Looking back at the issues regarding the DAP
THE Supreme Court ruling Tuesday that upheld its earlier decision declaring the Palace’s Disbursement Acceleration Program as unconstitutional has apparently made Malacanang happy according to published reports.
In fact, Malacanang coined a term for it: “de facto reversal.”
Inquirer.net, in a report published February 4 on its website, described the 13-0 decision as a “seeming win-win ruling.”
While the Court held that the DAP was still unconstitutional, it allowed the “augmentation of funds for specific projects given allocations under the General Appropriations Act (GAA).”
The same report also added that the Court clarified the language of its earlier ruling that said that only “authors” of the program, and not “proponents and implementors,” may be held liable in case legal action arises and is heard in “tribunals other than this court, which is not a trier of facts.”
The key revision of the decision was the removal of the phrase – “the funding of projects, activities and programs that were not covered by any appropriation in the GAA.”
The Inquirer.net article pointed out, however, that the court upheld its July 1 decision to invalidate three features of the DAP:
The withdrawal of unobligated allotments from implementing agencies, and the declaration of these funds as savings even before the end of the fiscal year.
Cross-border transfers of savings of the executive branch to fund projects of agencies outside the branch.
The use of unprogrammed funds without certification of the national treasurer that revenue collections had exceeded revenue targets, as such act violates conditions set under the GAA.
PRESIDENT BENIGNO S. AQUINO III | Photo from PCOO
Read our series of stories on the DAP.