Ang Palusot ni Pnoy hinggil sa DAP palyado

Kahanga-hanga si Pangulong Aquino. Tila yata kumbinsido ang pangulo na ang ginawa nilang diversion of funds ay isang legal na paraan upang sagutin ang ilang suliranin sa pondo ng ilang programa de gobyerno. Handa pa si Pnoy na makipag-away na muli sa Korte Suprema para lamang maipaglaban ang kanilang tingin hinggil sa kanilang ginawa. 

Muling inihirit ni Pnoy ang section 39 ng Executive Order no. 292 na nagsasabi at ating i-quote dito na:

SECTION 39. Authority to Use Savings in Appropriations to Cover Deficits.—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: Provided, that the creation of new positions or increase of salaries shall not be allowed to be funded from budgetary savings except when specifically authorized by law: Provided, further, that whenever authorized positions are transferred from one program or project to another within the same department, office or agency, the corresponding amounts appropriated for personal services are also deemed transferred, without, however increasing the total outlay for personal services of the department, office or agency concerned.

Pansinin ang probisyong ito...

"...any savings in the regular appropriations authorized in the General Appropriations Act for programs and projects of any department...may, with the approval of the President, be used to cover a deficit in any other item of the regular appropriations.."

Ang ibig sabihin lamang nito ay maaaring gamitin ng Pangulo ang "savings" o ipon mula sa regular appropriations mula sa anumang departamento at gamitin ito upang ipantakip sa "deficit" o pagkukulang sa ano? sa ibang item sa regular appropriations.

Malinaw sa batas na maaaring gamitin lamang ang ipon mula sa ibang departamento panakip sa pagkukulang sa pondo ng ibang programang nakasaad na rin sa GAA.

Hindi maaaring gamitin ang "ipon" o "savings" sa anumang walang appropriation.

Halimbawa, may ipon ang DILG ng isang bilyong piso. Maaaring gamitin ito ng Pangulo sa pantustos halimbawa ng kulang sa health program ng DOH kung ang programang ito ay nakasaad na rin sa GAA o General Appropriations Act. 

Iba ang nangyari sa DAP.

Ayon na rin sa mga nakatanggap, ipinantakip ang mga ipon sa ibang programang hindi nakasaad sa GAA. Sa totoo, ipinapasaad nga ng Senate president Franklin Drilon sa mga senador na nabigyan ng DAP ang mga programang nais nilang pondohan. Ibig sabihin nito, wala sa GAA ang mga programang napondohan ng DAP. 

Kung walang alokasyon mula sa isang batas, at ito ay GAA, hindi ito maaaring mapondohan mula sa ipon ng pamahalaan o implementing agencies. 

Kung nai-divert o naibigay sa ibang paraan ang mga pondo, mayroong malaking pagkakamali at paglabag sa mga probisyon ng plunder o pandarambong ang nagkamaling opisyales. 

Kaya naman, maski ang alibi o palusot ni Pnoy, palyado.

DAP is unconstitutional and criminal.

Presidential spokesperson Edwin Lacierda has done it again--he says that what is unconstitutional may not be criminal. Lacierda is reacting to rising calls for accountability on the DAP or the Disbursement Acceleration Program.

I havent read the official version of the Supreme Court decision on the DAP. What I will be basing my comments today is from the public pronouncement given by Supreme Court spokesperson Atty. Theodore Te.

What the SC says, the DAP is inherently illegal or unconstitutional. Good.

What confuses everyone is when the Highest Tribunal says that some parts of the program are legal. What???

What I understand about the law is that it is precisely an either or thing--it is legal or it is not. And there are two things that define acts of men---acts that are patently evil due to its nature and acts that are prohibited by Congress.

Now, you cannot say that killing is illegal yet using a knife instead of a gun is not entirely illegal?

The DAP violates the very principle of good governance and the rule of law, because it exercises a function which is reserved only to Congress. Congress is given the power of the purse, period. The Executive has the power to implement the programs of government while the Judiciary sees to it that everybody follows the Rule of Law.

The DAP simply says that you can allocate to other uses, savings which some agencies have garnered for a period of time.

Under our Constitution, the Executive has the power to propose programs and projects. These are included in the General Appropriations Act or GAA. The GAA is then submitted to Congress. Congress debates.

After the debates, Congress exercises the option to approve the budget or not. Usually, they do, with certain revisions. They then pass it as LAW.

Now, GAA becomes truly a law, when the President signs it into law.

Why is it important for Congress to declare it as law? Because by declaring it as law, the Executive is bound to implement only those stated in the GAA and no more. It cannot allocate things which are not contemplated in the GAA.

Now, going back to what Lacierda says that even if the Supreme Court has declared DAP as unconstitutional, acts that implemented this program is not criminal.

What is being penalized by law is the illegal use of public funds. This is called malversation.

When a public officer uses funds not allocated to a certain thing or service, he commits malversation. What Malacanang did when they implemented DAP is technically, malversation of funds--they used funds called savings to fund another program which these funds are not supposed to fund. Since the GAA is law, when one violates it, the violation becomes criminal.