Use of DAP’s PhP P137.3 billion under ‘savings’ is legally questionable | SWP Press Release Jan 28 2014 MEDIA RELEASE January 28, 2014 Reference: Social Watch Philippines Secretariat Contact Number: 436-6054 Use of DAP’s PhP P137.3 billion under ‘savings’ is legally questionable Social Watch Philippines (SWP) and Alternative Budget Initiative (ABI), the hundred-strong network of nongovernment organizations that pioneered direct citizens’ engagement in the national budget process, questioned the legality of the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) which allowed the use of P137.3 billion worth of savings to new projects to ramp up spending and accelerate economic expansion”. President Benigno Aquino III created the DAP in October 12, 2011 to execute additional projects. As of October 2013, releases under the DAP reached to a total of P137.3 billion. This includes P82.5 billion in releases in 2011 and another P54.8 billion in 2012. “In DAP, the President unilaterally authorized the use of savings for fast-disbursing programs and projects. Article VI Section29(1) clearly states that ‘no money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law’. There was no supplemental budget passed by Congress to appropriate the now P137.3 billion via the spending acceleration mechanism,” said co convenor Marivic Raquiza of Social Watch Philippines (SWP). “Let us be clear: The Philippine Constitution only allows the President to realign the savings generated by his own office -- the Office of the President -- but not the savings generated by other government agencies. It is in this context that we believe that the DAP is unconstitutional” said Raquiza. “Unfortunately, the entire government system is loosely interpreted as the “office” of the President even up to this time. This broad interpretation virtually gives the President blanket authority to use savings wherever he wishes. Such discretion is vulnerable to misuse.”, she added. The group also pointed out that the 2011 Commission on Audit findings underscored questionable spending of DAP funds on three projects. Social Watch Philippines believes this may just be ‘the tip of the iceberg’ as this is only shows a portion of possible extensive misuse brought about by the vulnerability and discretion embedded in the said spending acceleration program. In particular, the 2011 Commission on Audit (CoA) report showed that the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) allocated P1.043 billion in total and issued Special Allotment Release Orders (SAROs) for three projects during end-2011; but supporting physical and financial work plans on “specific activities to be undertaken, targeted outputs, and the corresponding budget allocation” were submitted only May 30, 2012 raising serious questions about the process of budgetary releases. “We call on the Commission on Audit to conduct a special audit on all DAP releases amounting to P137.3 billion,” Raquiza said. “If this administration is sincere on budget reforms, there should be passage of laws on budget impoundment control and on defining savings and the limits of discretion on how it is spent.” she added. Meanwhile, Isagani Serrano, SWP convenor and president of the Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement said that the Executive should follow the letter and spirit of the law and submit authority from Congress in the utilization of savings generated from the programmed appropriations of agencies other than the Office of the President. “We call on the Executive to exercise “augmentation” to mean fund only existing budgets in the appropriations law and not new programs and projects”, he said. “It is also high time for the Supreme Court to rule that the “office” described in constitutional provision authorizing the President, among others, to utilize savings refers only to the Office of the President and not the whole government system,” Raquiza said. “These calls coincide with our advocacy on the abolition of special purpose funds and the integration of off-budget lump sum items in the General Appropriations Act.The DAP is nothing different from other discretionary lump funds,” Raquiza said. “We also call on civil society to help the government live by its core values of transparency and accountability it supposedly espouses. We can do this by acting as effective and responsible watchdogs especially in monitoring the use of taxpayers money,” she added.
Posted on: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 09:14:39 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015