Gov’t hit for dilatory tactics on DAP case

MANILA, Philippines - Petitioners questioning President Aquino’s Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) accused the government of employing dilatory tactics in the case they filed with the Supreme Court (SC).

In a joint statement issued yesterday, eight of the nine groups assailing the legality of the DAP criticized what they said was an “orchestrated move to unduly delay” the resolution of their consolidated petitions.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Philippine Constitution Association, Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption, former Manila City councilor Greco Belgica, former Iloilo Rep. Augusto Syjuco, Manuelito Luna, the Citizen’s Crime Watch and the group led by Ma. Carolina Araullo signed the joint statement.

They cited the bid of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to move the next oral arguments from Jan. 28 to March 25 and its request for more time to submit relevant records of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM). The SC partially granted such requests on Tuesday.

“The OSG uses different alibis not only to buy time, but rather, to justify the malpractice… The public, having a stake in this controversy, eagerly awaits the speedy disposition of these cases. Every day of delay results to abusive spending of people’s money and irreparable damage to public interest,” they said.

The OSG also sought more time to comply with the high court’s order for the DBM to submit on or before Jan. 21 a list of the sources of funds brought under the DAP, its uses and legal bases.

The OSG asked the SC to give them until March 18 to comply with the order, saying the DBM did not have enough time to prepare the documents as it was busy preparing for the 2014 national budget and contributing to “unified effort to provide immediate relief and rehabilitation to the affected areas in the aftermath of Typhoon Yolanda.”

‘Non-extendible’

The high court, in a resolution released yesterday, only gave the respondent “a non-extendible period of 15 days” to submit the required documents.

The SC also partially granted the request of the OSG to allow retired SC justice Vicente Mendoza, its collaborating counsel, to prepare for the oral arguments.

It allowed Mendoza, who will represent Congress, to argue during the hearing set on Feb. 18.

The petitioners slammed the DBM for using as an excuse its being preoccupied with the budget and rehabilitation plans for disaster-hit areas.

“The DBM has been given ample time to submit the required documents to the court on the sources, purposes, time and reasons for the use of the DAP, and yet has failed to submit none but alibis as Yolanda, Zamboanga siege, etc.,” the petitioners said.

They added that the appearance of a private lawyer hired by Congress is no reason for the OSG to say that they need more time to study the case.