COMMENTARY | 6 things we learned from Senate hearing on DAP By: By Ernie Reyes and Chuchay Fernandez, InterAksyon July 26, 2014 1:45 PM InterAksyon photograph by Bernard Testa InterAksyon The online news portal of TV5 MANILA - (Last July 24, the Senate Committee on Finance, chaired by Sen. Chiz Escudero, held a marathon hearing lasting over six hours on the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), with the declared intent of getting key officials like Budget Sec. Florencio “Butch” Abad to explain the controversial economic stimulus scheme. Abad, who had avoided the press and had taken awhile to give data even to the Supreme Court that declared DAP’s four anchor practices as unconstitutional, was the main resource person – but got able support from practically the entire Cabinet in the gallery and from LP partymate Senate President Frank Drilon. Heres one postscript to that hearing). 1. Speed isnt everything, after all DAP seems to not have been accurately named because acceleration - the raison detre of this strange creature - turns out was not necessarily always the basis for choosing which project to fund. Secretaries Butch Abad and Emilio Abaya, for example, were hard put to explain to Sen. Nancy Binay why P549 million to rehabilitate the airport - including its notorious toilets - was withdrawn. First, they said there were structural issues, then they said they had decided to centralize the contract for renovating all toilets in all DOTC-supervised facilities like airports, seaports nationwide. To which Nancy Binay asked, I thought you were in a hurry? Abad then said that, well, under DAP, speed isnt really the only consideration; cost efficiency was also a factor. But what was so hard about just fixing the toilets? Abad and Abaya could only mumble a reply when Sen. Binay reminded them of last weekends septic tank leak that sent a stink through the airport. 2. The Senate still has some tough senators - particularly among the new ones Even in the absence of minority stalwarts, the younger senators can, if they wanted to, muster the intelligence, interrogatory skills and the spunk to grill the obviously very adept advocates of DAP like Senate President Franklin Drilon and Budget Secretary Butch Abad. Sen. Nancy Binay, often derided as a poor shadow of her lawyer-dad, stunned Abad with her quick, pointed, follow-up questions. JV Ejercito was a class act on at least two issues: first, he asked Abad, given the popular Presidents near-total control of Congress, why he didnt just run to Congress for additional funds. Then, as Abad concluded his statement, Sen. Ejercito said, your good intentions are noted but thats why they came up with the statute defining the crime of technical malversation. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, intoned the senator. Abad, he said, is trying to justify technical malversation. They could have passed an appropriation measure from Congress to cover these supposedly crucial projects, but ignored the co-equal branch of government. Thats the intent of passage of the law against technical malversation - to tell people like him that one cannot juggle funds, no matter how good the intention. Another neophyte senator who shone was Grace Poe, who, despite running under the administration slate, left the guests from the Executive squirming with her questions. She wanted them to explain why billions from DAP were given to the Customs Bureau for its obligations to the SGS. Given that the obligation must be honored, the question is: How did this fit into priority and urgent criteria for DAP? 3. At the Senate, youre not always speaking under oath. Abad (almost) wasnt. The Senate should clarify its rules on putting witnesses under oath. Drilon didnt hide his dismay at being overruled by Finance panel chair Chiz Escudero on Binays request to put Abad et al under oath. What lies were they peddling that needed protection from a possible perjury suit? 4. Youth is, sometimes, lost on the young - and wisdom on the old If Nancy, Grace and JV behaved like this was really a forum for shining a light on DAP, other senators didnt seem to have the same interest. Trillanes tapped Abad with leading questions, and like Drilon, sought to elicit replies that would have brought out the beauty of DAP. The young Bam Aquino disappointed by behaving like, well, the Presidents first cousin. At one point, Sen. Aquino even echoed PNoys excuse me! moment in his July 14 national address, making a sweeping distinction between PDAF and DAP, i.e., PDAF was stolen by crooks; DAP wasnt stolen and benefited the people. 5. It wasnt Abad on the defensive The Liberal Party heavyweights at the Senate hearing repeatedly deflected blame on lawmakers through whose offices DAP funds sought. They repeatedly reminded each other (Drilon and Abad mostly) that the lawmakers only made nombra, or nominated projects but never received or handled [DAP] funds. Therefore, its wrong to say the lawmakers received P100 million in DAP funds after delivering the Corona impeachment to the Executive. No, sir, they did not receive funds. They only made nombra. Wala kaming natanggap ni piso nang nagnombra kami ng mga proyekto. Regardless whether they are affiliated with the President, or ally of the President or the opposition, puwedeng magnombra ng proyekto, declared the Senate President. But wait, wasnt that the same defense used by the accused lawmakers in PDAF? 6. The Senate is the worst forum for expecting honest answers on DAP Despite his admission of having received - er, nominated projects worth - P100 million from DAP, Senate President Franklin Drilon turned the hearing into a wholesale absolution for PNoy allies in Congress. He said that the Liberal Party members did not receive a single centavo from DAP, and that they only nominated millions worth of projects to be funded by the acceleration program. Abad affirmed all that Drilon testified to.
Posted on: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 21:31:30 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015