice in November and December last year.

The justices would resolve the motion for reconsideration filed by the Office of the Solicitor General.

But the insider believes that the SC is not likely to reconsider its decision given the unanimous vote of the justices in the earlier ruling.

“Based on previous cases – and it has also been somehow accepted – the SC does not reverse a unanimous decision,” the source said.

In its 52-page motion for reconsideration, the executive department insisted that the DAP did not violate the Constitution and was not done in bad faith.

In justifying the good faith behind DAP, Malacañang urged the SC to consider institutional competence and value of bureaucratic practices in understanding the constitutional role of the executive in managing the economy, the authority of Congress to define savings, the shared role of the political departments in preparing the budget and the limited role of the SC on these matters.

It also argued that the high court erred in applying the doctrine of operative fact, which recognizes the validity of the assailed law or action prior to the determination of its unconstitutionality as an operative fact that produced consequences not easily erased, ignored or disregarded.

The government has dismissed the notion that the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) engaged in a policy of accumulating savings, so that President Aquino may have funds for augmentation.

The solicitor general also reiterated its stand that withdrawn obligated allotments and unreleased appropriations under the DAP are savings, and that use of the unprogrammed funds under the DAP did not violate the General Appropriations Act (GAA).

In the same appeal, Malacañang turned the tables on the SC by citing the supposed cross-border transfer of funds committed by the high court in 2012.

Malacañang cited a July 17, 2012 resolution of the SC, then under Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio as acting chief justice, allowing the allocation from existing savings of the tribunal worth P2.38 billion for the construction of the Manila City Hall of Justice, Cebu Court of Appeals and Cagayan de Oro Court of Appeals.

It noted that the SC earmarked its existing savings of P1.865 billion to augment the P100-million budget for the Manila Hall of Justice, an item in the 2012 budget of the Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of the Secretary under the executive branch.

It added that on March 5, 2013, the SC issued another resolution requesting the DBM to approve transfer of P100 million included in the DOJ-Justice System Infrastructure Program (JUSIP) budget for 2012 for the Manila City Hall of Justice to the budget of the judiciary, subject to existing budgeting policies and procedures, for the construction of the Malabon Hall of Justice.

The Palace noted that when petitions were filed against the DAP and while they were being heard, Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, in a letter last Dec. 23, informed the DBM that the SC was withdrawing its request to realign the P100 million intended for the Manila Hall of Justice to the budget of the judiciary.

With these grounds, Malacañang asked the SC to reverse its assailed decision and dismiss the consolidated petitions against the DAP.

In the 92-page ruling, the high court unanimously held that the acts and practices under the DAP violated the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers and the provision prohibiting inter-branch transfer of appropriations.

The SC struck down the withdrawal of unobligated allotments from implementing agencies and their use as sayings prior to end of fiscal year, cross-border transfers of savings of the executive to augment funds of agencies outside the department and funding of projects and programs not covered by the GAA.

It also voided 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.

The high tribunal has the same finding on National Budget Circular No. 541 and related executive issuances.

Under the same ruling, executive officials may be held liable for the DAP. It explained that while recipients cannot be held liable for benefiting from programs, activities and projects under the DAP in good faith, the executive branch cannot be instantly cleared of culpability.