Leg Res Final

San Beda College Alabang
Legal Research & Bibliography

1-B & 1-D
Dumalanta, Kristine Draei (1-B)
Ortega, Danielle Bianca (1-D)
Group Paper No. 5/Finals
Constitutionality of Disbursement Acceleration Program

Introduction
We cannot expect people to have respect for law and order until we teach
respect to those we have entrusted to enforce those laws.- Hunter S. Thompson
Our news today is plagued with reports about the controversial discretionary
funds the Priority Assistance Development Fund (PDAF) and a more recent one
the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP). It is every citizens', whether it be
those who study law and those who do not, duty to exercise vigilance towards laws
that govern us and to understand how it affect our lives. Therefore, this paper will
define what PDAF and DAP is, and as well as the problems and benefits given by
it.
What is DAP?
Disbursement Acceleration Program is a economic stimulus package
introduced by the current Aquino Administration in 2011. Its aim is to fast-track
spending on 'high-impact' budgetary programs and projects, and in effect aid
economic growth. As such, its source will come from savings during the year and
Unprogrammed Funds. These Unprogrammed Funds are as follows: revenues

exceeding targets in the Budget of Expenditures and Sources of Financing (BESF);
windfall revenues obtained from other sources not included in BESF; and new loan
agreements for foreign-assisted projects, which are all included in the general
appropriations acts duly authorized by the Congress.1
The DAP was created to assist economic growth in the midst of global
financial problems and as well as calamities. The purpose, as quoted from the
Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management Florencio B. Abad,
...President Aquino instructed his government to execute these additional projects
to bolster economic growth...2 It has been reported that funds were released back
in 2011 to support public works, agriculture and agrarian reform, local government
units, housing and resettlement, health care, railway rehabilitation, peace and
development, human resource development, and on improved weather forecastingwhich amounted to P83.53 billion, the following year P58.70 billion and this year
another P15 billion.
Legislators may endorse programs and projects for their constituents mainly
to gain economic and social benefit. And of these funds from 2011-2012, about 9%
were released to projects and programs associated with legislators.3
1 Frequently Asked Questions, Department of Budget and Management, http://www.dbm.gov.ph/?page_id=7362
(2013).
2 Aquino unveils P72B economic stimulus package,ABS-CBN News, Oct. 12, 2011 (http://www.abscbnnews.com/business/10/12/11/aquino-unveils-p72b-economic-stimulus-package).
3 Q&A on the disbursement acceleration program, Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines,
http://www.gov.ph/2013/10/07/qa-on-the-disbursement-acceleration-program/, (2013).
PDAF vs DAP
Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF or pork barrel) is a
discretionary fund available for the use of the members of Congress however their
authority is limited to specifying which projects will be funded. The main purpose
being able to provide ample financial assistance to their respective projects, most
especially those involving the legislators congressional districts.4 However, the
PDAF is not only awarded to the lower house's legislative representatives but also
to party-list representatives and the upper house's Senate. This being included in
the appropriation's law proved to be a fatal flaw as it exposes the government to
graft and corruption as these funds. Today, the PDAF is subject to public scrutiny
and abolishment in light of the recent P6.15 billion scam in its association with
legislators and a private citizen, Janet Napoles.5 Following the reports and cases
filed against the accused legislators from the pork barrel scam, another
controversial funding system caught the public's eye called the Disbursement
Acceleration Program (DAP).
DAP as distinguished from PDAF originates from the executive department
and not the legislative. DAP and PDAF may be differentiated from their purpose,
sources, and manner of distribution. DAP's purpose is to address important issues
4 Edcel C. Lagman and Prospero C. Nograles, Understanding the Pork Barrel,
http://web.archive.org/web/20120417145905/http://www.congress.gov.ph/pdaf/news/pork_barrel.pdf (April 17,
2012).
5 Chi Almario-Gonzales, 5 senators gave P1.45 billion to NGO's, ABS-CBN News, http://www.abscbnnews.com/focus/08/20/13/5-senators-gave-p145-billion-ngos, (August 21, 2013)
such as economy and defense depending on what may arise in the present time,
whilst the PDAF's purpose is to allow legislators to fund for projects they support.
The following are some of the reported fund release and uses by under DAP as
mention by news articles:
According to Transportation Secretary Joseph Emilio Abaya, DAP
funds are being used to pay the Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) in order to
maintain country's territories which include the Bajo de Masinloc and the
West Philippine Sea; in response to the tensions brought about by the
territorial disputes of China and Philippines. About P45 million is spent on
maintenance and P105 million for PCG's operations6. Another funding from
the same program were released to the Department of National Defense, in
the amount of P665.6 million, in order to improve, repair, renovate and
rehabilitate facilities and securing needed equipments used by the Armed
Forces of the Philippines. The Air Force being the largest recipient
concentrated of search and rescue equipments and the Air Education and
Training Command facilities. The Presidential Security Group being the
second largest recipient included upgrades of communication and
fortification of security of the Palace.7
6 Tina G. Santos, DAP paying for Panatag sea patrols, Philippine Daily Inquirer,
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/504765/dap-paying-for-panatag-sea-patrols (October 11, 2013).
7 Frances Mangosing, Air Force, PSG biggest recipients of DAP fun, Inquirer.net,
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/503059/air-force-psg-biggest-recipients-of-dap-fund-released-to-dnd, (October 8,
2013).
The source of DAP comes from realigned savings from the previous year
handle by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) while PDAF was
expressively included in the GAA. PDAF is exclusive only to its recipient while
DAP is open for suggestion whereby not only the DBM may identify funding
support to government agencies but also with the recommendations of the
legislators.
Challenge of Constitutionality
There is no doubt the public trust towards government officials have been
decreasing as patronage politics become increasingly apparent. Even with the
Malacanang palace's explanation and its pioneer senators' arguments, in the eyes of
the public DAP and PDAF are on in the same- both funds used for political control
and for private gains. At which, several petitions have been made questioning the
constitutionality of the DAP. Inquiries involve the separation of powers where the
power of the purse solely belongs to the House of Representatives wherein without
an enactment of law by Congress, funds cannot be released. Another challenge
directs to the funding source of DAP.
First and foremost it must be reiterated that the DBM had already cited
DAP's constitutionality:
Article VI Section 25 (5) of the 1987 Constitution states that the
President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of
Constitutional Commissions may, by law, be authorized to augment any item
in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in
other items of their respective appropriations.
Book VI Chapter 5 Section 39 of the 1987 Administrative Code
authorizes the President to fund deficiencies through savings. It states:
Except as otherwise provided in the General Appropriations Act, any
savings in the regular appropriations authorized in the General
Appropriations Act for programs and projects of any department, office or
agency, may, with the approval of the President, be used to cover a deficit in
any other item of the regular appropriations.These are further defined in
the General Provisions of the GAA. In the 2011 GAA, Section 59 reiterates
the Constitutional authority of the President and heads of other branches to
augment budget items from savings in other items.
The DAP violates numerous laws and the Constitution; according to the
petitioners who filed cases to the Supreme Court for temporary restraining order
against the release of funds originating from DAP, and at the same time decide on
its constitutionality similarly to what was done before in the case of Philippine
Constitution Association v Enriquez8 in 1994. The petitions aforementioned, first
8 Philippine Constitution Association v Enriquez,
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1994/aug1994/gr_113105_1994.html, (August 19, 1994).
cites the violation of the Republic Act No 9184, otherwise known as the
Government Procurement Act, which provides that all procurement of
infrastructure projects, goods and consulting services shall be done through
bidding in a manner that will ensure transparency, competitiveness and
accountability in the government procurement transactions. 9 Second attacks the
very same constitutional basis the DBM have quoted which is Article VI Section
25 paragraph 5 of the 1987 Constitution. Former Iloilo congressman and former
TESDA chief Augusto Syjuco and lawyers Jose Malver Villegas Jr. and Manuelito
Luna, Phippine Constitutional Association,10 Senior Associate Justice Antonio
Carpio11 and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines12 all argue the following:
a. Government funds can only be released through appropriation's law passed by

Congress;
b. The DAP in not found anywhere in the 2011, 2012 and 2013 GAA;
c. Since DBM established DAP through an administrative or executive order, it is

not a law and has no effect of the same;
9 Amador F. Astudillo, PDAF, DAP scams violated RA9184, Philippine Daily Inquirer,
http://opinion.inquirer.net/63361/pdaf-dap-scams-violated-ra-9184, (October 14, 2013).
10 Edu Punay, SC won't suspend DAP, The Philippine Star,
http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2013/10/09/1243118/sc-wont-suspend-dap (October 9, 2013).
11 Tetch Torres-Tupas, SC Justice: 2013 GAA 'riddled with unconstitutionalities', Inquirer.net,
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/502831/sc-justice-2013-gaa-riddled-with-unconstitutionality (October 8, 2013).
12 Tetch Torres-Tupas, National lawyers group joins call for SC to scrap DAP, Inquirer.net,
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/508375/national-lawyers-group-joins-call-for-sc-to-scrap-dap (October 16, 2013).
Another problem cited is the unclear origins of the funds of the DAP. As
stated earlier funds are drawn from 'slow-moving' projects, however the DBM
failed to show in detail exactly which projects these are. The IBP in its petition
states the irregularity behind the Senators being allocated DAP funds when they
already have PDAF, and that augmenting savings can only be done within their
respective offices.
Weighing in on DAP's constitutionality

The real question here where did the budget source of DAP come from....
Conclusion

Leg Res Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Leg Res Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Leg Res Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

San Beda College Alabang

Legal Research & Bibliography

Group Paper No. 5/Finals

Constitutionality of Disbursement Acceleration Program

Unprogrammed Funds. These Unprogrammed Funds are as follows: revenues

a. Government funds can only be released through appropriation's law passed by

c. Since DBM established DAP through an administrative or executive order, it is

Weighing in on DAP's constitutionality

You might also like