DAP is unconsitutional... but let's say hello to BUB

[amingb]

Nindota pamusilon aning mga tawhanao oi ....

[AlyssaCo]

hi po. found this post interesting because our group was supposed to participate in the bottom up budgeting of the National Anti Poverty Commission last May 2014 here in Cebu. Unfortunately, wala mi ka abot sa schedule.

I second the motion mga mam and sir, nga the BUB is not serving its purpose. Although I would think the intention is noble, to involve masses in the decision making process because it follows the principle nga mas nakabalo ang mga people on the ground sa unsa nga project ang maka benefit saila, dautan kaayu ang pamaagi sa bottom-up budgeting.

Ngano man?

Sa NAPC, daghan civil society and NGOs nag participate ug nag propose sa ilahang mga kanya kanyang projects para sa ilang mga organizations nga mga communities nila maka participate. You know what is the catch? Majority of these organizations are affiliated with Akbayan Party-list. Since Akbayan is a party-list, it could not participate directly in the bottom-up budgeting so ang ila gibuhat kay nag pa front sila ug mga akbayan affiliated non-political groups. Lain kaayu ang dating mga friends kay ang taga NAPC mismo, mas mo pabor sa mga kaila nila nga groups nga inclined sa Akbayan. Ang ubang groups nga dili nila kaila, ilang ingnan nga late na mo para mo participate sa budgeting. Maminaw nalang mo.

If you think about it, most government officers and employees are affiliated with the akbayan party-list who is allied to the Liberal Party of PNoy. Biased kaayu sa? Normal raman siguro pero who knows asa ni dad-un sa akbayan ang budget?

Front raman ni ang bottom-up budgeting para maka access ug government funds ang akbayan ug uban pang grupo nga allied sa administration para maka himo sila ug project and in return, soft campaigning style ni para sa gov't officials.

[flopars]

toink!

ngita paagi pra mkacorrupt nasad.

naay nkaengon naku ba nga ang Sari-Sari store ngsugud ang corruption. nganu ky sa bata pa, suguon sa parents ug palit ug 5 mantika, ang paliton ky 4 ra. ang piso palit ug candy... so diha palang daan, murag training ground.

wahahahaha...

[Rakizta]

pagka brayt gyud mo concoct og laing ways maka bulsa sa kwarta ning mga buaya nato sa atong nasod uy . sakto si amingb , angay ni silang pangbitayon

[godwhacker]

BUB - mao ni rason karon bag-ohay lang nga mayor kanhi nga pinangga ni Gwen sa ONE CEBU, nanghugpa ug hural sa LP didtong Drilon. Bag-o ning panguarta sa mga mayor ug kinsa tong mayor nga duol sa luwag maharuhay tungod sa BUB.

[amingb]

Sige pata ani .... sige ta bayad buhis unya kawaton lang diay ... sukad sa una hangtod karon nagkagrabi ang kawat ... sige pata ani ...

[dodong69]

buang na ning nasura

[amingb]

gi hagit nako to mga tawong naka lalis sa una nga dili ta magsalig sa Goberno ... magkugi ta aron mo asenso .. unya na unsa naman ni karon mag kugi lang gihapon ta ? .... PIKAT anang asensoha ....

Mag kugi ta double job kay DMD ang P400/day unya puerting mahala sa palalitonon ... ug mag double job ta mao ranang istoriaha sa gina ingon nga Addict die Young bekos they dont get Old ...

[The_JACKAL]

gi hagit nako to mga tawong naka lalis sa una nga dili ta magsalig sa Goberno ... magkugi ta aron mo asenso .. unya na unsa naman ni karon mag kugi lang gihapon ta ? .... PIKAT anang asensoha ....

Mag kugi ta double job kay DMD ang P400/day unya puerting mahala sa palalitonon ... ug mag double job ta mao ranang istoriaha sa gina ingon nga Addict die Young bekos they dont get Old ...

Missing na sila boss, asa kaha to ron mga tawhana minions ni ABNOY

[CAPTAIN NAUTILUS]

I like how this MR is presented.

Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP)

SC reversing it's previous decision per se.

Understanding the SC ruling on the DAP
What are the main points and highlights of the Supreme Court decision on the controversial Disbursement Acceleration Program?


Chay F. Hofileña

Published 3:30 PM, Jul 14, 2014
Updated 9:51 AM, Jul 17, 2014


MANILA, Philippines – On July 1, 2014, the Supreme Court ruled on the controversial Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP).

Voting 13-0-1, excluding retired justice Roberto Abad, the High Court ruled 3 schemes under the DAP unconstitutional. Justice Lucas P. Bersamin penned the main decision, with 6 Justices writing separate opinions – Antonio Carpio, Presbitero Velasco Jr, Arturo Brion, Mariano del Castillo, Estela Perlas-Bernabe, and Marvic Leonen. (Read the ruling and separate opinions here.)

Justice Teresita de Castro inhibited from the voting, while Velasco, who was on official leave, gave his vote to Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno.

The High Tribunal ruled as unconstitutional the following:

the creation of savings prior to the end of the fiscal year and the withdrawal of these funds for implementing agencies
the cross-border transfers of the savings from one branch of government to another
the allotment of funds for projects, activities, and programs not outlined in the General Appropriations Act


Here are highlights of the 92-page ruling in Question and Answer format:

What is the issue that the Supreme Court addressed in its resolution pertaining to the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP)?

Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of DAP, which was intended by the Aquino administration to accelerate government spending. They also questioned National Budget Circular 541 which, in effect, characterized unreleased appropriations and unobligated or unused allotments as savings. The question brought to the Court was whether the Executive exceeded his powers to augment items in the budget within the executive branch of government.

When exactly did the DAP start?

The closest indication is a memorandum dated October 12, 2011 from Budget Secretary Butch Abad seeking approval from the President to implement DAP. The memo listed funding sources that amounted to P72.11 billion (about $1.7 billion) which could be used for other proposed priority projects – among them, National Housing Authority programs, capitalization of the Bangko Sentral, and peace and development interventions in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao.

How was DAP supposed to be implemented and funded?

There were 3 ways identified: (1) by declaring savings from various departments and agencies derived from pooling unobligated allotments and withdrawing unreleased approprirations; (2) by releasing unprogrammed funds; (3) by applying the “savings” and unprogrammed funds to augment existing programs, activities or projects (PAPs) or to support other priority PAPs.

Can the President transfer funds?

With limits. While the power to transfer funds from one item to another within the executive branch existed since 1909, during the time of American Governors-General, this power was reduced to merely augmenting items from savings. The 1987 Constitution put limits on the President’s discretion over appropriations during the budget execution phase (when the budget law is being implemented).

The Constitution authorizes the President, the Senate President, the Speaker, the Chief Justice, and heads of Constitutional Comissions to transfer funds “within their respective offices”; when these funds involve savings generated from appropriations also for their respective offices; and when the purpose of the transfer is to augment items in the Appropriations Law again for their respective offices.

How is "savings" defined? How did this issue make DAP problematic?

The Court defined savings as funds that remain unspent after the completion or discontinuance of a project. Congress provided that appropriated funds are available for a period of one fiscal year. But in a May 20, 2013 memo, Budget Secretary Butch Abad sought omnibus authority to consolidate savings and unused funds to finance the DAP on a quarterly basis. This shortened the period that funds were supposed to be available for, giving rise to questions about the budget department’s own definition of savings.

How were funds under DAP spent? What are related issues?

According to the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), as of 2013, P144.4 billion (about $3.3 billion) was released to implement programs, activities, projects (PAPs). In 2011, P82.5 billion (about $1. was released, while P54.8 billion (about $1.2 billion) was released in 2012. About 9% of the total DAP applied to PAPs were identified by lawmakers.

The DBM also said that 116 PAPs were financed by DAP, each of which had existing appropriations in the budget. The Office of the Solicitor-General submitted 7 evidence packets in support of this claim, but the Court found that there were projects not covered by an existing appropriation – for example, items under the P1.6-billion DREAM project under the Department of Science and Technology. DREAM refers to Disaster Risk, Exposure, Assessment and Mitigation.

Are “cross-border” transfers or augmentations of the budget allowed?

No. Cross-border transfers refer to the movement of funds from one branch of government to another. These are allowed only within respective offices – thus the use of DAP funds to augment funds of the Commission on Audit (for its IT infrastructure program and the hiring of litigation experts in the amount of P143.7 million, or about $3.2 million) and the House of Representatives (for a legislative library and archives building/e-library in the amount of P250 million, or about $5.6 million) violate the Constitution.

What is the operative fact doctrine and why is it relevant to DAP?

In effect, it says let it be, because the consequences resulting from DAP could no longer be undone. For instance, the positive results of DAP funding could include roads, bridges, homes for the homeless, hospitals, classrooms.

Not applying the operative fact doctrine would require the physical undoing and destruction of these infrastructure – a considerable waste. The application of the doctrine, however, does not exonerate the proponents and implementors of the DAP – unless it is established that they acted in good faith. – Rappler.com