Just scrap DAP, Joker tells P-Noy

MANILA, Philippines - Former senator Joker Arroyo yesterday joined calls for scrapping the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) following revelations that over P1 billion of its funds were distributed to senators months after the impeachment of former chief justice Renato Corona.

“The DAP is the unfortunate progeny of a misadventure at the DBM (Department of Budget and Management). It should simply be abolished,” Arroyo said.

With the DAP in place, Arroyo said calls for the impeachment of President Aquino will not reach first base.

“The solution – simple. Just scrap DAP,” Arroyo said.

He said the abolition of DAP would not need legislative action since it was not created by Congress.

“It has no father. All that has to be done is for the President to stop the releases under DAP and proclaim the DAP window closed,” Arroyo said.

The former senator added the country cannot afford to be rocked with endless conflict and controversies.

“The Supreme Court is saddled with so many constitutional cases. So with COA (Commission on Audit) and the Ombudsman,” he said.

Arroyo criticized Budget Secretary Florencio Abad after he admitted that over P1 billion in DAP funds were released to the senators months after the impeachment trial of Corona last year.

This was in reaction to Sen. Jinggoy Estrada’s revelations last week that the senators received P50 million each as “incentive” for the conviction of Corona.

Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago said all the senators who received the funds could be liable for the crime of bribery.

Santiago said the senators who have admitted to receiving funds related to the DAP in 2012, which ranged from P50 million to P100 million, cannot use as defense the placing of the money in projects.

“The timing is so suspicious. Why was it given and some even said that it came during the impeachment trial and some senators believed that it was part of their PDAF (Priority Development Assistance Fund). PDAF or DAP, why did they accept funds while the impeachment trial was being held?” Santiago said.

“It sounds so bad that we accepted funds when Malacañang clearly wanted a certain result from the work that we were doing. So it all just sounds very fishy,” she added.

Santiago said the offense of bribery, under the Revised Penal Code, not only covers the receipt but also the mere promise of a reward for a criminal action.

Santiago noted Senate President Franklin Drilon had admitted receiving P100 million in DAP funds sometime in December 2012.

“That I admitted receiving P100 million in DAP funds was not like I admitted committing a crime. On the contrary, I was only doing my role in helping prime the economy that was needed at that time,” Drilon said.

“It’s not like I pocketed P100 million in kickbacks. The DAP allocation is not cold cash and but was merely a list of infrastructure projects recommended by legislators and local government officials to be implemented by the Department of Public Works and Highways,” he added.

Several other senators also admitted to receiving funds in 2012 but claimed they knew nothing about DAP.

Senators Sergio Osmeña III, Teofisto Guingona III, Antonio Trillanes IV, Juan Ponce Enrile, Jinggoy Estrada, Vicente Sotto III, Ralph Recto and former senator Panfilo Lacson all recalled receiving funds in 2012 but said these came months after Corona was convicted by the Senate.

‘Never heard of DAP’

Transportation Secretary Joseph Emilio Abaya also said he cannot recall whether he received any additional funds during the impeachment of Corona last year.

“I couldn’t even recall if I received just for impeachment. Honestly, I couldn’t categorically say I received any just because of that event that we had to perform… as a manager (of the House impeachment team),” Abaya said.

Abaya was representative of Cavite and chairman of the House committee on appropriations before his appointment as secretary of the Department of Transportation and Communications.

He was the manager of the House impeachment team in the trial of Corona last year.

“As a manager, an incentive or additional is not a reason to perform my function, I just believed we did what we were supposed to do,” Abaya said.

Interviewed at the Senate where he defended the agency’s P42-billion proposed budget, Abaya added he still has to check with the House of Representatives on the endorsements they signed regarding the requests by congressmen.

Santiago, on the other hand, said it does not matter when the funds were released or for which purpose these were used because when it comes to bribery, there is no time element involved.

“In bribery, the present can be given before, after or during the event. So it is not an argument to say this money was given several months after the impeachment trial because as I pointed out earlier… a mere promise is already constituting bribery,” Santiago said.

“So it is not acceptable to say money was given several months after the conviction of the impeachment trial,” she added.

Santiago said she personally knew nothing about the DAP until she read it in recent news reports.

She said she never received a letter from Drilon like what Estrada had claimed he got after the impeachment trial of Corona informing him about the availability of an additional P50 million.

“I never saw a letter. Usually that’s our basis as senators. When it is something as far reaching as this case, I would have been informed but I was not. I have never heard of the DAP,” she said.

Santiago recalled questioning the constitutionality of what was then called the Congressional Initiative Allocation provided for legislators, which she said she did not accept.

Had she known about the DAP, Santiago said she would also question its legality right away and also refuse any allocation for her office outright.

“But I was not given that opportunity. So I’m very surprised by all these developments,” she said.

On the premise that some senators asked for funding from the DAP while the impeachment trial was ongoing, Santiago said they were already “inciting to bribery.”

What is DAP?

The question on the legality of DAP has reached the Supreme Court (SC) even after President Aquino had declared his discretionary fund was legal.

Losing senatorial candidate Greco Belgica urged the high court Tuesday to declare DAP as unconstitutional, saying it violated Article VI Section 25 (5) of the Constitution, which prohibits “any transfer of appropriations (except) to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of the their respective appropriations.”

“The DAP directly violates this constitutional prohibition. The transfer of the DAP funds from the executive branch to the legislative branch is simply a prohibited transfer of appropriations,” Belgica said.

“If Congress cannot pass a law transferring appropriations, it follows that the President cannot by executive order transfer appropriations. What Congress cannot do directly the President of the Philippines cannot do indirectly,” he argued.

Belgica said the SC had set in the case of Sanchez v. Commission on Audit two requirements for transfer of funds from executive to legislative branches: the funds to be realigned or transferred are actually savings in the items of expenditures from which the same are to be taken and that the transfer of realignment is for the purpose of augmenting the items of expenditure to which the transfer or realignment is to be made.

“In this case, the transfer of DAP funds to the legislative branch fails to meet the requisites laid down in Sanchez v. COA,” Belgica said.

He pointed out there is no showing that the DAP funds were declared as savings and the transfer was for the purpose of augmenting an item of expenditure.

Belgica said the President can only augment an item of expenditure in his respective office from items of his respective office’s appropriations and cannot augment an item of expenditure in another political branch of government.

Belgica added DAP is “another prime example that the Chief Executive is given wide latitude and unbridled discretion in how discretionary funds such as the Malampaya Funds and Presidential Social Funds (PSF) are disbursed.”

The petition is set for oral arguments on Oct. 8.

In its guidelines, however, the SC only included the issues on Malampaya Funds and PSF among the substantial issues to be tackled in the debate.

Petitioners, however, could bring up the DAP issue under the “Presidential Pork Barrel” topic during the oral arguments.

Belgica’s question on the legality of DAP was supported by Santiago, former budget secretary Benjamin Diokno and constitutionalist Fr. Joaquin Bernas. – Marvin Sy, Edu Punay, Jose Rodel Clapano, Evelyn Macairan