
Originally Posted by
jai963214
Sa ila interpretation sa constitution dili illegal, pero matod pa sa usa sa nagpanday sa atong constitution illegal kuno. Maayo pa ug manghilom na lang sila, kay mosumbalik ra nila ila gisulti. Si Abad bitaw pa-ingon2x wa silay gihatag nga "reward PDAF", gi-usab ra diay ang termino. Pastilan!!!
here is Article VI, Sec. 25 (5)
(5) No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations; however, 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.
Now there are two things here that details why DAP was not justified with this section right away.
1. DAP was not taken from savings from items in authorized appropriations. Instead it was siphoned from authorized appropriations from projects that have not been enacted yet. If the money for an authorized appropriation has not been used, then you cant call that savings--and the section only says "from savings"
2. DAP was not used to augment any items in the 2012 budget/GAA--which has to be authorized by Congress. It was used for NEW appropriations created solely by the executive, which it cannot do.