This is consistent with what happened to funds allocated to legislators through the PDAF. This is because of the inherent fault of the legislators being allowed to cross the line with respect to implementation. In the case of the PDAF, the fact that this was part of the approved budget and the link between legislator and funds was clear, this was understandable even if wrong. But in the case of the DAP, there is no rationale at all for allowing the legislators to identify projects. What happened here? Why did the executive department allow this to happen? By the way, I have come to the conclusion that the DAP overall can be legally defended but what cannot be justified legally, and I think ethically, given the context of the Corona conviction, is allowing the senators to identify even more projects than they already did with their PDAF. That reeks of quid pro quo. I do not think it is criminal bribery but it does not look or smell right.
Posted on: Sun, 06 Oct 2013 01:44:48 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015