President Aquinos dead mom,

President Cory, may yet save her son

from jail over DAP
July 8, 2014 676 Comments
And why there are grounds for Supreme
Court to review its decision on DAP
Exclusive by Rassa Robles
Could the Supreme Court be wrong?
Are President Benigno Aquinos actions about the Disbursement
Acceleration Program (DAP) constitutional after all?
I ask these questions because Im looking over something Aquinos
mother, President Cory, signed in 1987.
And former Senator Joker Arroyo knows about it. Or at least he should
because he co-signed it.
What Im talking about is a 401-page compilation of rules of
governance that includes an extensive list of presidential powers. Its
called the Administrative Code and it was drawn up in 1987.
From the way I look at it, what PNoy did with DAP IS constitutional
because he used the Administrative Code, which the Constitution allows.
Let me explain. Pull up a chair.
This piece took me days to write. When I began, I originally titled
it Butch Abad must be punished.
Because, to me, Budget Secretary Abad clearly violated the Constitution.
How could he have done such an idiotic thing? How could he, a lawyer,
have the temerity to violate the Constitution, risking everything the
Aquino presidency had worked so hard for? It seemed
incomprehensible.
Fourteen Justices of the Supreme Court ruled that the P144.4
billion Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) that Abad had
put together from various savings was partly
unconstitutional. The Justices pointed to at least two DAP projects that
were in clear violation of Section 25 (5), Article VI of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution. This section categorically states that the President, Senate
President, House Speaker and Supreme Court Chief Justice can only
augment the budget for their respective offices.
The key word here is the adjective respective. It allows the President,
Senate President, House Speaker and Supreme Court Chief Justice to
increase their budgets provided they do this in their own turf. In other
words, no cross border transfers are allowed by the Constitution, all 14
Justices said.
What Abad had done, with the written approval of President Benigno
Aquino,was to transfer funds he had pulled out from various agencies
and slow-moving projects, and then put them together in something he
called the DAP .
Abad told the Court that such cross-border transfers were done upon the
request of a co-equal branch (through Speaker Feliciano Belmonte for
P143.7 million to finish an e-library) and of an independent body (the
Commission on Audit for P250 million to fund its IT Infrastructure
program and hired more litigation experts).
At the very least, Abad could be charged with technical malversation.
Technical, because unlike in the case of the pork senators, this is not
not a case of colossal theft of the peoples money. In fact, ironically,
Abad was trying to get more bang for the peoples buck.
But as Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio pointed
out in his separate concurring opinion, the road to unconstitutionality is
often paved with ostensibly good intentions.
The Revised Penal Code punishes government officials who shall apply
any public fund or property under his administration to any public use
other than that for which such fund or property where appropriated.
Even if the officials did not steal any of that money. Its called technical
malversation. (Article 220, Chapter 4, Book II, Title 7, Revised Penal
Code).
You can read more about technical malversation here.
The only way Abad could escape this rap is if his superior President
Aquino owed up to having told him to do the cross-border transfers.
Theres a precedent-setting case for this that Jose Nolledo, one of the
framers of the 1987 Constitution, cited in his book on the Revised Penal
Code. Its G.R. No. 4758 (dated February 16, 1909, its a case against
Teodoro Santos, treasurer of the town of Polo. You can read the case by
clicking here.
This is exactly what Abad did he pointed to his boss. I was
dumbfounded at this: what sort of apparently errant subordinate
would pass the buck up to his boss? Wasnt he supposed to fall on
his sword?
Even more surprising: Aquino publicly confirmed and admitted to
approving Abads requests.
I asked myself, were these two Ateneo boys out of their depth?
Tactically, what Abad did makes sense: Abad goes scot-free,
and Aquino as president is immune to suits. He also cant be
impeached because his party mates control Congress. But he loses
his immunity once he steps down from office and this cute trick
could come back and bite him. And with the sums involved, the
punishment would not be light. Meanwhile, there goes his Matuwid na
Daan.
Or so I thought.
Through the weekend in between watching episodes of one of my
favorite TV series Bones (about forensic experts figuring out crime
scenes mainly from skeletons of murder victims) I went over the
facts, trying to figure out what these two seemingly cocky but foolish
men were up to.
It wasnt until Monday morning at breakfast, that it hit me what they
were doing. Everything clicked into place after I read Jess Diaz piece
on DAP and followed up what Jess said. I personally know Jess, we
were once colleagues at the Philippine Star.
Jess quoted PNoy as saying that he had authorized Abads DAP by
approving a seven-page memorandum that the budget secretary had
sent him. I recalled reading about a memorandum for the President in
the main SC decision penned by Justice Lucas Bersamin. I found this
paragraph in Bersamins decision:
The DBM listed the following as the legal bases for the DAPs use of savings, namely: (1)
Section 25(5), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, which granted to the President the authority
to augment an item for his office in the general appropriations law; (2) Section 49 (Authority to
Use Savings for Certain Purposes) and Section 38 (Suspension of Expenditure Appropriations),
Chapter 5, Book VI of Executive Order (EO) No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987); and (3) the
General Appropriations Acts (GAAs) of 2011, 2012 and 2013, particularly their provisions on
the (a) use of savings; (b) meanings of savings and augmentation; and (c) priority in the use of
savings.
What the heck are Sections 49 and 38 of the Administrative Code, I
wondered. It was only when I looked up both that I realized what Abad
and PNoy have all along been talking about.
This morning (July 8), I called up former Senator Rene Saguisag and
asked him what he thought of my analysis. After listening to me explain,
he said the arguments were legally defensible and could be the basis
for a motion for consideration before the Supreme Court.
I also tried to reach former Senator Joker Arroyo but he was out of town.
I left all my phone numbers with him but he has not replied. More on him
later.
Briefly, my argument goes this way
The DAP is unconstitutional if you only look at the 1987
Constitution and Chapter 5, Section 38 of the Administrative Code of
1987 which is what the justices did.
The DAP becomes constitutional if you look at the 1987
Constitution AND Sections 38 and 49 of Chapter 5 of the Administrative
Code of 1987.
You need both Section 38 and Section 49, Chapter 5 of the
Administrative Code to make DAP LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL.
Without Section 49, DAP becomes illegal and unconstitutional.
The main ruling of Justice Bersamin and the separate concurring
opinions of the other Justices discussed the Constitution in conjunction
with Chapter 5, Section 38 of the Administrative Code of 1987.
But NOT ONE of them mentioned nor discussed Chapter 5, Section 49
of the Administrative Code of 1987. Because of this, they unanimously
ruled that the pooling of funds under DAP and certain cross-border DAP
projects violated the Constitution.
In the Constitution, the provision barring the President from doing
cross-border transfers of funds is Section 25 (5) of Article VI on the
Legislature. It states:
(5) No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations; however, the President of
the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court,
and the heads of Constitutional Commissions may, by law, be authorized to augment any item in
the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings to other items of the
respective appropriations.
Simply put, this section means:
Congress cannot pass any law authorizing any transfer of funds
that have already been budgeted.
The President, Speaker, Senate President and Chief Justice can
increase any items, provided the additional money comes from internal
savings.
But what if there already existed a law authorizing the President to go
beyond the limits set by Section 25 (5), Article VI of the Constitution? If
you look at the wording of Section 25 (5) No law shall be passed
the ban is prospective, not retrospective.
What if the existing law happens to be the Administrative Code of 1987?
The Administrative Code of 1987 is a peculiar law.
Mondays issue of Philippine Daily Inquirer has a story quoting former
Senator Joker Arroyo expounding on DAP and the Administrative Code.
The following paragraphs caught my eye:
Following Marcos
As for reports that the basis of the DAP was the administrative code, Arroyo noted that the
countrys previous Presidents, especially Aquinos own mother, did not avail themselves of this
pool of unused funds and savings.
He said former President Corazon Aquino steered clear of this because the authority to use the
fundsthe administrative codecame from the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos. He (Aquino)
did not follow his mother, he followed Marcos, he added.
Coming from Sen. Joker Arroyo, I found the last paragraph extremely
funny. Because you see, Executive Order No. 292 which unveiled the
Administrative Code of 1987 was signed by President Cory and her
Executive Secretary then someone named Joker Arroyo.

The Administrative Code is a 401-page document that lists the powers
and functions of the three branches of government, especially the
powers of the president within the executive branch and in relation to the
legislature, judiciary and the Constitutional Commissions.
It was meant to replace the Administrative Code of 1917.
Seven chapters are devoted to the presidents powers on national
government budgeting..
The Constitution was ratified on Feb 2 1987. Cory Aquinos
Administrative Code came into effect on July 25 1987, two days before
the first post-Martial Law Congress convened.
Now heres the rub: the 1987 Constitution explicitly states that the
Administrative Code is CONSTITUTIONAL.
Its right there in Section 6, of Article XVIII, Transitory Provisions.
The incumbent President shall continue to exercise legislative powers until the first Congress is
convened.
In short, it was a mind-boggling one-off deal. Section 6 of the
Transitory Provisions of the 1987 Constitution allowed Pres. Cory
to write herself any bunch of laws BEFORE the very first (ever)
Congress convened.
To state once again: the 1987 Constitution says the Administrative Code
is constitutional.
What does this mean? For nearly six months after the ratification of the
1987 Constitution, Pres. Cory had decree-making powers just like
Marcos.
What Sen. Joker, however, failed to tell Inquirer was that as Pres.
Corys Executive Secretary then, he played a key role in wielding such
powers. And it clearly was not Marcos who enacted the Administrative
Code of 1987.
The Administrative Code is not a mere Executive Order. It has the status
of a law. The Constitution gave it the status of a law.
This was why I wanted to talk today to Sen. Joker Arroyo, to clarify what
he told The Inquirer. And to ask him are you saying that The
Administrative Code of 1987 is the legal basis for pooling unused funds
and savings, which President Aquino did with the DAP? Unfortunately,
Joker Arroyo has not returned my call.
So I asked ex-Senator Saguisag, who was once in Malacaang Palace
together with Joker Arroyo as Pres.Corys spokesman, to interpret for
me what Sen. Joker was implying. Saguisag replied to me,
Well, apparently, dahil sinasabi ni Joker yata na hindi ginamit. So it (the legal basis for pooling
funds) must have been there.
Kung sinasabi ni Joker it was there but it was not used, de ginamit siguro ni Butch at ni
Noynoy.
The same Constitution said an existing law would continue to remain in
effect provided it is not inconsistent with the Constitution.
Now lets examine whether Sections 38 and 49 of the
Administrative Code that Abad cited as the main bases for DAP are
not inconsistent with Section 25 (5) of Article VI of the 1987
Constitution.
Section 23 (5) states:
(5) No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations; however, the President of
the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court,
and the heads of Constitutional Commissions may, by law, be authorized to augment any item in
the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings to other items of the
respective appropriations.
I believe Section 23 of the Constitution did not revoke Sections 38 and
49 of the Administrative Code (which Abad cited) because Sections 38
and 49 do not clash with Section 23 of the Constitution, which is
prospective in nature no law shall be passed.
Since the Constitutions Transitory Provisions accepted the enactment of
the Administrative Code, then the Code does not fall within the ambit of
Section 23.
When I ran this argument by Sen. Saguisag, he told me it was also
legally defensible.
So it appears, Sections 38 and 49 of the Administrative Code are still
valid and in effect. In fact, the Supreme Court Justices treated the
Administrative Code as a valid and binding law. Except that they forgot
to examine Section 49 in conjunction with the DAP, Section 38 and the
Constitution.
Why do Sections 38 and 49 have to go hand-in-hand to make DAP
constitutional?
Here is what I think Abad and Pnoy did, using Sections 38 and 49.
Section 38 gives the President the power to stop spending on any
project. This naturally would result in savings. Section 49 gives the
President the power to pool these savings for certain purposes. In
PNoys case, he called the pooled fund DAP.
Both sections 38 and 49 of the Administrative Code fall under CHAPTER
5 entitled BUDGET EXECUTION.
You will notice, Section 38 gives the President of the Philippines the
power to suspend and even stop spending on a project of any agency
not just in the executive branch of government, it seems, but in any
government agency. And the President only has to cite one reason to
suspend or stop a project whenever in his judgment the public interest
so requires. Thats all.
Read for yourself Section 38:
Section 38. Suspension of Expenditure of Appropriations. Except as otherwise provided in the
General Appropriations Act and whenever in his judgment the public interest so requires, the
President, upon notice to the head of office concerned, is authorized to suspend or otherwise stop
further expenditure of funds allotted for any agency, or any other expenditure authorized in the
General Appropriations Act, except for personal services appropriations used for permanent
officials and employees.
Justice Bersamin looked at Section 38 of the Administrative Code. But
because he did not look at Section 49, he concluded that Abad and
PNoy erred. Bersamin said:
Moreover, the DBM did not suspend or stop further expenditures in accordance with Section
38, supra, but instead transferred the funds to other PAPs (Program. Activity or Projects).
I also read the five separate and concurring opinions of Justices Arturo
Brion, Antonio Carpio, Marvic Leonen, Estela Perlas-Bernabe and
Mariano del Castillo. They discussed Section 38 but were all silent on
Section 49.
If they had looked at Section 49, they would have read that this section
gives the President and Budget Secretary vast powers to use savings in
the appropriations.
They might not have noticed this because at first glance, the list for when
the President can use the power to pool and use savings seems
innocuous.
Whoever drafted this Code cleverly buried one of the the most
important powers of the President in Section 49 the power to
impound and juggle funds. Here is Section 49: pay close attention to
numbers 9 and 10:
SECTION 49. Authority to Use Savings for Certain Purposes.Savings in the appropriations
provided in the General Appropriations Act may be used for the settlement of the following
obligations incurred during a current fiscal year or previous fiscal years as may be approved by
the Secretary in accordance with rules and procedures as may be approved by the President:
(1) Claims of officials, employees and laborers who died or were injured in line of duty,
including burial expenses as authorized under existing law;
(2) Commutation of terminal leaves of employees due to retirement, resignation or separation
from the service through no fault of their own in accordance with the provisions of existing law,
including unpaid claims for commutation of maternity leave of absence;
(3) Payment of retirement gratuities or separation pay of employees separated from the service
due to government reorganization;
(4) Payment of salaries of employees who have been suspended or dismissed as a result of
administrative or disciplinary action, or separated from the service through no fault of their own
and who have been subsequently exonerated and reinstated by virtue of decisions of competent
authority;
(5) Cash awards to deserving officials and employees in accordance with civil service law;
(6) Salary adjustments of officials and employees as a result of classification action under, and
implementation of, the provisions of the Compensation and Position Classification Act,
including positions embraced under the Career Executive Service;
(7) Peso support to any undertaking that may be entered into by the government with
international organizations, including administrative and other incidental expenses;
(8) Covering any deficiency in peso counterpart fund commitments for foreign-assisted projects,
as may be approved by the President;
(9) Priority activities that will promote the economic well-being of the nation, including
food production, agrarian reform, energy development, disaster relief, and rehabilitation.
(10) Repair, improvement and renovation of government buildings and infrastructure and
other capital assets damaged by natural calamities;
(11) Expenses in connection with official participation in trade fairs, civic parades, celebrations,
athletic competitions and cultural activities, and payment of expenses for the celebration of
regular or special official holidays;
(12) Payment of obligations of the government or any of its departments or agencies as a result
of final judgment of the Courts; and
(13) Payment of valid prior years obligations of government agencies with any other
government office or agency, including government-owned or controlled corporations.
Numbers 9 and 10 extend the presidents powers to pool and deploy
savings beyond the executive branch to all other branches of
government.
Is this inconsistent with the Constitution?
That is what the Justices would have to determine.
But I would argue that 9 and 10 both add not subtract to the power
that the President is given under Section 23 (5) of the Constitution.
Because after all, the President is the main implementer of the national
budget and he has the widest perspective of how much revenues are
coming in and how much is being spent.
To recap, the following is what I think PNoy and Abad did: Using the
Presidents power under Section 38 to suspend or stop projects, they
managed to generate savings. Then they justified the pooling and cross-
border transfers of such savings in order to stimulate the economy. They
called this DAP and they justified the pooled fund by pointing to Section
49 of the Administrative Code, which allows them to do this for:
(9)Priority activities that will promote the economic well-being of the nation, including food
production, agrarian reform, energy development, disaster relief, and rehabilitation. Repair,
(10)improvement and renovation of government buildings and infrastructure and other capital
assets damaged by natural calamities;
Justice Bersamin had pointed out that Section 28 of the Administrative
Code was a limitation of the presidential power to use savings because it
orders Unexpended balances of appropriations to be reverted to the
General Fund at the end of the fiscal year. However, Section 28 would
no longer come into play if these unexpended balances would have
been spent before the end of the fiscal year by using Section 49.
Neat, huh.
And dangerous, too.
It gives the Executive branch vast powers for fund juggling and for other
things as well.
Under a President who wants to do good for the nation, such powers are
useful. But under a President who has other motives, such powers can
greatly harm the nation. I wonder how the other presidents before PNoy
used these powers.
I do believe the Filipino people have a reason to ask the Supreme Court
to review its ruling on DAP, in the context of Sections 38 and 49 of the
Administrative Code.
Congress should also review the vast powers of the President under the
Administrative Code. Because who knows what succeeding presidents
will do with these powers?
How did Butch Abad and PNoy know about Section 49?
PNoys mom enacted the Code. Abad was once her Agrarian Reform
secretary. My guess is, his department had benefited from the pooling of
such savings since agrarian reform is one of the authorized activities to
use such savings.
If PNoy can convince the court that his moms Administrative Code is
what makes DAP legal and constitutional, then he can thank his mom for
saving him from jail and the peoples wrath.
What we as citizens should keep in mind is this: The Administrative
Code is still in effect and can be used by ANY President. Isnt it perhaps
time for Congress to look at the Code and review the awesome powers it
gives the President?
The next piece I will be posting is on Butch Abad and Janet Lim
Napoles
You can examine the Administrative Code of 1987 here.
Categories: Congress - Senate and House, Corruption, Politics, President Benigno Aquino
III, The Presidency - Tags: Administrative Code of 1987, Associate Justice Lucas
Bersamin, Budget Secretary Butch Abad, Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), Ex-
Senator Joker Arroyo, Ex-Senator Rene Saguisag, Philippine President Benigno
Aquino, President Corazon Aquino, Supreme Court
676 Responses to President Aquinos dead mom, President
Cory, may yet save her son from jail over DAP
Read below or add a comment...
1. 190
Brodkaster says:
July 14, 2014 at 9:57 am
I think DAP is still illegal. Its still contrary to section 25(5) artcle 6 of the 1987
constutuion. It says no law shall be passed., and that covers the
administrative code of 1987. Even as sec 49 and 38 of the code touched on
the authority of the president regarding the use of savings or the realignment
of funds, those sections should be interpreted in accordance with the
constitution, not contrary. Another point, the constituion was enacted in feb
1987 and the code in july of same year. This menas that the code was not yet
existing at the the time the 1987constitution took effect. The provision that
existing laws before the constitution shall still be effective obviously does not
apply here since the constitution precedes the administrative code by more
than four months.
The argument that the administrative code took effect before a legislative
body was formed does not hold water, i believe, against the word of the
constitution that no law shall be passed it does not pertain only to the laws
passed by congress but to any law, including the decree made by the
president who has legislative powers at the time. Pres cory may still have law
makng powers when she signed the administrative code, but any law she
proclaimed must still adhere to the provision of the constitutuion so that sec
49 and 38 must be interpreted within the bounds of the constitution.
Pres, noy and abad, however may use sec 49 and 38 of the administratve
code to escape the charges of culpable violation of the constitution. They
may only be answerable to lesser offense of a plain violation of the
constitution and give some weight to their good faith and good intension
argument. But still, DAP is unconstitutional, i believe.
Reply
o 190.1
raissa says:
July 14, 2014 at 11:22 am
so you think Justice del Castillo is wrong?
Reply
o 190.2
Rene-Ipil says:
July 14, 2014 at 1:10 pm
The Supreme Court did not declare that DAP was illegal or unconstitutional.
The SC said that there were some acts and practices under DAP which
were unconstitutional. In the example of the SC illustrated in pages 69-70 of
the decision, the act of augmenting the MOOE of the DOST project from
537M to 1.1B was not questioned but the newly funded personal services
and capital outlays in the same project at 43M and 391M, respectively, were
declared illegal.
In other words the DAP as a WHOLE was NOT unconstitutional. And NOT
ALL acts under DAP were unconstitutional. So let us not use wrong
premises so as not to jump right away into wrong conclusions. Using
erroneous premise would only lead us to perdition.
Reply
2. 189
raissa says:
July 14, 2014 at 2:45 am
Ive just posted Part 2 on DAP
Saguisag fully backs me on DAP and shares a startling suspicion
Reply
3. 188
Lawrence See says:
July 14, 2014 at 12:13 am
The big question is: what constitutes savings? When projects that have
been approved by Congress the previous year did not materialize because
these were placed on hold and therefore the intended expenditure did not
occur, could the money intended for these be considered savings? The
projects approved by Congress are the legally approved projects. When
money intended for these so called slow-moving projects are siphoned off
and channeled elsewhere, could it be considered as malversation? Who
caused the slowdown anyway? Who stopped these projects? If the president
is allowed to continuously invoke Section 38 of the Administrative Code citing
whenever in his judgment the public interest so requires, to stop projects,
then, of what use is Congress?
Real Savings, to me is defined as not spending the same amount of money
and yet achieving the same outcome. Was the outcome the same if the
approved project by Congress did not materialize? What do you think?
Reply
4. 187
utang.na.loob says:
July 14, 2014 at 12:04 am
Talaga? May dumedepensa pa din sa DAP? Pagpalagay na natin na
talagang yung Admin Code na yan ang katuwirang bulok ng mga
nasasangkot, e iisa lang ang gusto kong tanungin. Bakit binigay nila as mga
senador ang pondo??? Ano naman ang kinalaman ng mga senador sa
pagpapamudmod ng pondong di umanoy para sa pagpapabilis ng pagunlad
ng bayan? E diba ganun din ang silbi DAW ng pork barrel? E sa ganitong
aspeto pa lang lumalabas na ang kabulukan ng DAP na ito. Wala naman
kinalaman ang mga senador sa pagpapamudmod ng pera diba?
Giving funds to the legislators allegedly to accelerate the growth of the
country isnt justifiable in that claimed sense, even under the admin code,
because they arent part of the executive.
Nice try, but better luck next time.
Reply
o 187.1
raissa says:
July 14, 2014 at 2:29 am
read my latest post:
http://raissarobles.com/2014/07/14/saguisag-fully-backs-me-on-dap-and-
shares-a-startling-suspicion/
Reply
5. 186
tonyqalabastro@yahoo.com says:
July 13, 2014 at 8:52 pm
Slaying 7.5 million spam comments an hour, thats a lot of pork Akismet has
to chew. Roll out more barrels, Raissa.
Reply
o 186.1
raissa says:
July 13, 2014 at 9:12 pm
:)
Reply
6. 185
raissa says:
July 13, 2014 at 8:18 pm
sorry,
@Victin Luz,
@Yvonne,
@Chit Navarro,
@Kalahari,
@rejtatel,
@letlet
All you recent comments were held by Akismet. I dont know why. Akismet
seems to be acting up more and more.
Ive manually released them.
Reply
7. 184
raissa says:
July 13, 2014 at 7:41 pm
Ive just finished my next DAP piece.
Lets see, its 10 pages long.
I want Robles Alan to take a look at it first. But hes still watching Captain
America with my son. :)
Reply
8. 183
jett rink says:
July 13, 2014 at 7:14 pm
Good faith kung sa una pa lang sinabi mo na sa tao o mga media ang
gagawin mo. Pero nagsimula ito na sila lang ang may alam. Hindi pa pipiyok
si Butch kung hindi nagputak si Jinggoy. 100 billion plus ang pinaikot nyo ng
2011 to 2013 pero walang makakaalam kung di pumutok ang napoles issue
at mag speech si Jinggoy. Saan ang good faith dun , umamin lang dahil
nagkakabukingan na?
Reply
o 183.1
raissa says:
July 13, 2014 at 7:42 pm
kulang ng explaining.
Reply
183.1.1
jett rink says:
July 13, 2014 at 8:03 pm
That seems to be a problem of any administration where national funds are
involved. They murmur instead of explaining clearly.
Reply
183.1.1.1
jett rink says:
July 13, 2014 at 8:05 pm
Or mumble.
Reply
o 183.2
tristanism says:
July 13, 2014 at 7:45 pm
2011 inannounce ang DAP. Nadiyaryo ito dahil ito ang mekanismo ng
gobyerno para maitaas ang GDP ng bansa pang-accelerate ng govt
spending.
2013 ito pumutok kasi nilagyan ng malisya ni Jinggoyat sinakyan naman
ng dating miyembro ng gabinete ni erap.
Reply
183.2.1
jett rink says:
July 13, 2014 at 7:59 pm
Saan nadyaryo? Links. Sa business pages lang ba?
Reply
183.2.1.1
Rene-Ipil says:
July 13, 2014 at 8:27 pm
The Official Gazette (OG) is the public journal and publication of the
government from where media could access important news. On July 26,
2010, the online version of the Official Gazette was launched.
On October 12, 2011 the DAP was published in the OG.
http://www.gov.ph/2011/10/12/aquino-goverment-pursues-p72-11-b-
disbursement-acceleration-plan/
Reply
183.2.1.2
Rene-Ipil says:
July 13, 2014 at 8:32 pm
On October 20, 2011 the Official Gazette published another article on
DAP.
http://www.gov.ph/2011/10/20/dbm-stimulus-fund-to-upgrade-3-
government-specialty-hospitals/
Reply
183.2.1.3
lui5 says:
July 13, 2014 at 8:36 pm
http://www.philstar.com/business/757738/dbm-releases-85-p72-b-stimulus-
package
Reply
183.2.1.3.1
tristanism says:
July 13, 2014 at 9:43 pm
Thanks for sharing that. Di ko mahanap e. :)
Reply

lui5 says:
July 13, 2014 at 11:18 pm
And heres one from the Inquirer:
http://business.inquirer.net/27909/govt-has-only-p249-9b-of-2011-
budget-to-spend
Reply
183.2.1.4
tristanism says:
July 13, 2014 at 9:35 pm
As with @Rene Ipil, the gazette link is all i found. Puro current DAP articles
na lumalabas sa search e. (o sablay lang searching skills ko)
But I remember this because I was puzzled why the quarterly GDP
numbers were low. I know I read about DAP before Jinggoys speech.
Reply
183.2.2
Lawrence See says:
July 14, 2014 at 12:20 am
Isipin niyo yung timing. 2010 naluklok si PNoy. Hindi niya pinayagang
maisakatuparan ang mga proyekto na inaprubahan ng Kongreso noong
2009 sa ilalim ni PGMA. Isang taong na-hold ang mga proyekto dahil lahat
pinaimbistigahan o kung hindi, pinakansela. Dahil dito, nagkaroon ng
savings na itinatawag. Diyan nabuo ang DAP, galing sa perang dapat
nagamit sa bayan noong taong 2010. Makatarungan ba yon para sa milyon-
milyong pilipino na umaasa sa mga proyekto noong 2010? Para lamang
magamit sa 2011 sa termino ni PNoy? At saan napunta? Pabuya sa mga
senador at kongresista na bumoto upang ilaglag si CJ Corona.
Reply
o 183.3
chit navarro says:
July 13, 2014 at 11:26 pm
@Jett Rink,
Siguro ngayon ka lang nagbabasa kaya ngayon mo lang naisip na may
DAP. O ngayon ka lang nabigyan ng pang=troll, di ba?
check out the DBM website . everything on DAP is there, from its inception
to its cancellation, when the purpose for whcih it has been designed gas
been achieved.
And for your info, one of the main projects funded by DAP is : Housing,
relocation and resettlement: P11.05 billion for various housing projects,
including on-site housing development for families living along dangerous
areas. SINO BA ANG HEAD NG PROJECT NA ITO?
Bago ka magpuputak, check mo muna facts mo. Siguro kung nagbabasa ka
ng diyaryo noon, sa businesss pages, nakita mo ang mga balita na ito.
Reply
183.3.1
Jett Rink says:
July 14, 2014 at 10:03 am
Uy personal. hindi kita kilala , hindi mo ako kilala. masyado ba masakit
kung magtanong ng maaring kamailan ng isang Benigno Aquino 3rd o
Florencio Abad ? Hindi ka siguro pinalaki ng tama ng mga magulang mo. O
yan personal yan.
Reply
o 183.4
chit navarro says:
July 13, 2014 at 11:40 pm
Please check the website of DBM. All the projects on DAP is there.
The problem with us Filipinos is we tend to notice only sensationalized
news. Business news or financial news items are most often missed. But
DBM has a website online. And have been very transparent on what it is
doing.
Reply
o 183.5
Parekoy says:
July 14, 2014 at 11:43 am
Good comment @jett rink!
Question everything!
Be bold, be wise, and dont be a kiss ass!
Be consistent in questioning even yourself, questioning our loyalties.
Remember we should be loyal to the truth and not to these politicians
games!
Dont defend personalities because their current intentions might be good,
but they are not perfect they are prone to errors too.
I am thankful and hopeful though that someone considered by the opposition
as abnormal is making big strides in fighting corruptions, eventhough it is
currently selective. But still, it is a big step! We in the Philippines has this
abnormal mafiosi type of past governments were our people are destined to
be bled dry by these vampires! If it takes an abnoy to get make a dent in the
fight against the oppositions corruptions, then so be it! We were hopeless
then, so these half baked prescriptions are good enough fir me at the
moment, it is a good start. It is like curing a cancer partly first without getting
rid of the other cancers(admin kurap officials) lest the body might not have a
shock and the patient may die due to aggressive treatment. I read
somewhere that when a person who went on hunger strike and eventually
decided to end his hunger, he was only given a small amount of food, else
his stomach might burst!
So as a person who believed that the Filipino is doomed because we
received the lion share of all the plague when God showered the goods
and the bads on earth at random, now with the unfolding events, I have to
question my beliefs! There seems to be hope after all. PNoy might not totally
get rid of our plunderers, but he gave hope to us unbelievers that Yes, the
mighty could also fall, and hopefully with a thud so loud that the whole
archipelago could feel the tremors with a bang louder than Pinatubo and
Mayon combined.
These are extraordinary times and PNoy in his limited special ability has to
take actions, because the window of opportunity to right the past wrongs, the
pad wrongs of the sainted mother, the past wrongs of his previous ally
Gloria, is soon closing. He needs to act in a very delicate complicated way,
for he know that even the viper pit of malacanang, he needs to work with
plunderers too. He knows he need to use them, he wanted them not to sin
no more, but his wants are just requests for now. Phase 1 was done wit
Corona, Phase 2 is now here, were the opposition plunderers are in
jail/hospitals. He is tryong his abnormal best not to impose martial law, he is
trying his best not to skirt the constitution, but as I said the method is
complicated and prone to errors. I wish he knows his history, that Revolution
eats his children too!
For now I have to be patient with him, for the reason that if I can wait for 42
years since 1972 for any sign of something significantly important change,
then I am patient enough with the current dispensation of selective justice.
If ever the next president of 2016 decides to investigate PNoy, then so be it,
he will be judged on what his past deeds, and by then the Filipino people are
not gullible enough by propaganda. If Filipinos were stupid enough to look
the other way of these plundererss deeds, I believe that they are intelligent
enough to understand why he needed to use methods that are leaning
towards unethical with abnormally good intentions!
We cant measure PNoys good intentions, we can only measure the results,
and for now I give him grade A or B as in ABnoy!
(God really works in strage ways!- Blessed are the special persons for they
are purein heart!?)
Reply
9. 182
Joe America says:
July 13, 2014 at 6:06 pm
Ive been spending the past half hour reading comments on this blog, and in
my opinion, which is not often humble, this blog stands as the absolute best a
blogger can do or expect. Well researched and laid out, of national
importance, a discussion that is upright and respectful and knowledgeable.
Like, wow.
Just wow!
Reply
o 182.1
raissa says:
July 13, 2014 at 7:07 pm
I owe all you guys my deep thanks.
Without all of you, I would just be one voice howling in the wilderness :)
Reply
o 182.2
Lawrence See says:
July 14, 2014 at 12:24 am
Sang-ayon ako dito sa sinabi mo. Pagdating sa batas, talagang napaka-
ayos at kumpleto ng pananaliksik at paglalahad ni Atty. Raissa.
Reply
10. 181
yvonne says:
July 13, 2014 at 10:46 am
HULI KA NA NAMAN JINGGOY !
.
Be careful with what you wish for, it may come around and bite you.
Well, it may just bite Jinggoy.
When the senator knew he would be accused of plunder, the second time
around in his political career, the senator engaged in what many consider as
scorched earth defense.
Kung ihuhulog nyo ako, isasama ko rin kayo.
Thus, Jinggoy gave a privilege speech at the Senate accusing the Aquino
administration of implementing DAP, suggesting DAP is illegal, if not
unconstitutional. He even admitted to receiving an allocation from DAP that
he claimed was an incentive (read: bribe) for the senators voting for the
conviction of Corona. It was an obvious attempt to divert public attention from
his troubles with PDAF, to DAP.
Now that the Supreme Court declared part of DAP unconstitutional, Jinggoy
must be one happy guy he started the DAP issue after all. His wish comes
true.
Well, not too fast, Jinggoy. Not yet, anyway.
According to the Supreme Court decision:
In that context, as Justice Brion has clarified, the doctrine of operative fact
can apply only to the PAPs that can no longer be undone, and whose
beneficiaries relied in good faith on the validity of the DAP, but cannot apply
to the authors, proponents and implementors of the DAP, unless there are
concrete findings of good faith in their favor by the proper tribunals
determining their criminal, civil, administrative and other liabilities.
Public officials who received allocations from DAP are considered its
implementors. Some of them can invoke the principle of good faith, but not
Jinggoy.
Good faith, he has none. By his own admission during his privilege speech,
which is now of public record, he admitted to having doubt on the legality of
DAP. He even admitted to receiving DAP that he claimed was given as an
incentive to convict Corona.
Absent the element of good faith for Jinggoy, the proper tribunals can
determine his criminal, civil, administrative, and other liabilities.
With PDAF and DAP, sino ngayon ang sisinghap-singhap?
Bato-bato sa langit, ang tinamaan ay ang naghagis.
Ang namamangka sa dalawang, kadalasay siyang nalulunod
In short, huli ka na naman Jinggoy!
Reply
11. 180
vander anievas says:
July 13, 2014 at 6:18 am
@yvonne,
salamat sa post mo sa 162
Acts done in good faith pursuant to a law or executive act that is later
declared unconstitutional would remain valid and enforceable. It also applies
when the nullification of such acts would result in an injustice. In short,
unconstitutionality has prospective effects only.
anong tingin mo, maraming nagbasa pero hindi inunawa?
pwede.
minsan pag excited ako may simpleng bagay na mahirap ko ring unawain.
sabi pa sa 162 Woodrow Wilson once said, If you want to make enemies,
try to change something.
dagdagan ko pa: ipakulong mo ang maraming magnanakaw, tiyak
magkakaroon ka ng maraming kaaway.
pati yung magnanakaw na hindi pa naipapakulong magiging kaaway na rin.
salamat sa maraming cpmers na ang nais ay makatulong sa bansa sa
pamamagitan ng pagmamasid, pamumuna at pagbibigay suhestyon sa
maraming katanungan sa mga isyung kabi-kabilang naglalabasan.
Reply
o 180.1
leona says:
July 13, 2014 at 11:19 pm
On No. 177 yvonne@Tama ka! Sen. Jinggoy is also a beneficiary at the
same an implementor! Blurting a confession in his privilege speech such
as:
Kung ihuhulog nyo ako, isasama ko rin kayo.; and another one
Bakit kami lang?,
which all admits and confesses a guilt of accepting an incentive, P50
Million pesos! a product of wrong doing he spoke in the Halls of the
Senate. Other senators? Quiet lang sila. But the record shows who also
received P50 Million. They have no idea if as incentive or what.
No. 176 vander anievas@only partial portions of DAP provisions or acts
were declared unconstitutional. The bases of such DAP portions affected
rides on EO 294 SECS. 38 and 49 which obviously were not declared
unconstitutional when looking at the acts questioned hinges on such
SECTIONS of EO 294.
Was the unconstitutional declaration complete? No. Effective? No.
Informative for the public and the country? No. Whether SECS. 38 and 49
were argued or not, it is without doubt that the questioned acts is based on
those SECTIONS. Thus, without declaring these SECTIONS as
unconstitutional, the declaration is incomplete and remains doubtful if it is a
valid and constitutional declaration also.
To declare acts as unconstitutional the basis for the acts must be included
and not only the subject acts. It ended up only to the DAP acts but not even
SEC. 38 nor SEC. 49 of EO 294 the Rev. Adm. Code of 1987 were subject
of unconstitutionality declaration.
So, Acts done in good faith pursuant to a law or executive act that is a
legislative power remain valid and enforceable until declared
unconstitutional.
Reply
180.1.1
leona says:
July 13, 2014 at 11:23 pm
supply correction: Art. VI Chap. 5 for SECS. 38 & 49 of EO 294 Rev.
Adm. Code.
Reply
180.1.2
leona says:
July 14, 2014 at 12:15 am
correction: x x x the questioned acts are based x x x
Reply
o 180.2
leona says:
July 13, 2014 at 11:52 pm
On the matter of good faith, maybe this is also relevant
TITLE XVII
Budget and Management
CHAPTER 1
General Provisions
SECTION 1. Declaration of Policy.The national budget shall be formulated
and implemented as an instrument of national development, reflective of
national objectives and plans; supportive of and consistent with the socio-
economic development plans and oriented towards the achievement of
explicit objectives and expected results, to ensure that the utilization of funds
and operations of government entities are conducted effectively; formulated
within the context of a regionalized governmental structure and within the
totality of revenues and other receipts, expenditures and borrowings of all
levels of government and of government-owned or controlled corporations;
and prepared within the context of the national long-term plans and budget
programs of the Government.
SECTION 2. Mandate.The Department shall be responsible for the
formulation and implementation of the National Budget with the goal of
attaining our national socio-economic plans and objectives.
The Department shall be responsible for the efficient and sound utilization of
government funds and revenues to effectively achieve our countrys
development objectives.
SECTION 3. Powers and Functions.The Department of Budget and
Management shall assist the President in the preparation of a national
resources and expenditures budget, preparation, execution and control of
the National Budget, preparation and maintenance of accounting systems
essential to the budgetary process, achievement of more economy and
efficiency in the management of government operations, administration of
compensation and position classification systems, assessment of
organizational effectiveness and review and evaluation of legislative
proposals having budgetary or organizational implications.
Executive Order No. 292
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF 1987
It says and provides as a MANDATE to ensure that the utilization of funds
and operations of government entities are conducted effectively; in
SECTION 1 above.
The Department shall be responsible for the formulation and
implementation of the National Budget with the goal of attaining our national
socio-economic plans and objectives. SECTION 2 above.
The Department shall be responsible for the efficient and sound utilization
of government funds and revenues to effectively achieve our countrys
development objectives. 2nd Paragraph of SECTION 2 above.
At most, good faith appears in the formulation and implementation of the
DAP also from the above Mandate on Budget and Management provisions.
of Title XVII Chapter 1 Book IV of EO 294.
Reply
180.2.1
leona says:
July 14, 2014 at 12:07 am
Book VII Final Provisions:
SECTION 28. Separability Clause.In the event that any of the provisions
of this Code is declared unconstitutional, the validity of the other provisions
shall not be affected by such declaration.
EO 294.
So far the SC decision has not made any declaration on any provisions of
this EO 294. Then is the decision declaring some DAP acts or
implementation unconstitutional but ignoring any provision or provisions of
EO 294 or specifically SECTIONS 49 and 38 of Book VI Chap.5 helpful for
effective dissemination and validity as pronounced in the Decision? The SC
can answer this.
Reply
12. 179
chit navarro says:
July 13, 2014 at 4:55 am
From the column of Prof. Randy David, PDI 13 july, 2014 -

Not being a lawyer, I could be wrong in my interpretation. But, it is obvious to
me that there is a vast difference between pocketing huge sums of public
money intended for public use, which is what the crime of plunder is about,
and the rearrangement by the executive branch of the budgetary priorities
previously approved by Congress, which is what the Disbursement
Acceleration Program did. The first is a clear criminal offense. The second
has been pronounced by the Supreme Court as a breach of the 1987
Constitutions principle of separation of powers, but it remains to be seen
whether any criminal liability proceeds from its being declared
unconstitutional.
The high court did not say or assume that public funds were stolen. In fact, it
praised the DAPs intention of stimulating economic growth. But it
emphatically said that this noble end cannot justify abuse of presidential
powers, and must not be allowed. The Solicitor General, arguing for the
government, maintained that, as a policy measure, the DAP was conceived
on the assumption that it was in accord with the Constitution and the
Administrative Code.
Reply
o 179.1
Victin Luz says:
July 13, 2014 at 5:06 am
I agree @chit.with you I think what the SC wanted was for the DAP
savings not to FLOW funds next 2016 election into the HANDS of would be
anointed of PNOY.i , we have to accept our economy grew with the
DAP ( not all like COAs cross borders disbursement ) but imagine how much
money will go to the campaign FUNDs of ROXAS next 2016 if the SC will
not be CHECK by the S.C. ? tingnan muna natin kung sino ang anointed ni
PNOY..mahirap na baka si ROXAS parin .
Reply
179.1.1
vander anievas says:
July 13, 2014 at 5:48 am
the best na siguro ung nasabi na rin ng karamihan sa atin dito.
NA imbestigahan ang lahat ng napondohang projects na galing sa DAP, at
parusahan ang may sala.
dahil unconstitutional ang DAP katulad ng PDAF, ilahad nang mabuti at
may finality.
lahat tayo ay umaasang may kahihinatnang maganda at aral ang mga
kaganapang ito.
sa huli tayo pa rin ang panalo(o talo).
Reply
179.1.1.1
Victin Luz says:
July 13, 2014 at 6:08 am
Tama@vander ..agree tayo dyan..
Reply
o 179.2
jaxius says:
July 13, 2014 at 9:58 am
Being a non-lawyer, Prof. David did not know of Article 220 of the Revised
Penal Code which says, Any public officer who shall apply any public fund
or property under his administration to any public use other than for which
such fund or property were appropriated by law or ordinance shall suffer the
penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period or a fine ranging from
one-half to the total of the sum misapplied, if by reason of such
misapplication, any damages or embarrassment shall have resulted to the
public service. In either case, the offender shall also suffer the penalty of
temporary special disqualification.
Rearrangement by the executive branch of the budgetary priorities
previously approved by Congress = applying any public fund or property
under his administration to any public use other than for which such fund or
property were appropriated by law.
Technical malversation does not take into account the defense of good faith.
Reply
179.2.1
Victin Luz says:
July 13, 2014 at 10:35 am
@janxius ,,,my point ka dyan,, but ,technical malversation is included under
the revised penal code and crimes committed under RPC , good faith is a
defense . This was stated on their LAW BOOK on RPCuse your internet ,
google it and look for technical malversationit says here in their book that
if it is inherently wrong ( nasa RPC kasi ang violation ni ABAD ) even it is a
crime punishable under special
Law ,, hindi sya mala prohibita kundi mala in se meaning if inherently
wrong ,, GOOD FAITH is a defense.
Pag aralan natin maige itong kasalananni ABAD @janxius kung pwedi
nyang idepensa na GOOD FAITH syahe he wag tayong paloloko sa mga
blind followers ni ABAD or ni PNOY although maka PNOY ako at hindi
TROLL CORY at PNOY ako sa puso at diwa pero hindi sa pagkakamali
nya lalong lalo na kung GRAFT na kagaya nito.. Kasi ang defensa ng
ating mga kasamahan dito ay ang accomplishment ni PNOY sa paggamitng
DAP ( true and i salute PNOY with that ) but not the cross budget savings
na ginawa nya o sa madaling salitaay nag SHORT CUT sya at linabag ang
Constitution.basahin natin munang maige sa internet ang nga nakasaad
sa Revised Penal Codemag abogado muna tayo. No need to be
good in ENGLISH kung tuta ka sa maling interpretasyon ng mga
kasamahan mo dito sa CPMERs e.., magsaliksik tayong maige.
Reply
179.2.1.1
Victin Luz says:
July 13, 2014 at 10:46 am
I have to go first on fishing for my ulam mamayang tanghali , baka may huli
na ang pain ko sa bukana he he @janxius,,,,dami isda dito sa amin pare
ko, may tanim din akong gulay dito no high blood fresh air pa mya
mya babalik ako at maghalungkat tayo,, dahil nararamdaman ko sa takbo
ng mga defensa ng iba nating kasamahan dito ay PNOY was honest in
using the DAP and cannot be declared unconstititional para pagdating ng
2016 ,,madaling pondohan ang election funds ni ROXAS na walang
kasabit sabit he he MALAKING PONDO ang MAGAGAWA nila para
matalo si BINAY .ok sana kung ang popondohan ninPNOY ay hindi si
ROXAS diba laban kay BINAY sana si POE o CAYETANO o si CARPIO
MORALES o si PNOY VP pero wag ROXAS ang P he he pikit mata
nalang tayo
Reply
179.2.1.2
baycas says:
July 13, 2014 at 10:50 am
On good faith
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/november2012/192330.pdf
Read the link on Comment. No. 164 too.
Reply
179.2.1.2.1
baycas says:
July 13, 2014 at 10:52 am
and Abad did the ponencia
Justice Abad po
Reply

raissa says:
July 13, 2014 at 1:35 pm
hmmm. Abad vs Abad.
Reply

Victin Luz says:
July 13, 2014 at 1:51 pm
Sir@Baycas @jaxiuscorrect me if i am WRONG ha..kaya sya
naging MALA PROHIBITA and Justices of the S.C. decided and
categorically stated that malice or criminal intent was irrelevant because
of the MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE passed by the Sanggunian of that Town
SEPARATING the FUND/local appropriations for under-nourished
children with the FUNDs/local appropriation for typhoon or calamity
victims.. They had violated such Ordinaces and in relation to the
crime of Technical Malversation under the revised penal codethat
maked that crime MALA PROHIBITAotherwise kung magkasama ang
pondo itng dalawa SEF at CSAP ..walang juggling of funds..
Different dito kay ABAD dahil mga ipinipilit o nagpupumilit SILA mga
kasamahan natin dito na sect. 49 of the Administrative Code in relation to
sect. 38 of the same, gave PNOY thru ABAD the authority to juggled (
cross border application on savings ) funds , at ang iba mga ay dinala sa
COA. its not MALA IN SE daw dahil , according to @maam raissa at
iba pa nating kasamahan ay kahit violative sa Constitution under art.
25(5) ang ginawa ni ABAD ay hindi pa naman daw repealed ang
Administrative Code na pinagbabasihan nila kaya TRUE : GOOD FAITH
of ABAD is his defense
Magkaiba mga pare koy Pero wait himaymayin natin kung may GOOD
FAITH si ABAD sa ginawa nya at ang paggamit sa sect. 49 daw sabi nila
kahit contradictory sa ating Constitution..wait wait lang
Reply

Victin Luz says:
July 13, 2014 at 1:59 pm
Sir Baycas@Jaxius.may sagotna ako sa ponente ni ABAD ,,,magkaiba
sa kaso ni ABAD . ayaw pumasok he he ..wait lang ulitin ko. Mala In
se kay ABAD ,,,good faith is his defense ,,,in the ponente it became
MALA PROHIBITA because of the ORDINANCE separating the budget
of SEF and CSAP was violated kung wala sana ang ordinance na iyon
o pinagsama ang sa iisang ORDINANCE ang SEF at CSAP.wala na
ang kasong technical malversationayaw pumasoknang ang una kung
explanation Wait lang
Reply

Victin Luz says:
July 13, 2014 at 2:16 pm
Ayaw talagang pumasok ang hinimay kung sagot mga sirs@. He he
ayaw papasukin ng system baka tama ang sinasabi ko

Victin Luz says:
July 13, 2014 at 2:24 pm
Sir @baycas ,, research ka sa elements ng DOLOCriminal Intent or
Deliberate intent of ABAD in such case , Freedom of Action ni Abad in
pooling especially juggling of the Funds going to COA and his
INTELLEGENCE ( ABAD -wala naman ata syang sayad he he ) ..look
also how ABAD DISCERNs- baka hindi nya alam ang tama at mali-
and look also his MOTIVE beyond the juggling of savings.. Dont go to
POOLING authorized si PNOY and ABAD MAJONG TIME NA
KAMI DITO SA LUGAR NAMIN KASIsunday afternoon na
MALALAMAN NATIN LAHAT KUNG MAYRROONG GOOD FAITH SI
ABAD dyan sa kaso nya.GOD BLESS and GOOD BYE. Ayaw
pumask ang mga sagot laro na lang ako He he
Reply

Victin Luz says:
July 13, 2014 at 2:29 pm
Ayaw talaga pumasok @sir baycas naka tatlo na ako he he majong
time na kami dito sa aming baryoGoodbye and God Blesss
Research on the elements ofvDOLOcriminal or deliberat intent of
ABAD .Freedom of Action nya in juggling of Funds .and Intellegence
nya when he juggle that funds also how he DISCERNs lokk also his
Motive . dyan malalman na natin kung mayroon syang GOOD
FAITH..hope pasok na ito..
Reply
179.2.1.3
baycas says:
July 13, 2014 at 10:51 am
Dito po ang lexoterica web page:
http://raissarobles.com/2014/07/08/president-aquinos-dead-mom-
president-cory-may-yet-save-her-son-from-jail-over-dap/comment-page-
4/#comment-142466
Reply
179.2.1.3.1
Victin Luz says:
July 13, 2014 at 2:12 pm
Here sir@Baycas @jaxius. In ABAD and PINOYs case kaya GOOD
FAITH ( kung mayroon mga ) kasi , kagaya ng mga kasamahan natin dito
si @maam Raissa pati, believes that sect. 49 in relation to sect. 38 of the
Administrative Code gave PNOY thru ABAD the power to JUGGLE
FUNDs on Government Savings ( cross border appropriations on savings
like what they did to COAs inflow budget eventhough it contradicts and
violative to our Constitution
Dyan sa ponente ni ABAD justice, the municipal ordinance passesd by
their respective Sangunian separating the FUNDS/APPROPRIATIONs of
SEF under nourisehed children with the FUNDs/appropriation of
Calamity victims.iyan ang LINABAG ng MAYOR kaya , may batas na
kasi para dito ay ginamit mo pa para doon So malice and criminal intent
was irrelevant.
Nakuha nyo ang pagkakaiba? hinahanap ko ngayon kung saan ang
GOOD FAITH ni KALBOng si ABADpapaano kaya nya gamitin ang
GOOD FAITH sa defense nya.. E Constitution ang LINABAG NILA ni
PNOY o sya lang sa pagadala sa COA for example Pag aralan natin
mga @sirs ha..
Reply
179.2.1.4
jaxius says:
July 13, 2014 at 11:14 am
@Victin Luz,
If youre a lawyer, I think you better review your criminal law. Not all
offenses under the RPC are mala in se which requires criminal intent.
There are offenses such as technical malversation that are mala prohibita
where criminal intent is completely irrelevant.
In the case of Ysidoro vs People of the Philippines, the Supreme Court
said:
Four. Ysidoro insists that he acted in good faith since, first, the idea of
using the SFP goods for the CSAP beneficiaries came, not from him, but
from Garcia and Polinio; and, second, he consulted the accounting
department if the goods could be distributed to those beneficiaries. Having
no criminal intent, he argues that he cannot be convicted of the crime.
But criminal intent is not an element of technical malversation. The law
punishes the act of diverting public property earmarked by law or
ordinance for a particular public purpose to another public purpose. The
offense is mala prohibita, meaning that the prohibited act is not inherently
immoral but becomes a criminal offense because positive law forbids its
commission based on considerations of public policy, order, and
convenience.13 It is the commission of an act as defined by the law, and
not the character or effect thereof, that determines whether or not the
provision has been violated. Hence, malice or criminal intent is completely
irrelevant.
You may check the complete text of the decision here:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/nov2012/gr_192330_2012.html
Reply
179.2.1.4.1
Victin Luz says:
July 13, 2014 at 12:43 pm
I am not a lawyer @jaxius ,,,pardon ha ,,retired government engineer
ako,, and now teaching engineering subjects dito sa local college dito sa
lugar namin.sige babasahin natin maige iyan Hinihimay ko kasi pag
ako parang calculus o design topics ,, hehe walang kawala iyan
dictionary at article lang ang katapat plus ang mga SC decision na
ilinathala ni @sir baycas . Pagmahirap ng intindihin patulung tayo kay
@atty leona o si atty @ rene he he di we made used of our time
contributing to what we learned and researched on this topic and here in
the blog of @maam raissa,,,not being a TROLL but based on what is
REASONABLE beliefs we had .di ba DEMOCRACY.. but we have
to accept honorably our mistakes if any ,, in the endhe he Mga
journalist na kasamahan natin dito e bow ng bow kahit di nila pa
masyadong inuunawa o pinag aralan ang issue.
Reply
179.2.1.4.2
Victin Luz says:
July 13, 2014 at 2:42 pm
@jaxius ,,, myang gabi nalang uli naka 3 times kunang try ang
explanation ko ayaw pumasok ang comments ko mukhang kakampi pa ni
ABAD ang signal ng Globe dito sa amin.go to the elements of DOLO
Criminal and deliberate intent of ABAD kung mayroon..Freedom of
Action ni ABAD kung mayroon baka kasi tinakot lang sya ni Enrile o si
NapolesIntellegence ni Abad kung mayroon din baka sa lucid
interval lang sya mayroon..look also How he DISCERNsbaka utak
taga Batanes sya mali mali and his MOTIVE of Abad Dito malalaman
na natin kung mayroon syang GOOD FAITH na itinatago he he
Reply
179.2.2
lui5 says:
July 13, 2014 at 1:34 pm
Im not a lawyer, but strictly looking only at Article 220 of the RPC, it
appears that what this misappropriation or technical malversation does take
into account for it to be punishable by imprisonment or fine is for damages
or embarrassment shall have resulted to the public service. Otherwise,
there was no technical malversation. Am i reading this right?
Reply
179.2.2.1
jaxius says:
July 13, 2014 at 1:51 pm
@lui5,
The crime of technical malversation as penalized under Article 220 of the
Revised Penal Code has three elements: a) that the offender is an
accountable public officer; b) that he applies public funds or property under
his administration to some public use; and c) that the public use for which
such funds or property were applied is different from the purpose for which
they were originally appropriated by law or ordinance.
The damage or embarrassment requirement in only taken into
consideration to determine whether the punishment to be imposed is
imprisonment or fine. In the Ysidoro case, since there was no damage or
embarrassment to the public service, the Accused was only sentenced to
pay a fine amounting to 50% of the amount involved. Thus, if Abad is guilty
of technical malversation and no public damage or embarrassment to the
public service occurred, he may be fined a paltry 70 billion pesos (140B
daw narelease of DAP funds).
Reply
179.2.2.1.1
lui5 says:
July 13, 2014 at 2:17 pm
Not trying to question the decision of the courts. Im just puzzled on how
article 220 was interpreted. From a laymans standpoint, based on article
220 alone, it reads as though punishment for the misappropriation is
conditional on finding damages or embarrassment to public service, and
not as a basis for determining which penalty to impose. unless im
missing some other related article under the RPC.
Reply

Victin Luz says:
July 13, 2014 at 2:34 pm
Magkaiba ang Facts ang kaso ni ABAD at ang ponente ni J. ABAD..
naging mala prohibita sya dahil the mayor directly violated the municipal
ordonance in relation to Technical malversation Kay ABAD may batas
sila na ipinagpipilitan ang section 49 in relation to sect. 38 good faith is
his defense i also believe kung mayroon syang ipakita na good faith
mga
Reply
179.2.2.1.2
Victin Luz says:
July 13, 2014 at 2:44 pm
Bye@jaxius its MAJONG time in our BARYO na kasi GOD BLESS
parekoy
Reply
179.2.3
lui5 says:
July 13, 2014 at 2:00 pm
Or, there was technical malversation, but to be punishable by imprisonment
or fine, that any damages or embarrassment shall have resulted to the
public service should be proven.
Reply
179.2.4
Rene-Ipil says:
July 13, 2014 at 4:03 pm
Jaxius, Baycas, Victin
Jaxius, Baycas, Victin
In a number of cases the Supreme Court, in divisions or en banc, said that
Technical Malversation (TM) or violation of article 220 of RPC is malum en
se. As malum en se violation the criminal intent must be proved by the
prosecution.
So, I am really wondering how the third division of the SC committed a
grave mistake of classifying TM as mala prohibita in Ysidoro, citing the book
of Florenz Regalado that cited People vs. Pavlic, 227 Michigan 563. I am
also at a loss why Justice Abad cited a book that used a foreign
jurisprudence on manslaughter instead of local jurisprudence on TM such
as Abdulla (2005) citing Manzanaris (1984). But of course the de la Cuesta
case which discussed the violation of the Anti Graft Law as malum
prohibitum and TM as malum en se came later in 2013.
Reply
13. 178
Victin Luz says:
July 13, 2014 at 4:55 am
My second thoughtIt would be better if the DAP as a whole will be
declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court . WHY? My reasons is when
2016 election comes , FAIR ang playing fields sa lahat ng mga
CANDIDATES sa flow of FUNDs Parang pansin ko PNOY really wanted
ROXAS to be his anointed and win the Presidency.Pansin ko dinadahan
tayo o test kung acceptable si Roxas sa atin He heHINDI
Constitutional Prohibitios on the tranfers of appropriations from one
department to another co equal department to CHECK and BALANCE the
POLITICAL MOTIVES of the PRESIDENT not only to implement exchange of
favors between PNOY and the MEMBERs of CONGRESS but also in the
course of political campaign on 2016 for example,,,PLENTY of FUNDS might
be TRANSFERRED from the executive to the congress and used falls to the
HANDs of ROXAS.hmmm..i think good at na CHECK agad ng SC ang
cross border appropriations na iyandouble purpose ang DAP primary
objective is to enhance our economy our country and i belived also that
PNOY had accomplished secondary the FLOW of funds comes 2016 to
ROXAS.ahh mahirap na .NO TO ROXAS as we NO to BINAY and
MARCOS..
Reply
o 178.1
chit navarro says:
July 13, 2014 at 5:04 am
From the column of Solita Monsod PDI 12 July 2014:
IF your hunch is their motive, why did Abad recommend for its
discontinuance when the primary purpose has been achieved? Just
saying.
Now for the DAP (Disbursement Acceleration Program). Visit the DBM
website and look it up. Heres my take: The Supreme Court praised it for
having achieved what it set out to do. However, the Court said that some of
the actions taken were unconstitutionaland then got all involved in
operative fact, which I take to mean that if the expenditures were made
and the projects were completed, they should not be reversed (but of
course!). And then the Court said that the people responsible for the DAP
could be held liable, depending on the evidence. Not should, not would, but
could.
Well, let the facts speak for themselves. The DAP was an answer to a felt
need (there was underspending). When the need was reduced, the
expenditures were reduced: P75 billion for the last three months of 2011,
P53.2 billion for all of 2012, and P16.0 billion for 2013. And then it stopped.
Does that look like pork barrel? Please.
Reply
178.1.1
Victin Luz says:
July 13, 2014 at 5:25 am
I agree @chit . Pero the way i looked DAP can be a bandwagon for
FUNDING of PNOYs anointed and a greater percentage will be
ROXAS.let ABAD open the BOOKs for us to check where and how are
those savings spent FIRST.. DELIKADO @chit..madali namang ilahad
o ilabas iyan dahil may estimates na iyan bago ipinadala ni ABAD sa
kabilang departamento.pero kung ganyang katagal ,, may inaayos pa ba
sila? Kagaya sa dinala sa House saan saan napunta at kung papaano
ginasta? Transfarency tayo
Reply
o 178.2
AngLagay says:
July 13, 2014 at 8:47 am
@ Victin. if is NO to Roxaz, NO to Binay and Marcos, so whose going to
get the YES? Any suggestions about it? Please naman, dont tell me YES to
Pacman.
Reply
178.2.1
Victin Luz says:
July 14, 2014 at 1:15 am
Si POE sana kaso ayaw naman ninyo di ayaw kunadin he he. Isang
babae na kapatid ni PNOY Palagay ko pwede ang isa sa kanila ,,, not to
KRISkung si PACMAN e di si BONG PINEDA nalang tayohe he
Iyong GIBO TEODORO ,,, hindi ba iyon pwede? Palagay mabuti ding tao si
GIBO?
Reply
14. 177
baycas says:
July 13, 2014 at 4:45 am
Mang Bernie strikes again
cross-border
adjective
adjective used in this phrase: cross-border transfer of funds through
DAP
It is the money transfer from one Robin Hood to several Robin Hoods.
- Mang Bernie and the barbers, in unison
Reply
15. 176
baycas says:
July 13, 2014 at 4:29 am
Technical malversation; mala prohibita. Ysidoro insists that he acted in
good faith when he diverted the food intended for those suffering from
malnutrition to the beneficiaries of reconstruction projects affecting the homes
of victims of calamities since, first, the idea of using the Supplemental Feeding
Program (SFP) goods for the Core Shelter Assistance Program (CSAP)
beneficiaries came, not from him, but from Garcia and Polinio; and, second, he
consulted the accounting department if the goods could be distributed to those
beneficiaries. Having no criminal intent, he argues that he cannot be convicted
of the crime of technical malversation. But criminal intent is not an element of
technical malversation. The law punishes the act of diverting public property
earmarked by law or ordinance for a particular public purpose to another public
purpose. The offense is mala prohibita, meaning that the prohibited act is not
inherently immoral but becomes a criminal offense because positive law forbids
its commission based on considerations of public policy, order, and
convenience. It is the commission of an act as defined by the law, and not the
character or effect thereof that determines whether or not the provision has
been violated. Hence, malice or criminal intent is completely irrelevant. Arnold
James M. Ysidoro v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 192330, November
14, 2012.
So the public may know
It is the commission of an act as defined by the law, and not the character
or effect thereof that determines whether or not the provision has been
violated. Hence, malice or criminal intent is completely irrelevant.
http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2012/12/12/november-2012-philippine-
supreme-court-decisions-on-criminal-law-and-procedure/
Reply
o 176.1
baycas says:
July 13, 2014 at 4:41 am
cross-border
adjective
adjective used in this phrase: cross-border transfer of funds through
DAP
It is the money transfer from one Robin Hood to several Robin Hoods.
- Mang Bernie and the barbers, in unison
Reply
176.1.1
Victin Luz says:
July 13, 2014 at 8:45 am
@Sir Baycas..i thought Technical Malversation is a crime punished under
the Revised Penal Code? And that good faith or lack of criminal intent is a
valid defense on which ABAD was now using as his defense.
Intent meaning in the dictionary is the determination to do a certain thing,
an aim or purpose of the mind.
discernment is the mental capacity to tell right from wrong.
criminal intent is a deliberate intent we have to base this on the ACTs
of ABAD not on what he says ..
Even for a non-lawyer like us we have to analyze if ABAD was in good faith
when he releases funds to COA or to other Departments..when ABAD
discerned to cross border that savings , HE HAS THE INTELLEGENCE (
he knows what is wrong and what is right ) , he knows that under the
Constitution such action was prohibited he knows that sect. 49 did not
gave the President the power to juggle funds , he also knows that cross
border savins to COA was not considered to be a priority project that will
enhance the economy of our country. When ABAD commence on doing it
he has all the FREEDOM of ACTION, he was never threatened by TOBY
TIANCO or ENRILE or CARPIO do so so the INTENTION was
DELIBERATE but according to our LAWYERs a deliberate intent is a
CRIMINAL INTENT and if you have this three ingredients CRIMINAL
INTENT, FREEDOM of ACTION and INTELLEGENCE ABAD committed
a CRIME spicifically Technical Malversation under RPC. ..
Let us get back to the DELIBERATE INTENTION of ABAD His acts will
tell that his MOTIVE is for the enhancement and development of our
economy and it was even praised by the Supreme Court and also US
Filipinos,, but again ,, a crime can be committed without a MOTIVE ,,, ,,
HERE it goes the CRIME of Technical Malversation ABAD good
intention or motives in using crooss border savings does not save him from
the crime.. IMHO this is my ananlysis and you can have yours
DEMOCRACY we are he he not a coommunist isnt it.?
Reply
o 176.2
Victin Luz says:
July 13, 2014 at 12:55 pm
Thanks @sir baycas ha Binabasa ko now,, ty
Reply
o 176.3
raissa says:
July 13, 2014 at 7:48 pm
Hmm. I just learned something new.
mala prohibita.
thanks.
Reply
16. 175
letlet says:
July 13, 2014 at 3:10 am
Everyone knows PNOY has a clean sheet of character, reputation, honesty
and a clean departure from corruption. Unfortunately, DAP has stained his
clean sheet with a black dot, wherein some people only see this black dot.
PNOYs best intentions and best efforts for our country and the people have
been brushed under the carpet. For a long, long, long time we PRAYED TO
GOD for a good leader to lead our country to the right direction, then GOD
ANSWERED OUR PRAYER AND gave us PNOY. Lo and behold, now the
black dot on his sheet is storming a surge of brick brats and muds. What are
we going to say to GOD, now that we are stoning His son whom he sent to
us? All of us are His children, but only few are chosen.
Reply
o 175.1
vander anievas says:
July 13, 2014 at 5:29 am
sad thing that a lot of filipinos are quick to see that black dot.
as joam commented in his blog, we pinoys are spiteful, he may be damn
right at that.
shall the noble intention and sacrificial effort be washed/swayed at that turn.
i have faith in the man.
im still with him.
this chance of ours is once in a lifetime.
i prefer his style of a leader(even he is always maligned) over the
brilliant(kuno) but thieving/plundering leader.
Reply
17. 174
Roger Lagarde says:
July 13, 2014 at 2:15 am
Ok if the EVIL GENIUS and his Mini-Me will get away with this legally,
assuming that those two would, does DBM have the right to withhold
information that was being asked of it like these ones Ive read from the PCIJ
website?
In particular, the PCIJ sought information about:
* The list of projects funded under the P85.5-billion DAP (as of 2011),
including the location of the project, date of release of the fund, name of
endorsing legislator or implementing unit, and the status of the project;
* The list of the projects, including the location of the project and
implementing unit, identified in FY 2011 and FY 2010 as slow-moving
projects and programs for discontinuance that became one of the sources of
funds for DAP;
* The list of budget items for realignment in FY 2011 that became one of the
sources of funds for the DAP; and
* The list of the unexpected remittance of dividends from GOCCs,
Government Financial Institutions, and sale of government assets.
Reply
o 174.1
raissa says:
July 13, 2014 at 1:36 pm
wait for my post.
Reply
18. 173
yvonne says:
July 12, 2014 at 10:50 pm
UNDERSTANDING THE DISBURSEMENT ACCELARATION PROGRAM
.
So the public may knowand decide
Indeed, not even the most irrational detractor can diminish the economic
gains and investment upgrades that the country attained only under this
administration partly due to the polemic DAP
Woodrow Wilson once said, If you want to make enemies, try to change
something.
No one can attest to the veracity of this statement better than President
Aquino and DBM Secretary Butch Abad.
When we assumed office in 2010, we were confronted with inefficiencies
and bottlenecks in the bureaucracy the delayed implementation of priority
programs and projects and inefficient disbursements among others so that
growth contracted for three quarters in 2011. With this, we introduced the
Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) as a reform intervention to
accelerate public spending and boost the economy. This program made way
for the remarkable improvement in government expenditure making a
significant improvement in GDP growth which rose to as high as 7.6% last
year, explained Abad.
As early as December 2013, the economic team composed of Secretary
Abad, Finance Secretary Cesar Purisima and NEDA Secretary Arsenio
Balicasan recommended the termination of DAP as written in a to the
President.
All economic and fiscal indicators point to the conclusion that DAP has
achieved its objective as a fiscal stimulus measure. We thus recommend for
His Excellencys consideration, the termination of DAP as well as the
vigorous implementation of budgetary reform measures to ensure the
irreversibility of reforms.
Three major reform measures were recommended to strengthen
transparency, accountability and efficiency in public spending. These are: the
GAA-as-Release Document, Performance Informed Budgeting, and the
Cashless and Checkless Regime. Florid media reporting gives the
misimpression that the entire DAP was declared unconstitutional.
But as published in Rappler:
SC declared 3 schemes unconstitutional:
1. The withdrawal of unobligated allotments from the implementing agencies
and the declaration of the withdrawn unobligated allotments and unreleased
appropriations as savings prior to the end of the fiscal year and without
complying with the statutory definition of savings contained in the General
Appropriations Act .
2. Cross-border transfers of savings of the executive department to offices
outside the executive department.
3. Funding of projects, activities, programs not covered by appropriations in
the General Appropriations Act.
So before volunteering an opinion, impeaching President Aquino, or
screaming for Butch Abad to resign or be thrown in jail, make it a point to
read Former Chief Justice Artemio Panganibans column, The DAP decision
(July 6, 2014).
Acts done in good faith pursuant to a law or executive act that is later
declared unconstitutional would remain valid and enforceable. It also applies
when the nullification of such acts would result in an injustice. In short,
unconstitutionality has prospective effects only.
Then read Raisa Robles well-argued piece, President Aquinos dead mom,
President Cory, may yet save her son from jail over DAP (And why there are
grounds for the Supreme Court to review its decision on DAP).
Raissa asks, Could the Supreme Court be wrong?The DAP is
unconstitutional if you only look at the 1987 Constitution and Chapter 5,
Section 38 of the Administrative Code of 1987 which is what the justices
did.
The DAP becomes constitutional if you look at the 1987 Constitution AND
Sections 38 and 49 of Chapter 5 of the Administrative Code of 1987.But
NOT ONE of them mentioned nor discussed Chapter 5, Section
49.Because of this, they unanimously ruled that the pooling of funds under
DAP and certain cross-border DAP projects violated the Constitution.
Raissa points out that the Administrative Code is not a mere Executive Order.
It has the status of a law as given by the Constitution.
SECTION 49. Authority to Use Savings for Certain Purposes. Savings in
the appropriations provided in the General Appropriations Act may be used
for the settlement of the following obligations incurred during a current fiscal
year or previous fiscal years as may be approved by the Secretary in
accordance with rules and procedures as may be approved by the President:
9.) Priority activities that will promote the economic well-being of the nation,
including food production, agrarian reform, energy development, disaster
relief, and rehabilitation.
10.) Repair, improvement and renovation of government buildings and
infrastructure and other capital assets damaged by natural calamities;
Finally, let us contemplate Franklin D. Roosevelts admonition, I ask you to
judge me by the enemies I have made.
Who are the enemies of PNoy and Butch Abad?
The list is long but the usual suspects are as perennial as they are familiar.
The most rabid attackers come from the left-leaning party list groups Bayan
Muna (recipients of PDAF and DAP) and its spawn Kabataan. It was also the
prime movers of the leftist political wing, National Democratic Front (NDF)
that brought the issue to the Supreme Court. The rallies, heckling and protest
stunts are all care of this block. Why are they so anti-Aquino? Their failed
senatorial bets in 2010 were not accepted in the slate, is one reason.
Then there are the unhappy politicians as represented by the devilishly
striking spokesperson, who changed allegiance early on; the supporters of
the 3 senators and the former president currently in jail for the non-bailable
crime of plunder; the former budget secretary and national treasurer who
tirelessly speak out on TV to point out the flaws of this government. (One was
accused of involvement in a multimillion textbook scam; the other was said to
be after an elusive post.)
There are the disgruntled elements in the Supreme Court who got bypassed,
the mordant joker who actually authored the Administrative Code of 1987,
and finally the jukebox media who play up whatever angle was paid for.
Who is serving our country better and is more deserving of our support? Its
our call.
Reply
o 173.1
yvonne says:
July 12, 2014 at 10:55 pm
Disclosure:
The above piece is not mine but is a copy of a posting making the rounds of
the internet and, as such, Im not able to acknowledge or identify its source. I
find it of interest as the posting is making reference to Raissas current blog
post.
Reply
173.1.1
chit navarro says:
July 12, 2014 at 11:56 pm
THE article you posted is an article written by Yoly Villanueva Ong for
Rappler titled
SO THE PUBLIC MAY KNOW
Reply
173.1.1.1
yvonne says:
July 13, 2014 at 1:48 am
@chit, thanks for the heads up. I have not read the Rappler article but
although the main text was from Rappler, the source of the posting going
on around in the internet is not Rappler. I did not copy the entire piece,
only the salient points, and at the end of the piece it acknowledges Raffler
and Raissas blog post, as among its sources.
Reply
173.1.1.1.1
chit navarro says:
July 13, 2014 at 4:44 am
From the column of Prof. Randy David, PDI 13/07/2014
****************************************************************************
Not being a lawyer, I could be wrong in my interpretation. But, it is obvious
to me that there is a vast difference between pocketing huge sums of
public money intended for public use, which is what the crime of plunder is
about, and the rearrangement by the executive branch of the budgetary
priorities previously approved by Congress, which is what the
Disbursement Acceleration Program did. The first is a clear criminal
offense. The second has been pronounced by the Supreme Court as a
breach of the 1987 Constitutions principle of separation of powers, but it
remains to be seen whether any criminal liability proceeds from its being
declared unconstitutional.
The high court did not say or assume that public funds were stolen. In
fact, it praised the DAPs intention of stimulating economic growth. But it
emphatically said that this noble end cannot justify abuse of presidential
powers, and must not be allowed. The Solicitor General, arguing for the
government, maintained that, as a policy measure, the DAP was
conceived on the assumption that it was in accord with the Constitution
and the Administrative Code.
Reply
173.1.1.1.2
chit navarro says:
July 13, 2014 at 4:47 am
@yvonne -
yes, that is the complete article. Yoly Ong cited the article of Raissa = a
very well researched article of Raissa Robles
link as follows
http://www.rappler.com/thought-leaders/63093-so-the-public-may-know-
decide-dap
Reply
o 173.2
Victin Luz says:
July 13, 2014 at 4:18 am
@yvonne ,,, ABAD is not even a finger of RoseveltSection 49 gave the
power of the President to pool government savings but not to juggle itThe
word MAYBE approved by the secretary in accordance to the rules and
regulations that MAYBE approved by the President shows that before
anything else it must conform with art. 25(5) of the Constitution , in case of
ABADs doubt to consider him acting in GOOD FAITH , ABAD could have
took refuge to the ConstitutionNow if ABAD does , why did he disburesd
such savings to COA? Was the COA a priority project that will enhance the
economy of our country? Big NO.
Kung Hindi napuna ang kamaliang ginawa ni ABAD sa savings natin..at
dahil mga ipinagbabawal sa ating saligang batas ang mga ganitong pagsalin
sa mga nalikom na pondo,,, what was the real objectives of ABAD? or
PNOY ? or tahimik si ROXAS ata..?
The reasons why the Constitution prohibits transfer of funds of this
magnitude was in order not to serve as an implementor of the President
POLITICAL MOTIVES as an exchange of favors he wanted from other Co
Equal Departments and the most that must be CHECK and BALANCE is
when 2016 comes , in the course of POLITICAL CAMPAIGN funds will be
trasferred from executive dept. to another ( house or senate ) so these can
be used as CAMPAIGN FUNDshmmm ROXAS ang karamihan yat
dito a. .as we can see BINAY was not Happy when ABADs resignation
was not accepted by PNOYsabi mga nila irrevocable sana ang
ginawa..Cayetano was happy ,,, ELECTION FUNDs can not flow easily at
the doorstep of ROXAS..
Reply
19. 172
yu says:
July 12, 2014 at 8:59 pm
I think our laws assume that things are done in good faith. It is bad faith that
you have to prove, otherwise, good faith is assumed.
Reply
o 172.1
drill down says:
July 13, 2014 at 6:27 am
the constitution pretty much assumes that you can trust no one.
Reply
172.1.1
drill down says:
July 13, 2014 at 6:30 am
thats why all these discretionary powers are very dangerous especially
when theres limited means to scrutinize them.
Reply
o 172.2
drill down says:
July 13, 2014 at 6:37 am
good faith is always assumed only in dictatorships. the dictator always
makes the right decision for the good of the country.
Reply
20. 171
raissa says:
July 12, 2014 at 7:05 pm
The working title of my next piece is
Saguisag fully backs me on DAP and shares a startling suspicion
And one Associate Justice agrees with my interpretation of Section 25 (5) of
the Constitution
Reply
o 171.1
leona says:
July 12, 2014 at 8:46 pm
Correct Mam Raissa. In your query in bold you asked Is this inconsistent
with the Constitution? For me, YES, it is inconsistent.
Is it unconstitutional? No. Because EO 294 having a status of a legislative
power it is a law enacted by Pres. Cory PRIOR to the convening of
Congress.The Transitory Provisions allowed this in transition. Only laws
enacted AFTER congress had convened in violation of the Constitution can
be declared unconstitutional. [you interpreted this also]
Normally or simply understanding the word inconsistent would be
unconstitutional in effect. But the DAP touching as basis on Chap. 5 Art. VI
of EO 294 and Sec. 25 (5) Article VI of the Constitution together with Sec. 6
of the Transitory Provision of same Constitution, SECS. 38 and 49 of EO
294 or Rev. Adm. Code, cannot be unconstitutional though it is clearly
inconsistent with Art. 25 (5) Art. VI Constitution.
The saving point was clearly: x x x Section 6, of Article XVIII, Transitory
Provisions.
The incumbent President shall continue to exercise legislative powers until
the first Congress is convened.
[by Raissa]
Question: as Raissa suggested: This is what the justices have to determine
meaning the inconsistency of SECS. 38 & 49 of EO 294. But the justices
have to go much further into the tunnel on this by ASKING ALSO -
are these two SECTIONS unconstitutional? Under the prevailing conditions
how all these sections etc., all converged altogether at the time many years
back in 1987 etc., I doubt in my humble opinion the justices or the Court can
declare the sections unconstitutional for the preceding reasons etc. given
already here by Raissa.
So, how will the SC go about it? 1.) Nada. Ask Congress to repeal the
sections instead. 2.) Because of the SCs Operative Fact doctrine that it
discussed, the subject SECTIONS are operating in fact as a law or
legislative power. 3.) Remove that last Paragraph about Good Faith or Bad
Faith, and about investigating those responsible for the DAP etc., because it
runs counter to the doctrine of OPERATIVE FACT when the Court resolves
the govt via OSGs motion for reconsideration (assuming the Court finds
merit in it).
Or the Court can do this: Section 6 of Art. VIII of the Constitution on
Transitory Provisions does not and cannot allow even a legislative power
such as EO 294 to violate Art. VI SEC. 25 of the Constitution even before
Congress convened. Why? Because it is super dangerous! Super inviting
flagrant violations of the heart of the constitutional provisions! That is the
reason why even President Cory did not want to USE EO 294. The son
likewise cannot USE that if the mother believed it will be aBad precedent.
The doctrine of Operative Fact on Pres. Cory Aquino not using it applies
also to President Nonoy Aquino likewise. And we maintain this FACT as it
OPERATES since 1987 up to now!
Has Joker responded? Nada? Please tell us what, why, how,etc. if he replies
Raissa.
Reply
o 171.2
baycas says:
July 13, 2014 at 4:03 am
Section 5
(5) No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations;
however, the President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the
House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the
heads of Constitutional Commissions may, by law, be authorized to augment
any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from
savings in other items of their respective appropriations.
is in ARTICLE VI, THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT.
So the public may be reminded, especially of the operative
word RESPECTIVE.
on Constituional Law issue of the CROSS-BORDER transfer of monies and
Technical Malversation, please read this:
http://marichulambino.com/2013/10/01/disbursement-acceleration-program-
dap-constitutional-law-issues-realignment-versus-technical-malversation/
Note also that PNoy and Abad are separate until the end of their term in
2016simply because one is immune and the other is susceptible
Reply
171.2.1
baycas says:
July 13, 2014 at 4:10 am
Oops, that would be Section 25
Reply
21. 170
Danny says:
July 12, 2014 at 7:05 pm
Perhaps, when the Solicitor-General appeal for the SC consideration on DAP
both section of the Administration Code must be cited. If a valid statute laws
were applied to make the savings, pooling and cross-border legal the SC
justices have to make the whole DAP constitutional.
Reply
22. 169
Rene-Ipil says:
July 12, 2014 at 3:23 pm
The critics of PNoy are hitting Abad hard to separate the two. I believe Abad
is merely a co-author of DAP. The principal author and mastermind is PNoy
the evil genius according to Joker. Without PNoy the operation will never
succeed. Without Abad, PNoy would merely assign the task of drafting the
necessary issuances to anyone of his economic managers like Purisima with
the aid of career budget experts that abound in DBM.
IMO it was PNoy who hatched the idea on DAP or its equivalent that had
been hibernating in his mind since 2009 when he authored SB No. 3121
The Budget Impoundment Control Act of 2009, amending Section 38. The
then congress refused to pass the same bill which could have effectively
spayed GMA and castrated Mike Arroyo in their conjugal plunder of the
nation. But PNoy very well knew that DAP in the hands of a bad or good
president could be a bane or boon to the Filipino people. Indeed, the
Supreme Court and the International community acknowledged the success
of DAP in providing much benefits to the country.
Many thought, including some CPMers, that without Abad PNoy would be
cerebrally handicapped. Far from it. As an appetizer the comment of Paolo C.
@104.1 is recommended.
Reply
23. 168
tristanism says:
July 12, 2014 at 3:15 pm
Kung may bad faith sa pagbuo ng DAP, ano ang naging pakinabang nina
Abad at Aquino sa pagbuo nito?
Reply
24. 167
hiddendragon says:
July 12, 2014 at 10:05 am
I have to admit all these articles and sections are flying over my head as I
read (or rather, skim through them). What might help enlighten us is Solita
Monsods column today. See link below. Perhaps we should ask these
constitutional experts suddenly sprouting about to step back and see what
Abad has done for the budget.
http://opinion.inquirer.net/76477/let-facts-speak-for-themselves.
Reply
o 167.1
Victin Luz says:
July 12, 2014 at 11:08 am
Solita Monsod did not answer why ABAD did not committed a crime of
violating the cross borders appropriations and to the Constitution.Even
how good ABAD DID during the preparation of GAA , or how honest he
was,, the FACT was when He disbursed THEM after pooling , he violated
the Constitution does ABAD was guilty.if SC will not decide now that such
action was WRONG and UNCONSTITUTIONAL ,, when then ? Are we
going to wait for somebody like MARCOS or GLORYA to be our Presidentn
again and apply sect. 38 and sect. 49 WRONGLY , to the extent to
NANAKAWIN ULI NG KABAN ng ATING MAHAL na BAYAN.KAILAN nyo
GUSTO? MALI kahit saan mo tingnan ang ginawa ni ABAD.
Reply
167.1.1
hiddendragon says:
July 12, 2014 at 11:48 am
Grammatical errors I hope does not lead me to read you wrong. My view on
the PNoy administration has been I can look the other way if technical
violations were made in the pursuit of justice and progress. I bet my
precious balls there was never a President or government official who did
not take a little from here to help some work get done over there, for good
or evil. Were seeing and feeling the results with PNoy and theyre good, not
perfect but certainly better than what weve seen for so long.
NOW what I find strange and interesting is the INORDINATE,
DISPROPORTIONATE AND RABID efforts to damage the current
administration on the account of some less than lethally serious issue, from
Nora to DAP, dont know what it will be next week. Check Abads track
record. What is so despicable about him, more than Enrile, Revilla &
Estrada that we should act up and froth in the mouth over it?
Yes, investigate where DAP went, demand an audit. But dont you think we
might gain more traction in moving forward if we acknowledged what our
current administration is doing and work with it, rather than against it? FOI,
anyone?
Reply
167.1.1.1
Victin Luz says:
July 12, 2014 at 12:48 pm
I think you have to acess your examinations on the current ISSUEpursuit
for progress i agree but not for JUSTICE,, because your view on PNOYs
Administration in particular to the case at hand was not MERELY
TECHNICAL VIOLATION it was a CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION that
if allowed NOW by the S.C. then it can be utilize again by next
administration be a corrupt President or NOT..
We acknowledged what PNOY was doing to our country in fact we
TRIUMPED on Enrile, Revilla, Estrada and etc and also to CORONA ,,,,but
all of THOSE will vanished in the THIN AIR if the SIN of ABAD will be
forgiven.. PNOY could be in GOOD FAITH in approving the
disbursement but never to ABAD..
Reply
167.1.1.1.1
tristanism says:
July 12, 2014 at 3:13 pm
Abad should not be forgiven, the issue should be investigated further.
Nangawat ba si Abad? Magkano ang kinawat ni Abad?
Again with the SC, kung baligtarin ba ng SC ang desisyon nila regarding
DAP ano ang magagingin reaksyon mo?
Bakit sure ka na malisyosong tao itong si Abad? Nagtataka ako diyan e.
Bakit sure ang mga tao na salbahe si Abad? Magkano ba ang ninakaw ni
Abad? Ibig sabihin ginawa ni Abad ang DAP para lang labagin ang
consitution? Bored lang siya?
Somehow, I understand your indignationbut not really. It appears na ang
indignation na nararamdaman mo ay para sa isang taong tinarantado tayo
knowingly ni Abad (and by extension ni Pnoy), Again, bakit ginawa ni
Abad ang DAP?
You say imposibleng hindi alam ni Abad na unconstitutional ang DAP.
Bakit, perpekto ba ang mga taga Batanes? HIndi ba pwedeng magkaiba-
iba ang opinyon ng mga abugado? Hindi ba pwedeng ganito ang basa ni
Abad at ng ibang abugado at iba naman ang basa ng SC? Hindi ba talaga
pwede iconsider ang good faith?
Kung bad faith ang icoconsider, ano ang pakinabang ni Abad sa DAP?
Reply

Victin Luz says:
July 12, 2014 at 5:37 pm
Bakit ang GOOD FAITH ba ay nakukuha sa pag violate ng
CONSTITUTION? Hindi yata At saka wala akong sinasabi na
UNCONSTITUTIONAL ang DAP I said what is UNCONSTITUTIONAL
action by ABAD was when he allowed the disbursement of the pooled
funds to other department like COA and to the HOUSE of REP and not
where the sabongs came from. ang LINAW ang sinabi ko. Iyan din
ang sinabi ng SC the cross over appropriation was illegal as it did not
conform with art. 25(5) of the Constitution.KUNG in good faith sya ,
dapat ay sinabihan nya PNOY na wag dalhin ang savings sa COA at oba
pang sangay ng Gpbyerno where the savings did not came
FROM.papaano sya magkamali ,, abogado sya , SHORT CUT ang
ginawa nila sa pag cross over ng savings to the extent of violating the
Constitution REPEALING a LAW must be done with by the
CONGRESS and by a Supreme Court decision NOT by VIOLATING the
LAW as ABAD DID , even how honest was your intention ,,,you cannot
REPEAL a LAW by Violating them @ for chit navarro .
If you violate a law especially the Constitution , you have to answer first
what you have done in the court of LAW , show your good faith in trial
BUT suspension is inevitable while you are being investigated in order
not to influence the outcome of the trial.. Bakit ang ibang kawani ng
pamahalaan for the benefit sa kanyang co employees , pinasahod nya
galing sa maling PONDO , convicted of technical malversation,,,pag
malakihan palang pera .LUSUT NA in GOOD FAITH tapos na
ganoon ba ang batas natin?
Reply

Victin Luz says:
July 12, 2014 at 5:38 pm
Correction not sabongs .mean SAVINGs came from.

Victin Luz says:
July 12, 2014 at 5:46 pm
@TRISTANISM.sa art. 25(5) of the Constitution , sect. 38 and sect.
49 of the AC,,,sa mga ABOGADO ay hindi pweding magkakaiba ang
interpretasyon nilalalong lalo na sa pag HARMONIZE of a LAW and
the Constitution kung ang pagka akala nya ay conflicting ang
dalawa.ALWAYs the Constitution prevails GOOD FAITH is a
defence but it will not be us who will judge if that good faith excess ..
Only the court will tellso ABAD must be prosecuted first and argue
himself thereat

tristanism says:
July 12, 2014 at 6:41 pm
Bad faith , among others, ang pinaguusapan dito kasi sure na sure ka
na sinadya ni Abad na i-violate ang constitution. You said (I paraphrase)
na abugado siya kaya alam niya nung ginagawa pa lang ang DAP na
labag sa constitution ito. At parang sure ka nga na me sa demonyo tong
si Abad.
Thats whats confusing me. So dahil abugado siya, he must have
known na bawal ang ginawa niya pero itinuloy niya pa rin?
Sa akin naman abugado siya kaya naghanap siya ng batas na nag-
aallow sa kanya na bumuo ng DAP. Sa argumento mo kasi imposibleng
hindi alam ni Abad na bawal ang ginagawa niya.
Bad faith ang issue. Hindi mo maisip na maaring nagkamali si Abad ng
paghahanap ng batas na mag-aallow sa DAP.
So pag ni-reverse kunyari ng SC ang desisyon nila, how would you view
that?

Victin Luz says:
July 12, 2014 at 6:49 pm
Look @tristanismsaan ang good faith ang alam mu na ngang bawal
gamitin ang savings to other Departments where the savings did not
came from ,,, ano ginawa nya ibinigay sa COA ,,,o papaano ,,,di BAD
FAITH iyon .kasi nag short cut sya .samantalang ang pag
mababang kawani ang gumamit ng pondo na hindi para sa nakallaan na
babayaran ,, nakakasuhan sila, conbicted at tanggal sila sa trabaho
167.1.1.2
chit navarro says:
July 12, 2014 at 3:17 pm
I so totally agree with you. Please check out my upcoming comment on
GOOD FAITH which is an important part of the SC decision.
i am also thinking, based on some of the more sensible comments here,
that the President and the Budget Secretary purposely invoked the Admin.
Code to pave the way for its repeal, revoke, cancellation as a law. Then,
the President after PNoy will have no hidden law to back up its awesome
powers over the purse. Because you see, some commenters mentioned
that as a Senator, he sponsored a Bill to Repeal this Admin Code but it did
not gain any traction; there was also another bill sponsored by Cong.
Joseph Emilio Abaya and Party-List Rep. Rissa Hontiveros but did not see
the light of day. Because without this, then the policies and improvements
in the budgeting system will not be for naught as there will really be checks
and balance between the three departments of government.
I also posted excerpts of an interview on Sec. Abad by the group of Dr.
Romy Bernardo for the US Based Global Source Partner which is a very
interesting and intellectual discussion on the budget, PDAF & DAP, before
the SC handed its ruling.
Reply
167.1.1.2.1
chit navarro says:
July 12, 2014 at 3:21 pm
I so totally agree with you @HIDDENDRAGON & @TRISTANISM &
@REJTATEL
Reply
167.1.1.3
tristanism says:
July 12, 2014 at 5:22 pm
INORDINATE, DISPROPORTIONATE AND RABID efforts to damage the
current administration
My thoughts exactly. Now I understand why some personalities would want
to fan that. Pero yung sakay lang nang sakay sa indignation wagon against
the DAP, I dont get it. Konting hakbang lang ng logic at fairness
mapapansin na yang DISPROPORTIONATE AND RABID reaction to
issues.
Reply
167.1.1.3.1
Victin Luz says:
July 12, 2014 at 7:06 pm
Check and balance @tristanism in a democratic society this is the
beauty of a topic brought by the owner of this blogwe have our own
opinion and i can justify or prove minr Not that we admired @maam
Raissa or PNOYs excellent administration so we have to say YES or
BOW are head and tell them they were RIGHT on their assumptions
KAHIT MALI sila SAAN ang reasoning mo pala Si atty @leona
said GOOD FAITH is their defense so as atty@Rene . so i agree but
they have to prove in court ,,,not us to decide. I am not a lawyer nor an
English major but the way i understand the topic so as the ABADs case ,,
wala akong makitang Good Faith na ginawa nya , kaya ko nasabi na sa
appeal nila sa SC ,, nasa hindi pa din papanig ang Supreme Court kay
ABADillegal padin ang cross over appropriation na ginawa ni ABAD.
Reply

tristanism says:
July 12, 2014 at 9:53 pm
Nasa issue pa din kasi ako ng bad faith na ina-assume mo tungkol ke
Abad. I dont find it logical kasi.
Sinasabi mo na kahit alam ni Abad na mayayari sila sa DAP, tinuloy pa
din nila ito. Ganun kasi pagkakaintindi ko sa bad faith sa issue na ito:
alam mong mali pero tinuloy mo pa din.
Ngayon, sa dami ng nagaabang na magkamali ang PNOY government,
sa tingin mo magiging patumpik tumpik si Abad sa issue ng budget?
Kaya iniisip ko na na naniniwala si Abad na legal ang DAP nuong ginawa
niya kasi alam niya na naghahanap ng butas ang kalaban.
It does not make sense to me to assume na si Abad ay nagkibit balikat
na lang at sinabing, Bahala na kung hindi legal. Hindi naman siguro ako
babanatan ni Toby.
True, they may have to prove that in court. Pero di ko magets kung bakit
yun ang assumption mo na ilalaglag ni Abad ang sarili niya.
You cant assume na pare-pareho ang basa ng mga abugado sa batas.
Maging mga mahistrado nga ng SC nagkakaiba-iba ang interpretation e.
Kaya nga me majority vote na kinoconsider dun kasi iba-iba din ang
interpretasyon nila.
Reply

Victin Luz says:
July 13, 2014 at 3:38 am
Ito nalang ang itanung ko sa iyo. Para di tayo paikot ikot .was the
savings appropriated and given to COA and to the HOUSE a prioirity
project ? Does it fall under # 9 and # 10 of section 49of the Admin.
Code? BASAHIN MUNGANG MAIGE. ang layo diba. So i said the
DAP particularly the pooling of funds from government savings was
Constitutional under section 38 but the croos border appropriation
given to COA and etc. was also declared Unconstitutional. I dis agree
that section 49 of the AC carried itself an authority by the President to
juggle the government savings Saan ang GOOD FAITH ni ABAD
noong dinala nya ang savings sa COA? Does the juggled savongs given
to COA , enhance our ECONOMY? Iyong dinala sa House sa pang
repair nila , Cpnstitutional ba? Look at the timing of the released pf that
savings, nakakaduda
Nag short cut si ABAD sa pag release pf funds and the Constotution
was violated favoring COA and others.BAD FAITH iyan.no matter
how honest the intention of ABAD on the majority parts of that savings
illegally disbursed , when he gave that funds to COA and the House ,
ABAD good intention destroyed everything ,, and that was the BAD
FAITH i am implying to you
167.1.2
Rejtatel says:
July 12, 2014 at 3:10 pm
@victin luz
Assuming the acts are finally decided as unconstitutional (i will assume
because the decision is not yet final at this time), are these unconstitutional
acts criminal? We know that an act how egregious it may be cannot be
punished unless there is a law punishing it.
Dapat din kasi nating isipin na hindi porket deneklarang labag sa
konstitusyon ang isang batas o patakaran eto ay nangangahulugan na na
dapat kasuhan at ipiit ang pasimuno ng nasabing batas o patakaran. Ang
kasunod na katanungan na dapat masagot ay may nilabag bang batas na
kriminal ang sangkot. Kung meron nararapat siyang kasuhan ng paglabag
sa nasabing batas penal/kriminal. Kung wala, mukhang magsasayang lang
tayo ng lakas at galit sa wala.
Reply
167.1.2.1
Victin Luz says:
July 12, 2014 at 6:38 pm
Technical Malversation was written in the revise penal code ayan ang
pagkaalam ko ha juggling of funds ay bawal mayroong corresponding
punishments Juggling f funds is a crime @rejatel
The mere using that savings is a crime itself pag maliit na halaga mga ay
nakasuhan at nakulung pa ang mga mababang kawani ng gobyerno
natin They either were not benefited , but since a they violated the law of
using a fund not intented for their salaries ,, kulong sila at tanggal pa sa
trabahopero ang immediate outcome ang ginawa ay mayroong ginastus
ang kanikanilang familya sa pangararaw na pangangailangan .
Reply
167.1.2.2
Victin Luz says:
July 12, 2014 at 6:43 pm
Yes that act is criminal because it was technical malversation and
punishable under the revise penal code dawask your lawyer .bawal
ang juggling of funds.
Reply
167.1.2.3
Victin Luz says:
July 12, 2014 at 6:52 pm
Technical Malversation ang ginawa ni ABAD bawal sa RPC,,, tanung ka sa
abogadomo
Reply
167.1.2.3.1
Victin Luz says:
July 12, 2014 at 6:53 pm
Use your internet ,,,it said anti graft din daw ang kasalanan ni ABAD
Reply

Rejtatel says:
July 13, 2014 at 5:10 am
But DAP was approved by PNoy himself as shown by docs and paper
trail and as admitted by PNoy publicly. So while Abad may be the
proponent at the end of the day it was PNoy who approved the acts. So if
ever there may be a crime of either malversation or technical
malversation, the axe does not fall on Abad but PNoy himself.
So i ask again, what was the crime committed by Abad?
Reply
25. 166
Rene Bas says:
July 12, 2014 at 7:48 am
Just to let you know I continue to be an admirer of yours, Raissa R.
I have been reminding/telling people who refer to you as just a blogger of
your brilliant career as a model journalist.
President Aquinos dead mom, President Cory, may yet save her son from
jail over DAP is one of the best pieces that have come out about the DAP
issue.
I want to punctuate the point you made about Sec. 49 being DANGEROUS
so I will have to refer to your article extensively in an article I will write after I
close this msg. I will of course publish all the links to your blog.
Rene Q. Bas
Publisher/Editor
The Manila Times
Reply
o 166.1
raissa says:
July 12, 2014 at 5:01 pm
Thank you, Rene.
Go ahead. I merely wanted to prod people to use the issue to lead to
reforms in governance.
Reply
166.1.1
tristanism says:
July 12, 2014 at 5:32 pm
Manila Times, huh?
Matignan nga kung pano ang slant.
Reply
26. 165
marcus says:
July 12, 2014 at 7:45 am
Curious though, if some provisions of the Administrative code runs
inconsistent with the 1987 Constitution, then it is deemed repealed based on
the repealing clause of the consitution, right?
Reply
o 165.1
raissa says:
July 12, 2014 at 5:02 pm
Not yet.
But pls wait for my next article.
Reply
27. 164
baycas says:
July 12, 2014 at 6:54 am
Genius?
Most likelya geniusits great that accountability can now be exacted even
to people in high posts.
DAP is another test case of accountability while in office: PNoy may be
ousted through impeachment and Abad may be criminally charged with
technical malversationwith the huge amount, possibly with a higher
offense.
Evil genius?
Sureevilwith masochistic tendency at that
Well, I think were the SELFIE capital of the world.
Reply
o 164.1
jaxius says:
July 12, 2014 at 12:18 pm
I see you havent moved to India. Hahaha
Reply
164.1.1
baycas says:
July 12, 2014 at 8:49 pm
Hahaha
Nice to read you back again, Monsieur Jax.
Reply
164.1.2
baycas says:
July 12, 2014 at 9:13 pm
Btw,
Please look here
http://philippinecommentary.blogspot.com/2009/03/keeper-from-
baycas.html
Reply
164.1.2.1
jaxius says:
July 13, 2014 at 9:49 am
Baycas,
I now wonder what Sec. Lacierda would say if the PDAF detainees adopt
his argument from way back then, i.e., that they should be granted bail
because the millions that voted them to office will be disenfranchised?
Reply
164.1.2.1.1
baycas says:
July 13, 2014 at 10:22 am
Dawin on bail?
Great memory, jaxius
Hahaha
Reply
28. 163
chit navarro says:
July 12, 2014 at 6:39 am
I am resposting here excerpts of an article posted by Philip I. Lustre Sr. in his
FB account, with the following intro:
Abad, the Point Guard
11 July 2014 at 22:46
Sharing an article of Dr. Romy Bernardo for the GlobalSource Partner.
Released in December 2013, unfortunately access to their publications are
for members-only so this did not get wide circulation. Dr. Bernardo is giving
clearance for public circulation. Good read (8 pages) on Sec. Abads view of
reforms in the DBM and the reform context of DAP.
As Bernardo wrote in the intro:
In his three and a half years so far atop the Department of Budget and
Management, Secretary Abad was a prime mover in what the World Bank
described as significant reforms in public financial management. Apart from
the greater transparency, accountability and openness to civil society
participation that the reforms brought to the Philippine national budget
process, the changes also helped to improve budget efficiency, thereby
creating fiscal space for government and allowed faster disbursements to
support economic growth and greater social inclusiveness.
SPECIAL REPORT
Romeo L. Bernardo & Christine Tang
708 THIRD AVENUE, NEW YORK, NY 10017
http://WWW.GLOBALSOURCEPARTNERS.COM
+1.212.317.8015
********************************
In his three and a half years so far atop the Department of Budget and
Management, Secretary Abad was a prime mover in what the World Bank
described as significant reforms in public financial management. Apart from
the greater transparency, accountability and openness to civil society
participation that the reforms brought to the Philippine national budget
process, the changes also helped to improve budget efficiency, thereby
creating fiscal space for government and allowed faster disbursements to
support economic growth and greater social inclusiveness.
Secretary Abads background in both social movements and mainstream
politics equips him with a keen understanding of the imperatives for growth of
democracy as well as the practical workings of governance. His ability to
balance idealism and realism puts him in a good position to navigate the
intricate process of reforming governance and public expenditure
management. (On this, he can count on a trusted ally his wife, Rep.
Henedina Abad, currently Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives).
As the Presidents point guard on budget matters, he sat down with us on a
Friday afternoon to talk about recent controversies the Priority
Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) and the Disbursement Acceleration
Program (DAP), their impact on public expenditures and the administrations
reform agenda as well as spending priorities in the 2014 budget, including
programs in support of public-private partnerships (PPPs). He also answers
our questions about the Liberal Partys plans for 2016.
**********************************************
GLOBAL SOURCE PARTNER:
What would be the impact of the Supreme Court decision regarding the
unconstitutionality of the PDAF on the quality of engagement between the
Executive and Congress?
ABAD: Institutionally, I dont think that the inherent powers of the Congress
have been eroded by the decision of the Supreme Court. I am referring to the
power over the budget, the power over appointments and the power of
oversight. I think the problem is that all these years, Congress has been more
preoccupied with constituency work service and not strengthening these
powers, which they have, but they hardly use. And because of that, it also
became a source of weakness. If the president withholds the pork, then
politically, it impacts individually on the legislators, but institutionally they
ought to be revisiting their powers to see how they can use that as a stronger
lever. But the one good thing about the decision is clarifying the roles of the
branches. In fact the gist of the PDAF ruling is declaring as illegal or
unconstitutional post-enactment interventions by Congress, except when they
are exercising their power of oversight.
GLOBAL SOURCE PARTNERS:
I see what youre trying to do long-term in terms of improved governance. But
I am more worried about the short-term. While the Supreme Court ruling
prohibits Congress from interfering in execution, nothing prevents it from
being involved, so its just a question of putting it ahead and being more
participatory in some sense, and maybe if they can get their constituency
involved in the process as well, you will actually have a more people-oriented
budget process.
ABAD: Exactly, there is nothing wrong with Congress participating during
budget preparation, especially during budget authorization, because that
really is in the realm of the power of Congress. But what I mean is they have
to do more work in order to get their proposed projects into the Budget before
it is enacted into law.
GLOBAL SOURCE PARTNER: That will really impose more on you, right?
To be more provocative or put it more bluntly, the PDAF system, stripped of
the abuses or criminality of the Napoles type, in which each legislator gets a
fixed allocation for projects for his constituency, is actually an efficient system
that meets the political objectives of the legislators in an equitable devolved
non-partisan and budgetwise limited manner, while engendering good
working relationship between the executive and legislative branches which
under a good president facilitates passage of key legislation. With the
Supreme Court decision, you will need to find less transparent ways,
involving 250 congressmen and 24 senators in opaque negotiations with so
many, with indeterminate bargaining outcomes, potential charge of
partisanship, high administrative and friction costs and potentially larger
budget spending distortions. How would you respond to thischaracterization?
ABAD: You have a good point. In fact, the President once told Congressmen
that if 300 of you called the Budget Secretary once, twice or thrice a week,
can you imagine the time it will take him to answer each of you? And you will
start by calling the provincial offices (of executive departments), the regional
offices, then the Secretary, until you see your projects in the NEP (National
Expenditure Program). As I mentioned, this is a lot of work that has to be
done in order to get representatives projects into the Budget before
enactment.
GLOBAL SOURCE PARTNER :
Is there a way of doing these efficiently before the budget is passed, without
violating the Supreme Court ruling?
ABAD : We havent been able to figure out how to do this in the most
transparent way. In fact, the legislature is at a disadvantage here. At the
same time, for us, administratively, it will mean a lot of work. The problem is
the negative public reaction even to be talking to politicians; that the mere
thought of the executive working with the Congress for projects in their
districts is already to them repulsive. Our challenge, really, is how do we
remove avenues for leakages and abuse; while at the same time addressing
the need to deliver basic services to the people, including the constituents of
legislators? The latter is a reality that we must acknowledge and address
together how do we help our representatives ensure that the legitimate
needs of their constituents are met, and without resorting to patronage-based
relationships of the past? Bottom line: we want to make public spending more
transparent, more accountable and more empowering for constituents. The
reality is that patronage cannot be overturned overnight: there are steps we
have to take, milestones we have to meet. And I believe we are already
moving forward in that direction for one, we are already disclosing budget
information in unprecedented ways, such as publishing detailed releases
from lump-sum funds, including PDAF before it was invalidated by the Court,
on our website.
********************************
to read the full article, you can go to FB of Philip I. Lustre
Reply
29. 162
yvonne says:
July 12, 2014 at 6:10 am
Raissas blog must be pinching some raw nerves.
I cannot help but notice the rapid increase in the number of comments in her
blog in so short a time not seen since the days of the Corona impeachment
trial. Many CPMers who were in hibernation after the impeachment trial are
back, and many new commenters are joining in.
Raissa must be doing something right as I also notice an increasing number
of personal attacks on her coming from trolls.
Reply
o 162.1
Daves says:
July 12, 2014 at 3:06 pm
Agreed. If anything, Ms. Robles at least gave some (if not many) people a
bunch of things to honestly think about for themselves.
Reply
30. 161
Dan Dimasalang says:
July 12, 2014 at 6:03 am
Will this sudden found constitutionality switch Abad and Aquinos defense
from good intentions to legality? And how does this affect what critics term
Student Government? How knowledgeable is Abad in juggling funds when it
will take an independent journalist to get them a legal escape route? And
what kind of a shadow will such cast on the Palaces lawyers? Ah! Fire them
all, Mr. President. Fire them all!
And hire Raisa.
Reply
o 161.1
raissa says:
July 13, 2014 at 9:42 pm
why sudden constitutionality when the constituionality has existed all along?
PNoy wont hire me.
He wont even let me interview him :) one-on-one. Im not kidding.
Reply
31. 160
letlet says:
July 12, 2014 at 3:21 am
PNOY could be put behind the jail by section 38 AC, but SECTION 49 was
overlooked by the SC Justices for whatever reasons. I wonder who will
correct / apprehend the SC Justices. If their decision (irreversible) is
erroneous, is their first decision still going ahead for implementation, Is that
justifiable. Is justice denied?
I wonder if this is the payback time for SC Justices to PNOY for what he did
to Corona impeachment and putting the reputation of SC in quandary at that
time. I wonder if its something to do with installing Lourdes Sereno as CJ of
SC, overpassing Justice Carpio. Who was the figure head of the SC Justices
who presided over the unconstitutionality of DAP. I read before that whatever
Justice Carpio says, goes, He has the upper hand in almost everything in SC
matters.
Reply
o 160.1
Victin Luz says:
July 12, 2014 at 8:53 am
It could be the payback time for SC against PNOY .but eventhough such
savings was wrongly used by MARCOS, ESTRADA, GLORYA then, it can
not CORRECT their mistakes so as ABAD mistakes in an
UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTION by doing a cross border appropriations on
PNOYs Savings to other Departments like to the COA section 49 was
CLEAR such savings can be used to more priority projects where the
savings came from.. Read between the line section 49 ,,it never stated
expressly nor impliedly that such savings if it comes from PNOYs , they can
used them to COAs priority project.
Reply
160.1.1
Victin Luz says:
July 12, 2014 at 9:07 am
It was never OVERLOOKED by SC , they like ABAD were LAWYERs , they
dont need to HARMONIZED the Constitution and sect. 38 and sect. 49
because it was never in conflict with each other.tayo pa non lawyers , we
have to HARMONIZED them kung conflicting mga.
Lawyers duty when applying a law was to study if such law contravene the
constitution , if not conflicting apply the LAW
Si ABAD tiningnan nya diba, itinuro nya pa kay PNOY ang sect. 38 na
pwedi nyang pahintuin ang isang proyecto ,,, pero hindi nya itinuro kay
PNOY na ang paggamit sa perang ito ay sa departamento lang kung saan
naggaling ang savingsmalinaw sa Constitution at sect. 49.. maaring
ang sinabi nya kay PNOY ay ganyan ang ginawa ni GLORYA at ninakaw
pa nila e tayo hindi naman natin nanakawin SIR, kaya pweding pwedi
.MALI si ABAD ..at kung palulusutin ng SC sa appeal .PAPAANO
KUNG SI NOG NOG o si BONG BONG o si GRACE POE ang manalong
presidente sa 2016 , at gamitin na naman sa pagnanakaw ang maling
interpretasyon ng sect. 38 o sect. 49 ng AC,,,kawawa na naman ang
BANSA natin,,,balik tayo sa nakawan dito nakawan doon.pag may
palulusutin si BNAY gamitin ang pera ng DAP sa paglagay sa mali ang
tama .
Reply
32. 159
chit navarro says:
July 12, 2014 at 2:12 am
From the column of Solita Monsod in the Inquirer today.
Please read, analyse and ask yourself again if Abad should merit jail time (at
this point in time) or
if there is a basis for the President to be wary of jail time when he steps out of
office.
*+++++++++
Then there is the call for Budget Secretary Butch Abad to resign, or for
President P-Noy to fire him. That shows absolute ignorance, or, to put it more
kindly, no short-term memory, on the part of those behind the call.
First, they must have forgotten what the budget process was like under P-
Noys predecessor: There were the scam involving the Priority Development
Assistance Fund, particularly of 2007-2009, under that regime; the
congressional insertionsanother form of dispensing pork; the budget
reenactments, which totally destroyed any relationship between the budget
and the countrys declared development goals; and then the complete
distortion of the Malampaya Fund, which, although earmarked for energy-
related projects, could also be used for such other purposes as the
president directed (it was found that only 1 percent of the Fund releases were
energy-related).
Now for the DAP (Disbursement Acceleration Program). Visit the DBM
website and look it up. Heres my take: The Supreme Court praised it for
having achieved what it set out to do. However, the Court said that some of
the actions taken were unconstitutionaland then got all involved in
operative fact, which I take to mean that if the expenditures were made and
the projects were completed, they should not be reversed (but of course!).
And then the Court said that the people responsible for the DAP could be
held liable, depending on the evidence. Not should, not would, but could.
Well, let the facts speak for themselves. The DAP was an answer to a felt
need (there was underspending). When the need was reduced, the
expenditures were reduced: P75 billion for the last three months of 2011,
P53.2 billion for all of 2012, and P16.0 billion for 2013. And then it stopped.
Does that look like pork barrel? Please.
Reply
o 159.1
Victin Luz says:
July 12, 2014 at 4:45 am
Ayaw pumasok ang sagot ko sa iyohe he Cpnstitutional Rights in your
example is very much DIFFERENT from the CONSTITUTION ITSELF
wherein ABAD VIOLATEDi will elaborate further pag pwede ng pumasok
kami..he he
Reply
159.1.1
Victin Luz says:
July 12, 2014 at 4:48 am
Sorry this answer was for yvonnee @ chit..nagloloko ata system natin
Reply
159.1.1.1
yvonne says:
July 12, 2014 at 5:23 am
@Victin Luz constitutional rights emanate from the Constitution; ergo,
you violate a constitutional right, then you violate the constitution thus the
act becomes unconstitutional. Im not a legal person but that is how I
understand it, and I may be wrong.
Reply
159.1.1.1.1
Victin Luz says:
July 12, 2014 at 6:07 am
No @yvonneduty bound ang Officer in your example to protect us and
to give us a better/safe living condition bit it should be done thru DUE
PROCESS in order not to violate our fundamental roghtsimayrrongg
boundaries iyan in executing your duty as an officer,, so that evidence
gathered during apprehension will be acceptable to the court..or ..so that it
will not be considred as FRUITs of POISONOUS TREE and such will be
thrown out or as if no evidence was taken..thats the MIRANDA
DOCTRINE . The same with the doctor, duty bound to save
life.CRIMINAL INTENT is not present at first hand when they performed
their respective duties
But for ABAD knowing the prohibitions on the Constitution under
art.25(5),, being a seasoned lawyer he could have HARMONIZED section
38 and 49 with the Constitution knowing further that by placing the TWO ,
contradicting with each othet the Constitution will prevail,,,so ..wrongfull
INTENT was present on ABAD BAD MOTIVE on his part
Reply

Victin Luz says:
July 12, 2014 at 6:15 am
@yvonnr , neither I , was lawyer. But i have to read the provision of the
Law to properly share my comments on this blogi am retired
government employyee and a license engineer thats allbut according
to them Ignorance of the Law excuses no one DAW. Papaano iyan,,,
sila ang nag aral ng BATAS sila naman nagtatama ang MALING MALI na
paggamit sa BATAS Papaano tayo uunlad nyan..
Reply
o 159.2
baycas says:
July 12, 2014 at 6:15 am
newsinfo.inquirer.net/619032/who-are-liable-sc-issues-guidance-but-no-
names
Reply
159.2.1
baycas says:
July 12, 2014 at 6:19 am
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/619032/who-are-liable-sc-issues-guidance-but-
no-names
Reply
33. 158
yvonne says:
July 12, 2014 at 12:06 am
WILL ALL CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS RESULT IN JAIL TIME?
.
I find this question interesting in reference to the title of Raissas post.
Or rephrased another way, if the Supreme Court decision on the
unconstitutionality of certain aspects of DAP were not reversed on appeal,
assuming there would be an appeal, would the SC decision result in
President Aquino serving some jail time after his term of office?
Im asking this question because it appears to me that certain questions of
law brought before the courts that resulted in the determination of
constitutional violations did not result in the violators serving some jail time. I
dont have any legal background, thus I find it interesting to throw this
question to my fellow CPMers for comments.
A couple of scenarios:
1. A police officer stopped a motorist driving recklessly. Upon questioning the
motorist unwittingly hinted that some illegal drugs he was transporting made
him drive nervously. The man was subsequently convicted of illegal drug
trafficking. The convicted fellon appealed claiming that the officer violated his
constitutional rights by failing to read him his Miranda rights, and by
questioning him without the presence of a lawyer. The conviction was
reversed on appeal, and the man was set free. Needless to say, the officer
was not sent to jail for violating his constitutional rights.
2. A woman was on life-support system and her doctors determined that her
comatose state was irreversible. The husband wanted the life-support system
disconnected to allow nature to run its normal course, but the wifes parents
objected. The doctors and the hospital refused the husbands request. The
husband sued. The court ruled that the doctors and hospitals refusal to
disconnect the life support system violates the husbands constitutional right
to make end-of-life decisions for his ailing wife. Again, needless to say, the
doctors did not go to jail for violating a persons constitutional right.
I can cite many other instances of court-ruled constitutional violations, but I
think CPMers already get my point.
Thus the questions: Does all constitutional violations merits a jail time to the
offending person? Or should there be an element of deceit, bad intentions, or
harm?
What about those cases brought before the Supreme Court mainly for the
purpose of clearing up a constitutional issue? Just last month, the U.S.
Supreme Court made a landmark decision that severely curtails a police
officers access to an individual cell phone. The SC ruled that many of the
evidence obtained by the police from a convicted drug dealers cell phone
were unconstitutional. The expected offshot of this decision is that the
accused will be re-tried but, of course, the police officers will not go to jail for
their act of constitutional violation.
Reply
o 158.1
Victin Luz says:
July 12, 2014 at 3:59 am
Go to the process as required by Law much more as prescribed by the
Constitution For example the mere issuance of check lacking or short of
funds constitute an offense and punishable by Law , it was because you
distort the Banking System of our Country ( economic sabotage according to
our lawyers ). That Miranda Doctrine re: illegal possession of drugs
apprehension to those would be violators and securing of EVIDENCE HAD
boundaries/procedures as Supreme Court decided on many cases
OTHERWISE persons CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTs our
BASIC/FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTs under the Constitution are trampled and
such evidence will be declared as FRUITs of POISONOUS TREE, that can
never be accepted by our court of law to finally convict an accused.Parts
of the DUE PROCESS system.The officer who apprehended the drug
violator in your example was duty bound to protect us , the duty to make our
Country a better place to live but should be DONE in a proper procedures as
allowed by Law,,,so was the Doctor in the hospital in your example was duty
bound to save life WHY are they not jailed? because , as the cases were
being tried and heard NO CRIMINAL INTENT on the part of the Officer and
the Doctor were found , because they were duty bound to so only the
procedures were not properlly followed and that procedure is part of DUE
PROCESS
What was violated by ABAD and PNOY was a pertainent provision of the
Constitution itselfthe Revised Penal Code on Technical Malversation
,,,,the mere juggling of funds is punishable by law with corresponding
penalties ( for an ordinary employee of the Government, you go to jail ) . is
there any Law , exempting ABAD from criminal prosecution? NONE , so he
has to go to the court , defend himself and the court will decide if he will be
convicted and jailed SYA ang inabutan e ABOGADO SYA , TANGA
TANGA pala sya , dahil lang kakampi nya si PNOY , isinubo nya pa si
PNOY.ginawa ni Marcos lusut, ginawa ni Estrada lusut, ginawa ni Glorya
lusut ,, pero lahat ay mali,, pero hindi ibig sabihin na ginawa/ginaya ni ABAD
ang mga mali ay magiging TAMA sya.di hindi po.
Reply
o 158.2
Victin Luz says:
July 12, 2014 at 4:40 am
I answered already in detailed nawala ,,pero ito na lang . Maiksi .in your
example Constitutional Rights were violated and the DUE PROCESS was
not afforded to drug pusher.. Si ABAD naman the CONSTITUTION itself
na nagsabing bawal ang augment of appropriatipns from savings of one
department to another department,, so the Constitution itself was violated
Sa Revised Penal Code ,, technical malversation or juggling of funds is also
punishable by law..you can be jailedABAD did kahit hindi nya ninakaw ang
DAP ay distorted disturbed our Constitution
Reply
34. 157
letlet says:
July 11, 2014 at 11:30 pm
Like Saguisag, if theres no proven evidence saying that PNOY and Abad
had dipped their fingers from DAP into their pockets, I still support PNOY.
Abad and PNOY have juggled the DAP savings and funds for the sake of the
country and the people, for the best interest / best intentions of uplifting the
predicament of the needy and the poor people, the end justifies the means. In
their hearts desire to help the common people in many ways, they did the
DAP. I will show my gratitude, not being ingrata, and not join the stabbers of
PNOY and Abad. Into the eyes of PNOY, Abad did what he has to do, not for
plunder but for the right causes. I will repay their efforts and honesty for
BEING THERE FOR THEM. Justice is with them. God said whatever you
did for the people, you also did it for me. We the people SHOULD FULLY
SUPPORT THEM for putting their neck on the line for the common people.
Think where he money could have gone upgrading and modernizing our
military defense and for victims of yolanda typhoon. They cost billion and
billions of money
Just wondering, who is the figure head of those SC Justices who voted for
the unconstitutionality of DAP, who obviously overlooked section 49 of AC.
Are they for or against the daang matuwid of PNOY? Nasagasaan ba sila ng
daang matuwid ni PNOY?
Reply
35. 156
thenavigator8 says:
July 11, 2014 at 5:41 pm
the Constitution is the supreme (or fundamental law) of the land. Laws, rules
and regulations that are not consistent with the Constitution can be declared
by courts to be unconstitutional, void and of no force and effect
Transitory provisions of the 1987 Constitution states that:
Sec. 3. All existing laws, decrees, executive orders, proclamations, letters of
instructions, and other executive issuances not inconsistent with this
Constitution shall remain operative until amended, repealed, or revoked.
it means that there is a RETROACTIVE effect of the constitution that ALL
existing laws that is NOT CONSISTENT with the constitution shall be void.
Section 23 (5) of Article VI on the Legislature that states that NO LAW
SHALL BE PASSED INCLUDES THOSE LAWS EVEN BEFORE THE
CONSTITUTION.
Since sec 38 and 49 of the Admin Code as you have discussed above is
clearly not consistent with Section 23 (5) of Article VI of the constitution, thus
VOID.
Reply
o 156.1
raissa says:
July 11, 2014 at 9:07 pm
shall remain operative until amended, repealed, or revoked.
Reply
156.1.1
thenavigator8 says:
July 11, 2014 at 11:41 pm
the phrase shall remain operative until amended, repealed, or revoked
pertains only to those laws that are consistent with the 1987 constitution.
those that are inconsistent like secs. 38 and 49 of the admin code can be
considered as impliedly repealed.
Reply
156.1.2
thenavigator8 says:
July 12, 2014 at 3:53 am
the phrase shall remain operative until amendeed, repealed, or revoked
pertains to laws that are consistent with the 1987 constitution. but secs. 38
and 49 are inconsistent with sec. 23 (5) chapter vi of the 1987 constitution,
thus, it is impliedly repealed.
Reply
156.1.2.1
raissa says:
July 12, 2014 at 9:08 pm
wait for my next post.
Reply
156.1.3
Victin Luz says:
July 12, 2014 at 5:40 am
Yes operative until amended, and we can not see any provision/section of
the AC to be unconstitutional.. What was unconstitutional is the cross
border appropriations from PNOY to COA and etc. or to different
departmentssect. 38.. Of AC authorize that PNOY can suspend projects,
pool the savings.but it did not authorized PNOY to disbursed the savings
to another department other than where the savings cme from Not to
COA or House of Representativesect.49 also did not allow PNOY to used
such saving in a priority projects that will enhance our country in another
department like COA and other rather than where the savings came
fromABAD as a seasoned Lawyer could have HARMONIZED the
Administrative Code with the Constittution , in order not to be in CONFLICT
with each other where if SO , the Constitution PREVAILs.
Reply
156.1.3.1
Victin Luz says:
July 12, 2014 at 5:51 am
ABAD must go to court and defend himself..PNOY must be save from
asking favor to the TONGRESSMEN , a political favor that will
cut/disturbed his objective of TUWID NA DAAN.maglalagayan ng pera
na naman nyan to the extent LULUSUT pati ang plunder case nina
ENRILE , REVILLA at ESTRADA . sayang ang pinaghirapan ni PNOY
ABAD must resign irrevocably ISINUBU nya si PNOY.
Reply
156.1.4
drill down says:
July 12, 2014 at 6:39 am
the inconsistent ones are automatically void. foresight in the transitory
provisions to prevent mistakes/abuse. makes a lot of sense.
Reply
156.1.4.1
Victin Luz says:
July 13, 2014 at 4:27 am
Ha ha @drill downpalagay ko ang mga kasamahan natin dito ay wanted
ROXAS or talagang dying for ROXAS,,,he he .
Reply
36. 155
leona says:
July 11, 2014 at 5:12 pm
Revised Administrative Code 1987
Link http://www.gov.ph/1987/07/25/executive-order-no-292/
Reply
o 155.1
baycas says:
July 11, 2014 at 5:45 pm
http://www.gov.ph/1987/07/25/executive-order-no-292-book-vichapter-5-
budget-execution/
Reply
o 155.2
leona says:
July 11, 2014 at 7:53 pm
For CPMers hereI went over again to read the SC decision 92 Pages
and JJ.: Carpios 27 Pages; Brion 62 Pages; Del Castillo -56 Pages;
Bernabe 8 Pages; and Leonen 29 Pages.
SEC. 49 of Book VI Chapter 5 Rev. Adm. Code of 1987 was not in any of
the: Decision nor of the concurring/SEPARATE and dissenting OPINIONS of
the Justices.
Some did discussed SEC. 38 of same Book VI Chap.5 like J. Carpio on: p.
8, 21, and 24. Other sections of Book VI Chap. 5 were taken up and
discussed.
This shows that the justices DID GO OVER many sections and chapters [
there are a total of 217 CHAPTERS] of the Rev. Adm. Code and CAME
ACROSS SECTION 49 for sure. The whole Code!
Not even in the footnotes was SEC. 49 noted.
In the ARGUMENTS portions, both the OSG and Sec. Abad, did nothing to
mention about SECTION 49 of Book VI Chap. 5 of the Rev. Adm. Code. And
neither of any of the justices also. Just wondering about this OMISSION.
My thought is Sec. Abad himself most probably [ my guess ] also did not
know about SECTION 49! And neither the OSG!
But I cannot believe the justices DID NOT, as many of them cited many
other sections of the Code from other Books & chapters [the CODE is
divided into Seven (7) Books] as I found reading their opinions.
Question is: why did everybody not blurt out about SECTION 49 of Book VI
Chap. 5 of the Code? Why O why?
And it took a journalist like Ms. Raissa Robles to come out in 12 PAGES
journalist reporting to find SECTION 49!
You know the Spanish meaning of the word robles? It means mountain.
We are now about 97 million 100 million! Only one person, a lady,
revealed that SECTION 49 Book VI Chapter 5 exists in the Revised
Administrative Code of 1987. Great! Thanks Raissa!
P.S.
Of course on the justices opinions I was ONLY looking for a sign, in word
and numbers, of SECTION 49. A smell of it if I could. I used magnifying
glasses on my eyes. No section 49. Nada.
Nowback to the Motion for Reconsideration of the OSG for the
government.
Abangan! Let us wait again.
Reply
155.2.1
Victin Luz says:
July 11, 2014 at 10:02 pm
Atty@Leona.still Sect. 49, did not state that savings from one
department can be transferred to another department It only stated that
such savings can be used for a priority projects within the same department
so that it will conform with atr.25(5) of the Constitution.They can not
use the savings for COA or at Lower House.. This is what the SC said
regarding NO to cross-border appropriations from one department to
another department.ABAD as a lawyer pinagsabung nya ang Admin
Code with the Constitution Kaya BAWAL ang ginawa nya it was
because a variety of political motives must be the reasons.was there
really a favor asked by PNOY to the Congressmen in exchange of
impeaching Corona before? ABAD must resign irrovecable.kakahiya
sya and to save PNOYs head sana. ABAD must go . Dapat mga
makulung sya. GAGO si ABAD e..
Reply
155.2.1.1
Victin Luz says:
July 11, 2014 at 10:07 pm
The BEST thing is for PNOY to anoint a good candidate that can beat
BINAY ,, otherwise he will support BINAY and a sure WIN by so many
MILEs by Nog-Nog and GRAFT dito GRAFT na naman tayo comes 2016
nyan.
Reply
155.2.1.2
leona says:
July 12, 2014 at 10:22 am
@Victin luzjust to reply partly to your comment 147.2.1, the first issue
after the DECISION, was [ or 'is'], is SEC. 49 DEFENSIBLE? Raissa and
Saguisag joined on thisdefensible for PNoy, Abad and et. al.?
In Sen. Arroyos comment days after, this point is brought out -
In declaring the DAP illegal, the high court, voting 13-0 on Tuesday, said
good faith would not apply to authors, proponents and implementers of
the DAP unless this was established by the proper tribunals determining
their criminal, civil, administrative and other liabilities.
Good Faithwill this ride smoothly on SEC. 49 Art. VI Chap. 5 Rev. Adm
Code?
If the Court brought out and discussed SEC. 49, that last point to do some
investigation who are not in good faith in the implementation of DAP, etc.,
would it still hold much water to CHARGE those responsible? My guess
would be NO MORE as SEC. 49s tenor of authority together with SEC. 38
would be DEFENSIBLE for those responsible.
So, what did the Court do? Discuss nothing about SEC. 49 then. Keep
quiet. Yes, the justices SAW IT, WENT OVER IT. Gosh, this section will
help those who are responsible to get away with it, one way or the other,
with any tribunal investigating them. And by the time the issue reaches the
SC, many of us here now are OUT OF OFFICE and another set of justices
are sitting to resolve this DEFENSE under SEC. 49 and SEC. 38.
This was just my wonderingWHY SEC. 49 was never discussed by the
justices though it was clear it should have been. If the justices DID
DISCUSS, that last portion about investigating etc. would be OUT OF
PLACE! So, TO BE IN PLACE, forget SEC. 49 and let them tremble, fear,
have anxiety, sleepless nights, whatever on it, just like those charged
under PDAF!
A wise or clever move by the Court. Beautiful!
Reply
155.2.1.2.1
leona says:
July 12, 2014 at 10:50 am
To follow up 147.2.1.2 above
If Sec. Abad and PNoy including the OSG DID argue SECTION 49
thoroughly together with SEC. 38 during the Courts deliberation on DAP,
it would have have been [maybe] a suicide for the respondents.
So? Keep QUIET about SEC. 49 too! Respondents ANTICIPATED the
Courts coming out to HOLD THEM responsible by that LAST PHRASE on
good faith etc.. Respondents guess DID COME OUT TRUE! The Court
was QUIET about SECTION 49 too!
So? There being TWO QUIET situations here, WHOSE QUIET situation
would in the end have better chances for the respondents plight?
Respondents OF COURSE!
Again, this is crucial: if SEC. 49 together with SEC. 38 were brought out
as respondents DEFENSE against the nine (9) PETITIONERS grounds,
the Court would have declared altogether SEC. 49 and SEC. 38
unconstitutional together with some provisions of the DAP
implementations.
With that, the respondents having LOST all defenses, now would be in a
straight jacket with that declaration of unconstitutionality, and the last
phrase re: good faith etc., would become so durable for investigation and
prosecution.
So? Respondents keeping QUIET about SEC. 49 still was their last card
[as their last belief]. It seems they still a good chance of GOOD FAITH as
a defense by having keeping QUIET!
A wise or cleaver move! Beautiful!
Reply

leona says:
July 12, 2014 at 11:02 am
Again, so now
if the OSG in its motion for recon now extensively ARGUE about SEC.
49 together with SEC. 38 as respondents principal defenses, the Court
might now declare [It cannot repeal those two (2) sections] those
sections unconstitutional. No more keeping QUIET since respondents
are now NOISY about it. Declared unconstitutional!
Too LATE!
sometimes it PAYS to be LATE going to Class.
hahaha
Reply

leona says:
July 12, 2014 at 11:07 am
What is the startling suspicion by the two: Raissa & Rene S.?

Victin Luz says:
July 12, 2014 at 11:24 am
Ganoon ba atty@leona.. Sir , if that was your explanation then GOOD
FAITH is a good DEFENSE of PNOY ( command responsobilty ) but do
you think ,, ABAD can USE good faith as his defense when he is a
lawyer , a congressman , a seasoned LAWYER pa? Can he @atty..
Ang ss akin kasi atty , baka sa kagustuhan ni PNOY na makalibre si
ABAD ay manuhul sya sa SC , that will compromise ang kanyang
MATUWID na DAAN and it will be a sickness of cancer and EAT the
cases of ENRILE, ESTRADA and REVILLA at wala na ding
patutunguhan ang kaso. TRADING HORSES ang mangyari di tayong
mga PILIPINO ang higit na masasaktan diba.
Bakit natin isasalba si ABAD e lumalabas salbahe talaga sya at isinubo
nya si PNOY

Victin Luz says:
July 12, 2014 at 11:28 am
We the Filipino people won against Enrile, Estrada and Revilla.and we
have to WIN back PNOY on this particular case , but we have also to
loss some or even one and that will be ABAD @sir Leona.what do ypu
think?

leona says:
July 12, 2014 at 2:19 pm
Yes, per my latest/later explanation@Victin luz,
For further reply to Victin luz
Sec. Abad even as being a lawyer etc., believed SEC. 49 & SEC. 38
as good defense, and convinced PNoy on that. Though SC just the
same declared the DAP implementations as unconstitutional as violating
the GAAs for the years up to 2013 and under the Constitution,
YET the Court did not touch SEC. 49 at all though it did touched SEC.
38 but sparingly only.
Since these two SECTIONS were not the principal issue, neither would
the Court touch it or even declare the sections as unconstitutional
because those SECTIONS were outside of the issues or not the main
defenses in the petitions.
That last Paragraph of the DECISION on good faith was an idea of J.
Brion on Page 62 of his OPINION, correlated from Pages 55-61. He
said
To be very clear about our positions, we can only apply the operative
fact doctrine to the programs, projects and works that can no longer be
undone and where the beneficiaries relied in good faith on the validity of
the DAP.
The authors, proponents and implementors of DAP are not among
those who can seek coverage under the doctrine; their link to the DAP
was merely to establish and implement the terms that we now find
unconstitutional. The matter of their good faith in the performance of
duty (or its absence) and their liability therefor, if any, can be made only
by the proper tribunals, not by this Court in the present case.
Based on these premises, I concur that the DAP is unconstitutional and
should be struck down. I likewise concur in the application of the
Operative Fact Doctrine, as I have explained above and adopted by the
ponencia.
Justice Brions idea above was inserted into the SC decision as J.
Bersamin acceded. You know why the latter did that? Because there is a
good reasonable doubt that PNoy and Sec. Abad and their other
implementors that they did all these in GOOD faith as it appears, unless
otherwise proven to the contrary later. There is no credible proof YET to
say they acted in BAD FAITH.
This LAST PHRASE on GOOD or bad FAITH is a chance to be
determined YET in the future. Remember it is a president who is or will
be INVOLVED. J. Bersamin wanted to show some due respect to the
president and the others as the highest and next rank of high officials of
the National Government.
Thus, thats how the ending of the SC decision ended up. This is my
personal explanation analyze from what I could gather so far. Others
may disagree but they can express the analysis also for us to
understand. Thank you Victin luz@
continue por favor.

leona says:
July 12, 2014 at 2:30 pm
Victin luz, you asked x x x but do you think ,, ABAD can USE good faith
as his defense when he is a lawyer , a congressman , a seasoned
LAWYER pa? Can he @atty?
Why not? No one, even a seasoned lawyer or whatever professional
one is, can always be directly accused of acts in bad faith without
contrary proof. The initial belief is: innocent.
Just like we opened up here who are the judges who never had
extensive legal practice but arrived at high judicial powersone said a
travel agent became a judge. One said a paper pusher did too. But yet
these classes of professionals arrived at good posts because they are
innocent and have to be accorded that until proven otherwise.
continue por favor.

Victin Luz says:
July 12, 2014 at 2:31 pm
Clear atty@leona ,,, thanks for the explanation, well sana GOOD FAITH
will save them BOTH then So let us pray that nobody will be
compromised if ever SC turn around and say they are both safe
Thanks atty

leona says:
July 12, 2014 at 9:20 pm
You are most welcome Victin luz@
37. 154
leona says:
July 11, 2014 at 5:01 pm
For easier reference and convenience, here is the Rev. Administrative Code
of 1987 (O. Gazette source online),
CHAPTER 5 Budget Execution
Executive Order No. 292 [BOOK VI/Chapter 5-Budget Execution]
Published: July 25, 1987.
CHAPTER 5
Budget Execution
SECTION 32. Use of Appropriated Funds.All moneys appropriated for
functions, activities, projects and programs shall be available solely for the
specific purposes for which these are appropriated.
SECTION 33. Allotment of Appropriations.Authorized appropriations shall
be allotted in accordance with the procedure outlined hereunder:
(1) Appropriations authorized for any Department or agency of the
Government may be made available for expenditure when the head for each
Department or agency submits to the Secretary a request for allotment of
funds showing the estimated amounts needed for each function, activity or
purpose for which the funds are to be expended during the applicable
allotment period. The form and the time of submission of the request for
allotment showing the proposed quarterly allotments of the whole authorized
appropriation for the department or agency, shall be prescribed by the
Secretary.
(2) In the administration of the allotment system herein provided, each
calendar year shall be divided into four quarterly allotment periods beginning,
respectively, on the first day of January, April, July and October. In any case
where the quarterly allotment period is found to be impractical or otherwise
undesirable, the Secretary may prescribe a different period suited to the
circumstances.
(3) Request for allotment shall be approved by the Secretary who shall
ensure that expenditures are covered by appropriations both as to amount
and purpose and who shall consider the probable needs of the department or
agency for the remainder of the fiscal year or period for which the
appropriation was made.
(4) At the end of every quarter, each department or agency shall report to the
Secretary the current status of its appropriations, the cumulative allotments,
obligations incurred or liquidated, total disbursements, unliquidated
obligations and unexpended balances and the result of expended
appropriations.
(5) Releases of funds appropriated for a given agency may be made to its
regional offices if dictated by the need and urgency of regional activities.
(6) The Secretary shall have authority to modify or amend any allotment
previously issued. In case he shall find at any time that the probable receipts
from taxes or other sources of any fund will be less than anticipated and that
as a consequence the amount available for the remainder of the term of the
appropriations or for any allotment period will be less than the amount
estimated or allotted therefor, he shall, with the approval of the President and
after notice to the department or agency concerned, reduce the amount or
amounts allotted so as to conform to the targeted budgetary goals.
(7) The Secretary shall maintain a control record showing quarterly by funds,
accounts, and other suitable classifications, the amounts appropriated, the
estimated revenues, the actual revenues or receipts, the amounts allotted
and available for expenditures, the unliquidated obligations, actual balances
on hand, and the unencumbered balance of the allotments for each
department or agency of the Government.
SECTION 34. Program of Expenditure.The Secretary of Budget shall
recommend to the President the years program of expenditure for each
agency of the government on the basis of authorized appropriations. The
approved expenditure program shall constitute the basis for fund release
during the fiscal period, subject to such policies, rules and regulations as may
be approved by the President.
SECTION 35. Special Budgets for Lump-Sum Appropriations.Expenditures
from lump-sum appropriations authorized for any purpose or for any
department, office or agency in any annual General Appropriations Act or
other Act and from any fund of the National Government, shall be made in
accordance with a special budget to be approved by the President, which
shall include but shall not be limited to the number of each kind of position,
the designations, and the annual salary proposed for which an appropriation
is intended. This provision shall be applicable to all revolving funds, receipts
which are automatically made available for expenditure for certain specific
purposes, aids and donations for carrying out certain activities, or deposits
made to cover to cost of special services to be rendered to private parties.
Unless otherwise expressly provided by law, when any Board, head of
department, chief of bureau or office, or any other official, is authorized to
appropriate, allot, distribute or spend any lump-sum appropriation or special,
bond, trust, and other funds, such authority shall be subject to the provisions
of this section.
In case of any lump-sum appropriation for salaries and wages of temporary
and emergency laborers and employees, including contractual personnel,
provided in any General Appropriation Act or other Acts, the expenditure of
such appropriation shall be limited to the employment of persons paid by the
month, by the day, or by the hour.
SECTION 36. Cash Budgets.An operational cash budget shall be
implemented to ensure the availability of cash resources for priority
development projects and to establish a sound basis for determining the
level, type and timing of public borrowings. The procedure, format, accounts,
and other details necessary for the execution, monitoring and control aspects
of the system shall be determined jointly by the Secretary of Finance, the
Secretary of the Budget and the Chairman of the Commission on Audit.
SECTION 37. Creation of Appropriation Reserves.The Secretary may
establish reserves against appropriations to provide for contingencies and
emergencies which may arise later in the calendar year and which would
otherwise require deficiency appropriations.
The establishment of appropriation reserves shall not necessarily mean that
such portion of the appropriation will not be made available for expenditure.
Should conditions change during the fiscal year justifying the use of the
reserve, necessary adjudgments may be made by the Secretary when
requested by the department, office or agency concerned.
SECTION 38. Suspension of Expenditure of Appropriations.Except as
otherwise provided in the General Appropriations Act and whenever in his
judgment the public interest so requires, the President, upon notice to the
head of office concerned, is authorized to suspend or otherwise stop further
expenditure of funds allotted for any agency, or any other expenditure
authorized in the General Appropriations Act, except for personal services
appropriations used for permanent officials and employees.
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.
SECTION 40. Certification of Availability of Funds.No funds shall be
disbursed, and no expenditures or obligations chargeable against any
authorized allotment shall be incurred or authorized in any department, office
or agency without first securing the certification of its Chief Accountant or
head of accounting unit as to the availability of funds and the allotment to
which the expenditure or obligation may be properly charged.
No obligation shall be certified to accounts payable unless the obligation is
founded on a valid claim that is properly supported by sufficient evidence and
unless there is proper authority for its incurrence. Any certification for a non-
existent or fictitious obligation and/or creditor shall be considered void. The
certifying official shall be dismissed from the service, without prejudice to
criminal prosecution under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code. Any
payment made under such certification shall be illegal and every official
authorizing or making such payment, or taking part therein or receiving such
payment, shall be jointly and severally liable to the government for the full
amount so paid or received.
SECTION 41. Prohibition Against the Incurrence of Overdraft.Heads of
departments, bureaus, offices and agencies shall not incur nor authorize the
incurrence of expenditures or obligations in excess of allotments released by
the Secretary for their respective departments, offices and agencies. Parties
responsible for the incurrence of overdrafts shall be held personally liable
therefor.
SECTION 42. Adjustment of Appropriations for Reorganization.When
under authority of law, a function or an activity is transferred or assigned from
one agency to another, the balances of appropriations which are determined
by the head of such department to be available and necessary to finance or
discharge the function or activity so transferred or assigned may, with the
approval of the President, be transferred to and be made available for use by
the agency to which said function or activity is transferred or assigned for the
purpose for which said funds were originally available. Balances so
transferred shall be credited to any applicable existing appropriation account
or to new appropriation accounts which are hereby authorized to be
established, and shall be merged with any fund already in the applicable
existing or newly established appropriation account or accounts and
thereafter accounted for as one fund.
The funding requirement of agencies reorganized in accordance with
approved reorganization plans or reorganized pursuant to law enacted after
the approval of the General Appropriations Act, are deemed appropriated and
shall be available for expenditure as soon as the reorganization plans are
approved. The Secretary of Budget is hereby authorized to make necessary
adjustments in the appropriations to carry out the provisions of this section.
The department head concerned, with the approval of the Secretary of
Budget, is hereby authorized to make necessary salary adjustments resulting
from final selection of personnel to fill the positions in the staffing patterns of
reorganized agencies, to make necessary salary adjustments resulting from
new appointments, promotions or salary increases, subject to the provisions
of Presidential Decree No. 985.
SECTION 43. Liability for Illegal Expenditures.Every expenditure or
obligation authorized or incurred in violation of the provisions of this Code or
of the general and special provisions contained in the annual General or
other Appropriations Act shall be void. Every payment made in violation of
said provisions shall be illegal and every official or employee authorizing or
making such payment, or taking part therein, and every person receiving
such payment shall be jointly and severally liable to the Government for the
full amount so paid or received.
Any official or employee of the Government knowingly incurring any
obligation, or authorizing any expenditure in violation of the provisions herein,
or taking part therein, shall be dismissed from the service, after due notice
and hearing by the duly authorized appointing official. If the appointing official
is other than the President and should he fail to remove such official or
employee, the President may exercise the power of removal.
SECTION 44. Accrual of Income to Unappropriated Surplus of the General
Fund.Unless otherwise specifically provided by law, all income accruing to
the departments, offices and agencies by virtue of the provisions of existing
laws, orders and regulations shall be deposited in the National Treasury or in
the duly authorized depository of the Government and shall accrue to the
unappropriated surplus of the General Fund of the Government: Provided,
That amounts received in trust and from the business-type activities of
government may be separately recorded and be disbursed in accordance
with such rules and regulations as may be determined by the Permanent
Committee created under this Act.
SECTION 45. Special, Fiduciary and Trust Funds.Receipts shall be
recorded as income of Special, Fiduciary or Trust Funds or Funds other than
the General Fund, only when authorized by law and following such rules and
regulations as may be issued by a Permanent Committee consisting of the
Secretary of Finance as Chairman, and the Secretary of the Budget and the
Chairman, Commission on Audit, as members. The same Committee shall
likewise monitor and evaluate the activities and balances of all Funds of the
national government other than the General fund and may recommend for
the consideration and approval of the President, the reversion to the General
fund of such amounts as are (1) no longer necessary for the attainment of the
purposes for which said Funds were established, (2) needed by the General
fund in times of emergency, or (3) violative of the rules and regulations
adopted by the Committee: Provided, that the conditions originally agreed
upon at the time the funds were received shall be observed in case of gifts or
donations or other payments made by private parties for specific purposes.
SECTION 46. Service Fees and Honoraria.Agencies are authorized to
charge fees, including honoraria and other reasonable allowances as
compensation for consultation, seminars or training programs, or technical
services rendered to other government agencies or private parties. Such fees
or honoraria shall be recorded as income of the government and subject to
the usual accounting, auditing and other pertinent requirements.
SECTION 47. Administration of Lump-Sum Funds.The Department of
Budget shall administer the Lump-Sum Funds appropriated in the General
Appropriations Act, except as otherwise specified therein, including the
issuance of Treasury Warrants covering payments to implementing agencies
or other creditors, as may be authorized by the President.
SECTION 48. Cost Reduction.Each head of a department, bureau, office
or agency shall implement a cost reduction program for his department,
bureau, office or agency for the purpose of reducing cost of operations and
shall submit to the President reports on the results of the implementation
thereof. The Department of Budget shall provide technical and other
necessary assistance in the design and implementation of cost reduction
activities. An incentive award not exceeding one months salary may be
granted to any official or employee whose suggestion for cost reduction has
been adopted and shall have actually resulted in cost reduction, payable from
the savings resulting therefrom.
SECTION 49. Authority to Use Savings for Certain Purposes.Savings in
the appropriations provided in the General Appropriations Act may be used
for the settlement of the following obligations incurred during a current fiscal
year or previous fiscal years as may be approved by the Secretary in
accordance with rules and procedures as may be approved by the President:
(1) Claims of officials, employees and laborers who died or were injured in
line of duty, including burial expenses as authorized under existing law;
(2) Commutation of terminal leaves of employees due to retirement,
resignation or separation from the service through no fault of their own in
accordance with the provisions of existing law, including unpaid claims for
commutation of maternity leave of absence;
(3) Payment of retirement gratuities or separation pay of employees
separated from the service due to government reorganization;
(4) Payment of salaries of employees who have been suspended or
dismissed as a result of administrative or disciplinary action, or separated
from the service through no fault of their own and who have been
subsequently exonerated and reinstated by virtue of decisions of competent
authority;
(5) Cash awards to deserving officials and employees in accordance with civil
service law;
(6) Salary adjustments of officials and employees as a result of classification
action under, and implementation of, the provisions of the Compensation and
Position Classification Act, including positions embraced under the Career
Executive Service;
(7) Peso support to any undertaking that may be entered into by the
government with international organizations, including administrative and
other incidental expenses;
(8) Covering any deficiency in peso counterpart fund commitments for
foreign-assisted projects, as may be approved by the President;
(9) Priority activities that will promote the economic well-being of the nation,
including food production, agrarian reform, energy development, disaster
relief, and rehabilitation.
(10) Repair, improvement and renovation of government buildings and
infrastructure and other capital assets damaged by natural calamities;
(11) Expenses in connection with official participation in trade fairs, civic
parades, celebrations, athletic competitions and cultural activities, and
payment of expenses for the celebration of regular or special official holidays;
(12) Payment of obligations of the government or any of its departments or
agencies as a result of final judgment of the Courts; and
(13) Payment of valid prior years obligations of government agencies with
any other government office or agency, including government-owned or
controlled corporations.
SECTION 50. Appointment of Budget Officers.No person shall be
appointed as budget officer in any department, bureau, office or agency
unless he meets the qualification and training requirements established by
the Budget Commission as prerequisite to appointment, in addition to other
qualification requirements prescribed by the Civil Service Commission for the
position.
Reply
38. 153
raissa says:
July 11, 2014 at 3:40 pm
Im now preparing a follow-up post tentatively titled -
Saguisag fully backs me on DAP and shares a startling suspicion
Reply
39. 152
Kalahari says:
July 11, 2014 at 3:07 pm
Interesting contradictory decisions of associate justices Antonio Carpio and
Marivic leonen on their unanimous DAP ruling.
Justice Leonens 28-page decision reads, in part, Justice Carpios
interpretation of Section 38, Chapter 5, Book VI of the Administrative Code is
that the power to suspend can only be exercised by the President to
appropriate funds that were obligated. If the funds were appropriated but not
obligated, the power to suspend under Section 38 is not available. Justice
Carpio reasons that to allow the President to suspend or stop the expenditure
of unobligated funds is equivalent to giving the President the power of
impoundment. If, in the opinion of the President, there are unsound
appropriations in the proposed General Appropriation Act, he is allowed to
exercise his line item veto power. Once the GAA is enacted into law, the
President is bound to faithfully execute its provision.
I disagree.
When there are reasons apparent to the President at the time the General
Appropriations Act is submitted for approval, then he can use his line veto
power. However, at a time when he executes his priorities, suspension of
projects is a valid legal remedy.
Suspension is not impoundment. Besides, the prohibition against
impoundment is not yet constitutional doctrine.
But on the issue of criminality, Justice Leonen is clear. Likewise, to rule that
a declaration of unconstitutionality per se is the basis for determining liability
is a dangerous proposition. It is not proper that there are suggestions of
administrative or criminal liability even before the proper charges are raised,
investigated and filed.
Any discussion on good faith is thus premature. But, in our jurisdiction, the
presumption of good faith is a universal one. It assures the fundamental
requisites of due process and fairness. It frames a judicial attitude that
requires us to be impartial.
A good reading for law practioners and students.
Reply
40. 151
yvonne says:
July 11, 2014 at 1:23 pm
START WITH ARROYO BEFORE AQUINO
.
To be clear the recent Supreme Court decision on DAP did not declare the
DAP unconstitutional in its entirety but only certain aspects in its program
implementation, such as the treatment of savings, cross-border transfer of
savings, impoundment, etc.
These aspects that the SC declared unconstitutional are not exclusive to
DAP but were implemented as well in various programs undertaken by
previous government administrations, most notoriously under the Arroyo
administration.
There are many faces to the budgetary aspects involving the treatment and
cross-border transfer of savings, realignment, budget impoundment, etc.
However, these many faces largely remain nameless, until they were
included in what is now known as DAP under the Aquino administration. But
this is not to say that previous administrations did not practice the same
budgetary aspects they just remain nameless ugly faces.
Indeed it is politically expedient for Jinggoy to use the name DAP as a
rallying point for criticizing the Aquino government for implementing the same
budgetary aspects that his father Joseph Estrada likely used also during
Estradas administration.
Prior administrations are known to have used the same aspects that anti-
Aquino forces are now quick to denounce as unconstitutional.
In fact, in a July 2009 report titled POWER OF THE PURSE REFORM IN
THE PHILIPPINES PROPOSED REVISIONS TO 1987 ADMIN CODE
(BOOK VI) it was noted that during the Arroyo Administration, there are
several questionable actions and budgetary scams that the current (Arroyo)
administration is facing and these include the following: premature release of
the Katas ng VAT (VAT proceeds); unreleased Priority Development
Assistance Fund (PDAF) or Pork Barrel; ambiguous appropriations of lump
sums; and the treatment on savings.
The report was the result of a conference-workshop conducted by the
Institute for Popular Democracy (IPD) and the International Center for
Innovation, Transformation and Excellence in Governance (INCITEGov), and
was supported by the United States Agency for International Development
(USAID) and Management Systems International (MSI).
According to the report:
x x x quote x x x
As stated in Sec. 35 and 47, Book VI of the Administrative Code, the
President has authority over
the appropriation and administration of expenditures from lump sums which
are released without
clear budget items.
One of the most recent and obvious manifestation of the abuse of power over
lump sums is the
Department of Agriculture (DA) fertilizer scam involving former Usec. Joc Joc
Bolante. He was
charged as the architect in the misuse of the P728 Million farm input and
implement program
funding which were allegedly diverted to the 2004 candidacy funds of Pres.
Arroyo. Usec.
Bolante ardently denied such scam and said that the money was from the
unreleased fund of the
Ginintuang Masaganang Ani (GMA) budget in 2003 under the Rice and Corn
and High Value
Commercial Crops budget. Such funds could be released even without
seeking approval from the
President.
Several of the observations in the Commission on Audit (COA) Audit report
states that the list of
proponents included in the SARO No. 04-00164 for the P728Million GMA
farm inputs fund
submitted to the DBM was not the same with the one used in the sub-
allocation of funds. Also,
only 59% of the P547Million transferred to the LGUs and NGOs-POs was
liquidated after 19
months of its implementation. Some of the NGOs that entered into
agreements concerning the
fertilizer fund were of dubious legitimacy.
As seen in the 2009 National Expenditure Program (NEP), a total of
P106Billion savings from the
2007 budget which should have been reverted to the General Funds were
realigned to augment
other items in the general appropriations laws for her office. However, it is still
unclear if these
are savings or unauthorized releases and this clearly show that the Congress
has lost its power
over the purse.
x x x unquote x x x
As a result of the abusive use of executive power in budget matters during
the Arroyo administration, several legislators filed proposed amendments to
the budget law. Among these reform bills were:
Senate Bill 3121, The Budget Impoundment Control Act by Sen. Benigno
Aquino III
Senate Bill 2995, Budget Impoundment Control Act and Senate Bill
2996, Budget Reform Act of 2009 by Sen. Mar Roxas
House Bill 6026, Impoundment Control and Regulation Act of 2009
and House Bill 6027, Savings and Augmentation Act of 2009 by Rep.
Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel
House Bills 6030 and 6031, An Act Prescribing Reforms in National
Government Budgeting, Amending for These Purposes Pertinent
Provisions of Book VI of Executive Order 292, Otherwise Known as the
Revised Administrative Code of 1987, and Providing for Other Related
Purposes by Rep. Joseph Emilio Abaya
But the proposed budget reform bills went nowhere due to the lack of political
will in Congress.
So to those who believe that certain aspects of budgetary programs, such as
the treatment of savings, cross-border transfer of savings, impoundment,
etc., are unconstitutional, you start by bringing to the court of law the biggest
practitioner of them all Gloria Arroyo. After all, she is no longer protected by
presidential immunity.
Reply
o 151.1
leona says:
July 11, 2014 at 4:00 pm
Link please yvonnety.
Reply
151.1.1
Victin Luz says:
July 11, 2014 at 7:04 pm
PEOPLE of the Philippines will AGREE with you,, why not bring out
everything anomalous transaction during ARROYOs regime,,, pag ilinabas
ba o hindi .STILL ABAD with the approval of PNOY violated Art. 25(5) of
the Constitution.mali ginawa ni Marcos, mali ang ginawa ni Cory, mali
ginawa ni Estrada , si Glorya ,,, ngayong MALI ang ginawa ni PNOY , dahil
lahat naman sila ay MALIibig mong sabihin YVONNE ,,,,magiging TAMA
ang ginawa ni PNOY tungkol sa DAP releases , even though crystal clear
they violated the Constitution? Lalong lao ni si ABAD.TUWID na DAAN
pa ba iyan @yvonne?
Reply
151.1.1.1
tristanism says:
July 11, 2014 at 10:54 pm
Tuwid na daan pa din yan. Naniniwala ako na hindi ginawa ang DAP para
kurakutin. It may have been a miscalculation on the governments part or a
misinterpretation on the SCs part, pero I cannot let this be just a legal
issue. Me moral dimension din kasi ito e.
Sa legal side, SC magdedesisyon niya. Pwede nilang i-uphold ang
desisyon nila or kaya ay bawiin yun.
Sa moral side, pagnanakaw ba talaga ang dahilan ng pagkakabuo ng
DAP?
If we make this purely a legal issue, then 10 points na kagad si Jinggoy. Si
jinggoy ang naginsinuate ng issue na to.
Im not saying that the constitutionality of DAP is not important. All im
saying is bago tayo magkagulo, tignan natin kung ano ang issue:
pagnanakaw ng pondo ng bayan.
Malaki ang premium sa akin ng issue ng pagnanakaw ng pondo kasi ito
ang pinakamalaking problema ng bansang to.
Reply
151.1.1.1.1
yvonne says:
July 12, 2014 at 1:07 am
@ tristanism,
I fully agree with you. I could not have said it better.
Reply
151.1.1.1.2
Victin Luz says:
July 12, 2014 at 4:19 am
I agree @tristanismDAP was made not to kurakot those funds but to
disbursed such government savings in one department to another
department ( paggamit nila sa COA at House of Reperesentative ) ay
BAWAL nga as presribed in the Constitution under art.25(5) .technical
malversation nga e is a crime under the revised penal code ,juggling of
funds pa sa DAP di mas lalo ng BAWALan exchange of would be
POLITICAL FAVORs ang iniiwasan dito o pag malapit na ang election ,
DAP will be use as election funds for the desirec candidate of the
Executive Department to win..
Parang ganito a mere issuance of check , not properlly funded is
punishable by Law because it distort or disturbed our Banking System so
punishable iyan..DAP if not properly disbursed and juggled , you distort
and disturbed everything
You , see now that impeachment was filed against PNOY,,,mayroon na
namang bargaining power ang mga Congressman kay PNOYbigyan mo
kami nito para boboto kami na hindi impeachable ang ginawa
mo.lagayan na naman,, TUWID na DAAN ba iyan kung sakasakali?
Reply

tristanism says:
July 13, 2014 at 9:57 pm
Were not going to talk about technical malversation or the
constitutionality of DAP. The two goes hand in hand. If DAP is
unconstitutional then technical malversation can stick, since intent is not
relevant in technical malversation. We will leave that to lawyers.
Ang nalilito ako ay sa paniniwala ng tao sa bad faith. Hindi ko kasi
maintindihan kung saan sa DAP, sa ginawa ni Abad at Aquinno lumilitaw
ang bad faith. As I mentioned, sa dami ng nagaantay na magkamali sila,
hindi pwedeng patumpik tumpik sina Abad sa budget. Kung sa
disclosure, inilathala ang DAP as early as 2011.
As I said, yung bad faith na inaatribute ng tao sa DAP ang pinagtataka
ko. I dont see it. Ang nakikita ko ay nagkamali si Abad ng batas na
tinignan o kaya nalingat ang SC.
Reply
151.1.1.1.3
Victin Luz says:
July 12, 2014 at 4:28 am
I answered already @tristanism your commentsnawawala sa airydont
know why
Reply

tristanism says:
July 12, 2014 at 11:24 am
Could you post it again, please. I would love to know your thoughts on
this.
Reply

tristanism says:
July 12, 2014 at 11:42 am
Also, kung ginawa nga ito ni Gloria at ni Estrada at kung sino man, while
it may be unconstitutional depending on the final decision of SC, we
should also check kung bakit ginawa ang DAP nila? That is still the main
question.
Porket gumawa ba sila ng budget e magnanakaw na kagad? Sure,
tingan natin kung constitutional o hindi. Pero to assume na pangangawat
kagad ang rason WITHOUT further inquiry is not fair.
Kung me pinapagawang banyo sa bahay niyo at mabagal ito at
nagdesisyon ka na unahin muna ang baon ng mga bata tapo sinabi ng
kung sinong authority na mali ang ginawa mo, that would make your
conduct wrong (unconstitutional but thats subject to appeal).
Pero if we crucify you without looking at your intent, without considering
your charcter (because this is a political/moral issue) that would be unfair
to you.
Remember, (tapos na ang banyo analogy) kung ikaw ang presidente at
balak mo ikulong ang mga magnanakaw, ang mga magnanakaw na yan
ay makapangyarihan at madaming budget at malakas ang koneksyon.
Kung konting insinuation lang ay guguho na ang resolve ng kakampi mo,
walang mangyayari sa atin.
Again, DAP may or may not be unconstitutional, pero I believe that the
bigger question is ginawa ba ang DAP para nakawin? At kung OO ang
sagot, nasaan na ang money trail?
Reply
151.1.1.1.4
vander anievas says:
July 12, 2014 at 6:14 pm
@tristanism,
agree ako
Reply
151.1.1.2
yvonne says:
July 12, 2014 at 12:49 am
Firstly, The Supreme Court decision can still be appealed, and possibly
reversed on appeal. Knowing the courts history of flip-flopping this is still a
possibility (remember those cases involving the PAL employees and the
conversion of municipalities into cities?)
Secondly, if we were all motivated by doing the right thing and of cleansing
the govenment of graft and corruption devoid of any political partisanship,
then let us start with Arroyo after all, she no longer enjosy presidential
immunity so we can prosecute her now. We can wait to prosecute Aquino
after 2016, when he is already out of office.
Thirdly, see my post #149 above.
Reply
151.1.1.2.1
Victin Luz says:
July 12, 2014 at 4:25 am
Honest appeal without bribing the SC , HOW? Where is your new
evidence? I answered your comment #149 kanina pa di makapasok o
ayaw papasukin dahil , totoo ang sinasabi ko , siguro.
Reply

yvonne says:
July 12, 2014 at 5:37 am
@ Victin Luz, are you implying that appealing a Supreme Court decision
will necessarily involve bribing the justices? I dread to think that when the
SC flip-flopped on the PAL case, for example, the justices must be
receiving bribes from both sides of the fence if I would follow your logic.
Where is the evidence, or shall I say the argument, that could sway the
SC to reconsider its decision on DAP, assuming an appeal is filed? Read
Raissas next blog post.
Reply

Victin Luz says:
July 12, 2014 at 6:28 am
PAL cases and sa pula sa puti ang SC ,,, maniniwala ka ba ng hindi
naglagay si LUCIO TAN? Ask the SOLGENS or former SOLGENs who
investigated TAN tax evasion cases,, huling huli na daw ,,, nanalo na
nakapag refund pa ata.
In order for the SC justices to change their decision , makikiusap si
PNOY nyan na tama sya kahit kitang kita na mali SI ABAD . Kung
hindi iyan magbibigay ng kapalit si PNOY,,,the SC original/first decision
will stay.wala naman kasing katuturan ang art.49 at art. 38 sa
pagiging tama ang ginawa ni ABADinterpret nyo kasing maige Read
between the LINEbaka si SAGUISAG ang namalikmata.

tristanism says:
July 12, 2014 at 11:48 am
If you think the SC is so dirty, bakit ang laki ng paniniwala mo sa
unconstitutional verdict nila? Pag inoverturn ba nila yan hindi ka
maniniwala? Sa appeal lang ba sila dishonest?
Reply

Victin Luz says:
July 12, 2014 at 1:34 pm
Sa particular na kaso ni ABD ngayon ,,, basahin mung maige nga ang
sect. 49, sect. 38 at art. 25(5) ng Constitution ,,, mali talaga ang ginawa
ni ABAD dahil lawyer pa sya ,, hindi nya pwedingnsabihing na over
lokked nya ang tamang nakalaad sa ating batas .kaya kung sa appeal
ay babaliktad ang SC ay malamang mya horse trading na mangyayari o
dilit kayat kwartahan.. But for sure SC will not overturn their previous
decision.nakaaktakot baka ang bargain nila ay ang kaso nina Enrile
and etc Para lang mawala nadin ang kaso ni ABAD
151.1.2
yvonne says:
July 12, 2014 at 1:12 am
@leona
Somehow I could not paste the link with the PC Im using right now (could
be a software issue). Ill try again later using another PC.
Reply
41. Rene-Ipil says:
July 14, 2014 at 1:10 pm
The Supreme Court did not declare that DAP was illegal or unconstitutional.
The SC said that there were some acts and practices under DAP which
were unconstitutional. In the example of the SC illustrated in pages 69-70 of
the decision, the act of augmenting the MOOE of the DOST project from
537M to 1.1B was not questioned but the newly funded personal services
and capital outlays in the same project at 43M and 391M, respectively, were
declared illegal.
In other words the DAP as a WHOLE was NOT unconstitutional. And NOT
ALL acts under DAP were unconstitutional. So let us not use wrong premises
so as not to jump right away into wrong conclusions. Using erroneous
premise would only lead us to perdition.
Reply
42. raissa says:
July 14, 2014 at 2:45 am
Ive just posted Part 2 on DAP
Saguisag fully backs me on DAP and shares a startling suspicion
Reply
43. Lawrence See says:
July 14, 2014 at 12:13 am
The big question is: what constitutes savings? When projects that have
been approved by Congress the previous year did not materialize because
these were placed on hold and therefore the intended expenditure did not
occur, could the money intended for these be considered savings? The
projects approved by Congress are the legally approved projects. When
money intended for these so called slow-moving projects are siphoned off
and channeled elsewhere, could it be considered as malversation? Who
caused the slowdown anyway? Who stopped these projects? If the president
is allowed to continuously invoke Section 38 of the Administrative Code citing
whenever in his judgment the public interest so requires, to stop projects,
then, of what use is Congress?
Real Savings, to me is defined as not spending the same amount of money
and yet achieving the same outcome. Was the outcome the same if the
approved project by Congress did not materialize? What do you think?
Reply
44. utang.na.loob says:
July 14, 2014 at 12:04 am
Talaga? May dumedepensa pa din sa DAP? Pagpalagay na natin na
talagang yung Admin Code na yan ang katuwirang bulok ng mga
nasasangkot, e iisa lang ang gusto kong tanungin. Bakit binigay nila as mga
senador ang pondo??? Ano naman ang kinalaman ng mga senador sa
pagpapamudmod ng pondong di umanoy para sa pagpapabilis ng pagunlad
ng bayan? E diba ganun din ang silbi DAW ng pork barrel? E sa ganitong
aspeto pa lang lumalabas na ang kabulukan ng DAP na ito. Wala naman
kinalaman ang mga senador sa pagpapamudmod ng pera diba?
Giving funds to the legislators allegedly to accelerate the growth of the
country isnt justifiable in that claimed sense, even under the admin code,
because they arent part of the executive.
Nice try, but better luck next time.
Reply
o raissa says:
July 14, 2014 at 2:29 am
read my latest post:
http://raissarobles.com/2014/07/14/saguisag-fully-backs-me-on-dap-and-
shares-a-startling-suspicion/
Reply
45. tonyqalabastro@yahoo.com says:
July 13, 2014 at 8:52 pm
Slaying 7.5 million spam comments an hour, thats a lot of pork Akismet has
to chew. Roll out more barrels, Raissa.
Reply
o raissa says:
July 13, 2014 at 9:12 pm
:)
Reply
46. raissa says:
July 13, 2014 at 8:18 pm
sorry,
@Victin Luz,
@Yvonne,
@Chit Navarro,
@Kalahari,
@rejtatel,
@letlet
All you recent comments were held by Akismet. I dont know why. Akismet
seems to be acting up more and more.
Ive manually released them.
Reply
47. raissa says:
July 13, 2014 at 7:41 pm
Ive just finished my next DAP piece.
Lets see, its 10 pages long.
I want Robles Alan to take a look at it first. But hes still watching Captain
America with my son. :)
Reply
48. jett rink says:
July 13, 2014 at 7:14 pm
Good faith kung sa una pa lang sinabi mo na sa tao o mga media ang
gagawin mo. Pero nagsimula ito na sila lang ang may alam. Hindi pa pipiyok
si Butch kung hindi nagputak si Jinggoy. 100 billion plus ang pinaikot nyo ng
2011 to 2013 pero walang makakaalam kung di pumutok ang napoles issue
at mag speech si Jinggoy. Saan ang good faith dun , umamin lang dahil
nagkakabukingan na?
Reply
o raissa says:
July 13, 2014 at 7:42 pm
kulang ng explaining.
Reply
jett rink says:
July 13, 2014 at 8:03 pm
That seems to be a problem of any administration where national funds are
involved. They murmur instead of explaining clearly.
Reply
jett rink says:
July 13, 2014 at 8:05 pm
Or mumble.
Reply
o tristanism says:
July 13, 2014 at 7:45 pm
2011 inannounce ang DAP. Nadiyaryo ito dahil ito ang mekanismo ng
gobyerno para maitaas ang GDP ng bansa pang-accelerate ng govt
spending.
2013 ito pumutok kasi nilagyan ng malisya ni Jinggoyat sinakyan naman
ng dating miyembro ng gabinete ni erap.
Reply
jett rink says:
July 13, 2014 at 7:59 pm
Saan nadyaryo? Links. Sa business pages lang ba?
Reply
Rene-Ipil says:
July 13, 2014 at 8:27 pm
The Official Gazette (OG) is the public journal and publication of the
government from where media could access important news. On July 26,
2010, the online version of the Official Gazette was launched.
On October 12, 2011 the DAP was published in the OG.
http://www.gov.ph/2011/10/12/aquino-goverment-pursues-p72-11-b-
disbursement-acceleration-plan/
Reply
Rene-Ipil says:
July 13, 2014 at 8:32 pm
On October 20, 2011 the Official Gazette published another article on
DAP.
http://www.gov.ph/2011/10/20/dbm-stimulus-fund-to-upgrade-3-
government-specialty-hospitals/
Reply
lui5 says:
July 13, 2014 at 8:36 pm
http://www.philstar.com/business/757738/dbm-releases-85-p72-b-stimulus-
package
Reply
tristanism says:
July 13, 2014 at 9:43 pm
Thanks for sharing that. Di ko mahanap e. :)
Reply
lui5 says:
July 13, 2014 at 11:18 pm
And heres one from the Inquirer:
http://business.inquirer.net/27909/govt-has-only-p249-9b-of-2011-
budget-to-spend
Reply
tristanism says:
July 13, 2014 at 9:35 pm
As with @Rene Ipil, the gazette link is all i found. Puro current DAP articles
na lumalabas sa search e. (o sablay lang searching skills ko)
But I remember this because I was puzzled why the quarterly GDP
numbers were low. I know I read about DAP before Jinggoys speech.
Reply
Lawrence See says:
July 14, 2014 at 12:20 am
Isipin niyo yung timing. 2010 naluklok si PNoy. Hindi niya pinayagang
maisakatuparan ang mga proyekto na inaprubahan ng Kongreso noong
2009 sa ilalim ni PGMA. Isang taong na-hold ang mga proyekto dahil lahat
pinaimbistigahan o kung hindi, pinakansela. Dahil dito, nagkaroon ng
savings na itinatawag. Diyan nabuo ang DAP, galing sa perang dapat
nagamit sa bayan noong taong 2010. Makatarungan ba yon para sa milyon-
milyong pilipino na umaasa sa mga proyekto noong 2010? Para lamang
magamit sa 2011 sa termino ni PNoy? At saan napunta? Pabuya sa mga
senador at kongresista na bumoto upang ilaglag si CJ Corona.
Reply
o chit navarro says:
July 13, 2014 at 11:26 pm
@Jett Rink,
Siguro ngayon ka lang nagbabasa kaya ngayon mo lang naisip na may
DAP. O ngayon ka lang nabigyan ng pang=troll, di ba?
check out the DBM website . everything on DAP is there, from its inception
to its cancellation, when the purpose for whcih it has been designed gas
been achieved.
And for your info, one of the main projects funded by DAP is : Housing,
relocation and resettlement: P11.05 billion for various housing projects,
including on-site housing development for families living along dangerous
areas. SINO BA ANG HEAD NG PROJECT NA ITO?
Bago ka magpuputak, check mo muna facts mo. Siguro kung nagbabasa ka
ng diyaryo noon, sa businesss pages, nakita mo ang mga balita na ito.
Reply
Jett Rink says:
July 14, 2014 at 10:03 am
Uy personal. hindi kita kilala , hindi mo ako kilala. masyado ba masakit
kung magtanong ng maaring kamailan ng isang Benigno Aquino 3rd o
Florencio Abad ? Hindi ka siguro pinalaki ng tama ng mga magulang mo. O
yan personal yan.
Reply
o chit navarro says:
July 13, 2014 at 11:40 pm
Please check the website of DBM. All the projects on DAP is there.
The problem with us Filipinos is we tend to notice only sensationalized
news. Business news or financial news items are most often missed. But
DBM has a website online. And have been very transparent on what it is
doing.
Reply
o Parekoy says:
July 14, 2014 at 11:43 am
Good comment @jett rink!
Question everything!
Be bold, be wise, and dont be a kiss ass!
Be consistent in questioning even yourself, questioning our loyalties.
Remember we should be loyal to the truth and not to these politicians
games!
Dont defend personalities because their current intentions might be good,
but they are not perfect they are prone to errors too.
I am thankful and hopeful though that someone considered by the opposition
as abnormal is making big strides in fighting corruptions, eventhough it is
currently selective. But still, it is a big step! We in the Philippines has this
abnormal mafiosi type of past governments were our people are destined to
be bled dry by these vampires! If it takes an abnoy to get make a dent in the
fight against the oppositions corruptions, then so be it! We were hopeless
then, so these half baked prescriptions are good enough fir me at the
moment, it is a good start. It is like curing a cancer partly first without getting
rid of the other cancers(admin kurap officials) lest the body might not have a
shock and the patient may die due to aggressive treatment. I read
somewhere that when a person who went on hunger strike and eventually
decided to end his hunger, he was only given a small amount of food, else
his stomach might burst!
So as a person who believed that the Filipino is doomed because we
received the lion share of all the plague when God showered the goods
and the bads on earth at random, now with the unfolding events, I have to
question my beliefs! There seems to be hope after all. PNoy might not totally
get rid of our plunderers, but he gave hope to us unbelievers that Yes, the
mighty could also fall, and hopefully with a thud so loud that the whole
archipelago could feel the tremors with a bang louder than Pinatubo and
Mayon combined.
These are extraordinary times and PNoy in his limited special ability has to
take actions, because the window of opportunity to right the past wrongs, the
pad wrongs of the sainted mother, the past wrongs of his previous ally
Gloria, is soon closing. He needs to act in a very delicate complicated way,
for he know that even the viper pit of malacanang, he needs to work with
plunderers too. He knows he need to use them, he wanted them not to sin
no more, but his wants are just requests for now. Phase 1 was done wit
Corona, Phase 2 is now here, were the opposition plunderers are in
jail/hospitals. He is tryong his abnormal best not to impose martial law, he is
trying his best not to skirt the constitution, but as I said the method is
complicated and prone to errors. I wish he knows his history, that Revolution
eats his children too!
For now I have to be patient with him, for the reason that if I can wait for 42
years since 1972 for any sign of something significantly important change,
then I am patient enough with the current dispensation of selective justice.
If ever the next president of 2016 decides to investigate PNoy, then so be it,
he will be judged on what his past deeds, and by then the Filipino people are
not gullible enough by propaganda. If Filipinos were stupid enough to look
the other way of these plundererss deeds, I believe that they are intelligent
enough to understand why he needed to use methods that are leaning
towards unethical with abnormally good intentions!
We cant measure PNoys good intentions, we can only measure the results,
and for now I give him grade A or B as in ABnoy!
(God really works in strage ways!- Blessed are the special persons for they
are purein heart!?)
Reply
49. Joe America says:
July 13, 2014 at 6:06 pm
Ive been spending the past half hour reading comments on this blog, and in
my opinion, which is not often humble, this blog stands as the absolute best a
blogger can do or expect. Well researched and laid out, of national
importance, a discussion that is upright and respectful and knowledgeable.
Like, wow.
Just wow!
Reply
o raissa says:
July 13, 2014 at 7:07 pm
I owe all you guys my deep thanks.
Without all of you, I would just be one voice howling in the wilderness :)
Reply
o Lawrence See says:
July 14, 2014 at 12:24 am
Sang-ayon ako dito sa sinabi mo. Pagdating sa batas, talagang napaka-
ayos at kumpleto ng pananaliksik at paglalahad ni Atty. Raissa.
Reply
50. yvonne says:
July 13, 2014 at 10:46 am
HULI KA NA NAMAN JINGGOY !
.
Be careful with what you wish for, it may come around and bite you.
Well, it may just bite Jinggoy.
When the senator knew he would be accused of plunder, the second time
around in his political career, the senator engaged in what many consider as
scorched earth defense.
Kung ihuhulog nyo ako, isasama ko rin kayo.
Thus, Jinggoy gave a privilege speech at the Senate accusing the Aquino
administration of implementing DAP, suggesting DAP is illegal, if not
unconstitutional. He even admitted to receiving an allocation from DAP that
he claimed was an incentive (read: bribe) for the senators voting for the
conviction of Corona. It was an obvious attempt to divert public attention from
his troubles with PDAF, to DAP.
Now that the Supreme Court declared part of DAP unconstitutional, Jinggoy
must be one happy guy he started the DAP issue after all. His wish comes
true.
Well, not too fast, Jinggoy. Not yet, anyway.
According to the Supreme Court decision:
In that context, as Justice Brion has clarified, the doctrine of operative fact
can apply only to the PAPs that can no longer be undone, and whose
beneficiaries relied in good faith on the validity of the DAP, but cannot apply
to the authors, proponents and implementors of the DAP, unless there are
concrete findings of good faith in their favor by the proper tribunals
determining their criminal, civil, administrative and other liabilities.
Public officials who received allocations from DAP are considered its
implementors. Some of them can invoke the principle of good faith, but not
Jinggoy.
Good faith, he has none. By his own admission during his privilege speech,
which is now of public record, he admitted to having doubt on the legality of
DAP. He even admitted to receiving DAP that he claimed was given as an
incentive to convict Corona.
Absent the element of good faith for Jinggoy, the proper tribunals can
determine his criminal, civil, administrative, and other liabilities.
With PDAF and DAP, sino ngayon ang sisinghap-singhap?
Bato-bato sa langit, ang tinamaan ay ang naghagis.
Ang namamangka sa dalawang, kadalasay siyang nalulunod
In short, huli ka na naman Jinggoy!
Reply
51. vander anievas says:
July 13, 2014 at 6:18 am
@yvonne,
salamat sa post mo sa 162
Acts done in good faith pursuant to a law or executive act that is later
declared unconstitutional would remain valid and enforceable. It also applies
when the nullification of such acts would result in an injustice. In short,
unconstitutionality has prospective effects only.
anong tingin mo, maraming nagbasa pero hindi inunawa?
pwede.
minsan pag excited ako may simpleng bagay na mahirap ko ring unawain.
sabi pa sa 162 Woodrow Wilson once said, If you want to make enemies,
try to change something.
dagdagan ko pa: ipakulong mo ang maraming magnanakaw, tiyak
magkakaroon ka ng maraming kaaway.
pati yung magnanakaw na hindi pa naipapakulong magiging kaaway na rin.
salamat sa maraming cpmers na ang nais ay makatulong sa bansa sa
pamamagitan ng pagmamasid, pamumuna at pagbibigay suhestyon sa
maraming katanungan sa mga isyung kabi-kabilang naglalabasan.
Reply
o leona says:
July 13, 2014 at 11:19 pm
On No. 177 yvonne@Tama ka! Sen. Jinggoy is also a beneficiary at the
same an implementor! Blurting a confession in his privilege speech such
as:
Kung ihuhulog nyo ako, isasama ko rin kayo.; and another one
Bakit kami lang?,
which all admits and confesses a guilt of accepting an incentive, P50
Million pesos! a product of wrong doing he spoke in the Halls of the
Senate. Other senators? Quiet lang sila. But the record shows who also
received P50 Million. They have no idea if as incentive or what.
No. 176 vander anievas@only partial portions of DAP provisions or acts
were declared unconstitutional. The bases of such DAP portions affected
rides on EO 294 SECS. 38 and 49 which obviously were not declared
unconstitutional when looking at the acts questioned hinges on such
SECTIONS of EO 294.
Was the unconstitutional declaration complete? No. Effective? No.
Informative for the public and the country? No. Whether SECS. 38 and 49
were argued or not, it is without doubt that the questioned acts is based on
those SECTIONS. Thus, without declaring these SECTIONS as
unconstitutional, the declaration is incomplete and remains doubtful if it is a
valid and constitutional declaration also.
To declare acts as unconstitutional the basis for the acts must be included
and not only the subject acts. It ended up only to the DAP acts but not even
SEC. 38 nor SEC. 49 of EO 294 the Rev. Adm. Code of 1987 were subject
of unconstitutionality declaration.
So, Acts done in good faith pursuant to a law or executive act that is a
legislative power remain valid and enforceable until declared
unconstitutional.
Reply
leona says:
July 13, 2014 at 11:23 pm
supply correction: Art. VI Chap. 5 for SECS. 38 & 49 of EO 294 Rev.
Adm. Code.
Reply
leona says:
July 14, 2014 at 12:15 am
correction: x x x the questioned acts are based x x x
Reply
o leona says:
July 13, 2014 at 11:52 pm
On the matter of good faith, maybe this is also relevant
TITLE XVII
Budget and Management
CHAPTER 1
General Provisions
SECTION 1. Declaration of Policy.The national budget shall be formulated
and implemented as an instrument of national development, reflective of
national objectives and plans; supportive of and consistent with the socio-
economic development plans and oriented towards the achievement of
explicit objectives and expected results, to ensure that the utilization of funds
and operations of government entities are conducted effectively; formulated
within the context of a regionalized governmental structure and within the
totality of revenues and other receipts, expenditures and borrowings of all
levels of government and of government-owned or controlled corporations;
and prepared within the context of the national long-term plans and budget
programs of the Government.
SECTION 2. Mandate.The Department shall be responsible for the
formulation and implementation of the National Budget with the goal of
attaining our national socio-economic plans and objectives.
The Department shall be responsible for the efficient and sound utilization of
government funds and revenues to effectively achieve our countrys
development objectives.
SECTION 3. Powers and Functions.The Department of Budget and
Management shall assist the President in the preparation of a national
resources and expenditures budget, preparation, execution and control of
the National Budget, preparation and maintenance of accounting systems
essential to the budgetary process, achievement of more economy and
efficiency in the management of government operations, administration of
compensation and position classification systems, assessment of
organizational effectiveness and review and evaluation of legislative
proposals having budgetary or organizational implications.
Executive Order No. 292
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF 1987
It says and provides as a MANDATE to ensure that the utilization of funds
and operations of government entities are conducted effectively; in
SECTION 1 above.
The Department shall be responsible for the formulation and
implementation of the National Budget with the goal of attaining our national
socio-economic plans and objectives. SECTION 2 above.
The Department shall be responsible for the efficient and sound utilization
of government funds and revenues to effectively achieve our countrys
development objectives. 2nd Paragraph of SECTION 2 above.
At most, good faith appears in the formulation and implementation of the
DAP also from the above Mandate on Budget and Management provisions.
of Title XVII Chapter 1 Book IV of EO 294.
Reply
leona says:
July 14, 2014 at 12:07 am
Book VII Final Provisions:
SECTION 28. Separability Clause.In the event that any of the provisions
of this Code is declared unconstitutional, the validity of the other provisions
shall not be affected by such declaration.
EO 294.
So far the SC decision has not made any declaration on any provisions of
this EO 294. Then is the decision declaring some DAP acts or
implementation unconstitutional but ignoring any provision or provisions of
EO 294 or specifically SECTIONS 49 and 38 of Book VI Chap.5 helpful for
effective dissemination and validity as pronounced in the Decision? The SC
can answer this.
Reply
52. chit navarro says:
July 13, 2014 at 4:55 am
From the column of Prof. Randy David, PDI 13 july, 2014 -

Not being a lawyer, I could be wrong in my interpretation. But, it is obvious to
me that there is a vast difference between pocketing huge sums of public
money intended for public use, which is what the crime of plunder is about,
and the rearrangement by the executive branch of the budgetary priorities
previously approved by Congress, which is what the Disbursement
Acceleration Program did. The first is a clear criminal offense. The second
has been pronounced by the Supreme Court as a breach of the 1987
Constitutions principle of separation of powers, but it remains to be seen
whether any criminal liability proceeds from its being declared
unconstitutional.
The high court did not say or assume that public funds were stolen. In fact, it
praised the DAPs intention of stimulating economic growth. But it
emphatically said that this noble end cannot justify abuse of presidential
powers, and must not be allowed. The Solicitor General, arguing for the
government, maintained that, as a policy measure, the DAP was conceived
on the assumption that it was in accord with the Constitution and the
Administrative Code.
Reply
o Victin Luz says:
July 13, 2014 at 5:06 am
I agree @chit.with you I think what the SC wanted was for the DAP
savings not to FLOW funds next 2016 election into the HANDS of would be
anointed of PNOY.i , we have to accept our economy grew with the
DAP ( not all like COAs cross borders disbursement ) but imagine how much
money will go to the campaign FUNDs of ROXAS next 2016 if the SC will
not be CHECK by the S.C. ? tingnan muna natin kung sino ang anointed ni
PNOY..mahirap na baka si ROXAS parin .
Reply
vander anievas says:
July 13, 2014 at 5:48 am
the best na siguro ung nasabi na rin ng karamihan sa atin dito.
NA imbestigahan ang lahat ng napondohang projects na galing sa DAP, at
parusahan ang may sala.
dahil unconstitutional ang DAP katulad ng PDAF, ilahad nang mabuti at
may finality.
lahat tayo ay umaasang may kahihinatnang maganda at aral ang mga
kaganapang ito.
sa huli tayo pa rin ang panalo(o talo).
Reply
Victin Luz says:
July 13, 2014 at 6:08 am
Tama@vander ..agree tayo dyan..
Reply
o jaxius says:
July 13, 2014 at 9:58 am
Being a non-lawyer, Prof. David did not know of Article 220 of the Revised
Penal Code which says, Any public officer who shall apply any public fund
or property under his administration to any public use other than for which
such fund or property were appropriated by law or ordinance shall suffer the
penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period or a fine ranging from
one-half to the total of the sum misapplied, if by reason of such
misapplication, any damages or embarrassment shall have resulted to the
public service. In either case, the offender shall also suffer the penalty of
temporary special disqualification.
Rearrangement by the executive branch of the budgetary priorities
previously approved by Congress = applying any public fund or property
under his administration to any public use other than for which such fund or
property were appropriated by law.
Technical malversation does not take into account the defense of good faith.
Reply
Victin Luz says:
July 13, 2014 at 10:35 am
@janxius ,,,my point ka dyan,, but ,technical malversation is included under
the revised penal code and crimes committed under RPC , good faith is a
defense . This was stated on their LAW BOOK on RPCuse your internet ,
google it and look for technical malversationit says here in their book that
if it is inherently wrong ( nasa RPC kasi ang violation ni ABAD ) even it is a
crime punishable under special
Law ,, hindi sya mala prohibita kundi mala in se meaning if inherently
wrong ,, GOOD FAITH is a defense.
Pag aralan natin maige itong kasalananni ABAD @janxius kung pwedi
nyang idepensa na GOOD FAITH syahe he wag tayong paloloko sa mga
blind followers ni ABAD or ni PNOY although maka PNOY ako at hindi
TROLL CORY at PNOY ako sa puso at diwa pero hindi sa pagkakamali
nya lalong lalo na kung GRAFT na kagaya nito.. Kasi ang defensa ng
ating mga kasamahan dito ay ang accomplishment ni PNOY sa paggamitng
DAP ( true and i salute PNOY with that ) but not the cross budget savings
na ginawa nya o sa madaling salitaay nag SHORT CUT sya at linabag ang
Constitution.basahin natin munang maige sa internet ang nga nakasaad
sa Revised Penal Codemag abogado muna tayo. No need to be
good in ENGLISH kung tuta ka sa maling interpretasyon ng mga
kasamahan mo dito sa CPMERs e.., magsaliksik tayong maige.
Reply
Victin Luz says:
July 13, 2014 at 10:46 am
I have to go first on fishing for my ulam mamayang tanghali , baka may huli
na ang pain ko sa bukana he he @janxius,,,,dami isda dito sa amin pare
ko, may tanim din akong gulay dito no high blood fresh air pa mya
mya babalik ako at maghalungkat tayo,, dahil nararamdaman ko sa takbo
ng mga defensa ng iba nating kasamahan dito ay PNOY was honest in
using the DAP and cannot be declared unconstititional para pagdating ng
2016 ,,madaling pondohan ang election funds ni ROXAS na walang
kasabit sabit he he MALAKING PONDO ang MAGAGAWA nila para
matalo si BINAY .ok sana kung ang popondohan ninPNOY ay hindi si
ROXAS diba laban kay BINAY sana si POE o CAYETANO o si CARPIO
MORALES o si PNOY VP pero wag ROXAS ang P he he pikit mata
nalang tayo
Reply
baycas says:
July 13, 2014 at 10:50 am
On good faith
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/november2012/192330.pdf
Read the link on Comment. No. 164 too.
Reply
baycas says:
July 13, 2014 at 10:52 am
and Abad did the ponencia
Justice Abad po
Reply
raissa says:
July 13, 2014 at 1:35 pm
hmmm. Abad vs Abad.
Reply
Victin Luz says:
July 13, 2014 at 1:51 pm
Sir@Baycas @jaxiuscorrect me if i am WRONG ha..kaya sya
naging MALA PROHIBITA and Justices of the S.C. decided and
categorically stated that malice or criminal intent was irrelevant because
of the MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE passed by the Sanggunian of that Town
SEPARATING the FUND/local appropriations for under-nourished
children with the FUNDs/local appropriation for typhoon or calamity
victims.. They had violated such Ordinaces and in relation to the
crime of Technical Malversation under the revised penal codethat
maked that crime MALA PROHIBITAotherwise kung magkasama ang
pondo itng dalawa SEF at CSAP ..walang juggling of funds..
Different dito kay ABAD dahil mga ipinipilit o nagpupumilit SILA mga
kasamahan natin dito na sect. 49 of the Administrative Code in relation to
sect. 38 of the same, gave PNOY thru ABAD the authority to juggled (
cross border application on savings ) funds , at ang iba mga ay dinala sa
COA. its not MALA IN SE daw dahil , according to @maam raissa at
iba pa nating kasamahan ay kahit violative sa Constitution under art.
25(5) ang ginawa ni ABAD ay hindi pa naman daw repealed ang
Administrative Code na pinagbabasihan nila kaya TRUE : GOOD FAITH
of ABAD is his defense
Magkaiba mga pare koy Pero wait himaymayin natin kung may GOOD
FAITH si ABAD sa ginawa nya at ang paggamit sa sect. 49 daw sabi nila
kahit contradictory sa ating Constitution..wait wait lang
Reply
Victin Luz says:
July 13, 2014 at 1:59 pm
Sir Baycas@Jaxius.may sagotna ako sa ponente ni ABAD ,,,magkaiba
sa kaso ni ABAD . ayaw pumasok he he ..wait lang ulitin ko. Mala In
se kay ABAD ,,,good faith is his defense ,,,in the ponente it became
MALA PROHIBITA because of the ORDINANCE separating the budget
of SEF and CSAP was violated kung wala sana ang ordinance na iyon
o pinagsama ang sa iisang ORDINANCE ang SEF at CSAP.wala na
ang kasong technical malversationayaw pumasoknang ang una kung
explanation Wait lang
Reply
Victin Luz says:
July 13, 2014 at 2:16 pm
Ayaw talagang pumasok ang hinimay kung sagot mga sirs@. He he
ayaw papasukin ng system baka tama ang sinasabi ko
Victin Luz says:
July 13, 2014 at 2:24 pm
Sir @baycas ,, research ka sa elements ng DOLOCriminal Intent or
Deliberate intent of ABAD in such case , Freedom of Action ni Abad in
pooling especially juggling of the Funds going to COA and his
INTELLEGENCE ( ABAD -wala naman ata syang sayad he he ) ..look
also how ABAD DISCERNs- baka hindi nya alam ang tama at mali-
and look also his MOTIVE beyond the juggling of savings.. Dont go to
POOLING authorized si PNOY and ABAD MAJONG TIME NA
KAMI DITO SA LUGAR NAMIN KASIsunday afternoon na
MALALAMAN NATIN LAHAT KUNG MAYRROONG GOOD FAITH SI
ABAD dyan sa kaso nya.GOD BLESS and GOOD BYE. Ayaw
pumask ang mga sagot laro na lang ako He he
Reply
Victin Luz says:
July 13, 2014 at 2:29 pm
Ayaw talaga pumasok @sir baycas naka tatlo na ako he he majong
time na kami dito sa aming baryoGoodbye and God Blesss
Research on the elements ofvDOLOcriminal or deliberat intent of
ABAD .Freedom of Action nya in juggling of Funds .and Intellegence
nya when he juggle that funds also how he DISCERNs lokk also his
Motive . dyan malalman na natin kung mayroon syang GOOD
FAITH..hope pasok na ito..
Reply
baycas says:
July 13, 2014 at 10:51 am
Dito po ang lexoterica web page:
http://raissarobles.com/2014/07/08/president-aquinos-dead-mom-
president-cory-may-yet-save-her-son-from-jail-over-dap/comment-page-
4/#comment-142466
Reply
Victin Luz says:
July 13, 2014 at 2:12 pm
Here sir@Baycas @jaxius. In ABAD and PINOYs case kaya GOOD
FAITH ( kung mayroon mga ) kasi , kagaya ng mga kasamahan natin dito
si @maam Raissa pati, believes that sect. 49 in relation to sect. 38 of the
Administrative Code gave PNOY thru ABAD the power to JUGGLE
FUNDs on Government Savings ( cross border appropriations on savings
like what they did to COAs inflow budget eventhough it contradicts and
violative to our Constitution
Dyan sa ponente ni ABAD justice, the municipal ordinance passesd by
their respective Sangunian separating the FUNDS/APPROPRIATIONs of
SEF under nourisehed children with the FUNDs/appropriation of
Calamity victims.iyan ang LINABAG ng MAYOR kaya , may batas na
kasi para dito ay ginamit mo pa para doon So malice and criminal intent
was irrelevant.
Nakuha nyo ang pagkakaiba? hinahanap ko ngayon kung saan ang
GOOD FAITH ni KALBOng si ABADpapaano kaya nya gamitin ang
GOOD FAITH sa defense nya.. E Constitution ang LINABAG NILA ni
PNOY o sya lang sa pagadala sa COA for example Pag aralan natin
mga @sirs ha..
Reply
jaxius says:
July 13, 2014 at 11:14 am
@Victin Luz,
If youre a lawyer, I think you better review your criminal law. Not all
offenses under the RPC are mala in se which requires criminal intent.
There are offenses such as technical malversation that are mala prohibita
where criminal intent is completely irrelevant.
In the case of Ysidoro vs People of the Philippines, the Supreme Court
said:
Four. Ysidoro insists that he acted in good faith since, first, the idea of
using the SFP goods for the CSAP beneficiaries came, not from him, but
from Garcia and Polinio; and, second, he consulted the accounting
department if the goods could be distributed to those beneficiaries. Having
no criminal intent, he argues that he cannot be convicted of the crime.
But criminal intent is not an element of technical malversation. The law
punishes the act of diverting public property earmarked by law or
ordinance for a particular public purpose to another public purpose. The
offense is mala prohibita, meaning that the prohibited act is not inherently
immoral but becomes a criminal offense because positive law forbids its
commission based on considerations of public policy, order, and
convenience.13 It is the commission of an act as defined by the law, and
not the character or effect thereof, that determines whether or not the
provision has been violated. Hence, malice or criminal intent is completely
irrelevant.
You may check the complete text of the decision here:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/nov2012/gr_192330_2012.html
Reply
Victin Luz says:
July 13, 2014 at 12:43 pm
I am not a lawyer @jaxius ,,,pardon ha ,,retired government engineer
ako,, and now teaching engineering subjects dito sa local college dito sa
lugar namin.sige babasahin natin maige iyan Hinihimay ko kasi pag
ako parang calculus o design topics ,, hehe walang kawala iyan
dictionary at article lang ang katapat plus ang mga SC decision na
ilinathala ni @sir baycas . Pagmahirap ng intindihin patulung tayo kay
@atty leona o si atty @ rene he he di we made used of our time
contributing to what we learned and researched on this topic and here in
the blog of @maam raissa,,,not being a TROLL but based on what is
REASONABLE beliefs we had .di ba DEMOCRACY.. but we have
to accept honorably our mistakes if any ,, in the endhe he Mga
journalist na kasamahan natin dito e bow ng bow kahit di nila pa
masyadong inuunawa o pinag aralan ang issue.
Reply
Victin Luz says:
July 13, 2014 at 2:42 pm
@jaxius ,,, myang gabi nalang uli naka 3 times kunang try ang
explanation ko ayaw pumasok ang comments ko mukhang kakampi pa ni
ABAD ang signal ng Globe dito sa amin.go to the elements of DOLO
Criminal and deliberate intent of ABAD kung mayroon..Freedom of
Action ni ABAD kung mayroon baka kasi tinakot lang sya ni Enrile o si
NapolesIntellegence ni Abad kung mayroon din baka sa lucid
interval lang sya mayroon..look also How he DISCERNsbaka utak
taga Batanes sya mali mali and his MOTIVE of Abad Dito malalaman
na natin kung mayroon syang GOOD FAITH na itinatago he he
Reply
lui5 says:
July 13, 2014 at 1:34 pm
Im not a lawyer, but strictly looking only at Article 220 of the RPC, it
appears that what this misappropriation or technical malversation does take
into account for it to be punishable by imprisonment or fine is for damages
or embarrassment shall have resulted to the public service. Otherwise,
there was no technical malversation. Am i reading this right?
Reply
jaxius says:
July 13, 2014 at 1:51 pm
@lui5,
The crime of technical malversation as penalized under Article 220 of the
Revised Penal Code has three elements: a) that the offender is an
accountable public officer; b) that he applies public funds or property under
his administration to some public use; and c) that the public use for which
such funds or property were applied is different from the purpose for which
they were originally appropriated by law or ordinance.
The damage or embarrassment requirement in only taken into
consideration to determine whether the punishment to be imposed is
imprisonment or fine. In the Ysidoro case, since there was no damage or
embarrassment to the public service, the Accused was only sentenced to
pay a fine amounting to 50% of the amount involved. Thus, if Abad is guilty
of technical malversation and no public damage or embarrassment to the
public service occurred, he may be fined a paltry 70 billion pesos (140B
daw narelease of DAP funds).
Reply
lui5 says:
July 13, 2014 at 2:17 pm
Not trying to question the decision of the courts. Im just puzzled on how
article 220 was interpreted. From a laymans standpoint, based on article
220 alone, it reads as though punishment for the misappropriation is
conditional on finding damages or embarrassment to public service, and
not as a basis for determining which penalty to impose. unless im
missing some other related article under the RPC.
Reply
Victin Luz says:
July 13, 2014 at 2:34 pm
Magkaiba ang Facts ang kaso ni ABAD at ang ponente ni J. ABAD..
naging mala prohibita sya dahil the mayor directly violated the municipal
ordonance in relation to Technical malversation Kay ABAD may batas
sila na ipinagpipilitan ang section 49 in relation to sect. 38 good faith is
his defense i also believe kung mayroon syang ipakita na good faith
mga
Reply
Victin Luz says:
July 13, 2014 at 2:44 pm
Bye@jaxius its MAJONG time in our BARYO na kasi GOD BLESS
parekoy
Reply
lui5 says:
July 13, 2014 at 2:00 pm
Or, there was technical malversation, but to be punishable by imprisonment
or fine, that any damages or embarrassment shall have resulted to the
public service should be proven.
Reply
Rene-Ipil says:
July 13, 2014 at 4:03 pm
Jaxius, Baycas, Victin
Jaxius, Baycas, Victin
In a number of cases the Supreme Court, in divisions or en banc, said that
Technical Malversation (TM) or violation of article 220 of RPC is malum en
se. As malum en se violation the criminal intent must be proved by the
prosecution.
So, I am really wondering how the third division of the SC committed a
grave mistake of classifying TM as mala prohibita in Ysidoro, citing the book
of Florenz Regalado that cited People vs. Pavlic, 227 Michigan 563. I am
also at a loss why Justice Abad cited a book that used a foreign
jurisprudence on manslaughter instead of local jurisprudence on TM such
as Abdulla (2005) citing Manzanaris (1984). But of course the de la Cuesta
case which discussed the violation of the Anti Graft Law as malum
prohibitum and TM as malum en se came later in 2013.
Reply
53. Victin Luz says:
July 13, 2014 at 4:55 am
My second thoughtIt would be better if the DAP as a whole will be
declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court . WHY? My reasons is when
2016 election comes , FAIR ang playing fields sa lahat ng mga
CANDIDATES sa flow of FUNDs Parang pansin ko PNOY really wanted
ROXAS to be his anointed and win the Presidency.Pansin ko dinadahan
tayo o test kung acceptable si Roxas sa atin He heHINDI
Constitutional Prohibitios on the tranfers of appropriations from one
department to another co equal department to CHECK and BALANCE the
POLITICAL MOTIVES of the PRESIDENT not only to implement exchange of
favors between PNOY and the MEMBERs of CONGRESS but also in the
course of political campaign on 2016 for example,,,PLENTY of FUNDS might
be TRANSFERRED from the executive to the congress and used falls to the
HANDs of ROXAS.hmmm..i think good at na CHECK agad ng SC ang
cross border appropriations na iyandouble purpose ang DAP primary
objective is to enhance our economy our country and i belived also that
PNOY had accomplished secondary the FLOW of funds comes 2016 to
ROXAS.ahh mahirap na .NO TO ROXAS as we NO to BINAY and
MARCOS..
Reply
o chit navarro says:
July 13, 2014 at 5:04 am
From the column of Solita Monsod PDI 12 July 2014:
IF your hunch is their motive, why did Abad recommend for its
discontinuance when the primary purpose has been achieved? Just
saying.
Now for the DAP (Disbursement Acceleration Program). Visit the DBM
website and look it up. Heres my take: The Supreme Court praised it for
having achieved what it set out to do. However, the Court said that some of
the actions taken were unconstitutionaland then got all involved in
operative fact, which I take to mean that if the expenditures were made
and the projects were completed, they should not be reversed (but of
course!). And then the Court said that the people responsible for the DAP
could be held liable, depending on the evidence. Not should, not would, but
could.
Well, let the facts speak for themselves. The DAP was an answer to a felt
need (there was underspending). When the need was reduced, the
expenditures were reduced: P75 billion for the last three months of 2011,
P53.2 billion for all of 2012, and P16.0 billion for 2013. And then it stopped.
Does that look like pork barrel? Please.
Reply
Victin Luz says:
July 13, 2014 at 5:25 am
I agree @chit . Pero the way i looked DAP can be a bandwagon for
FUNDING of PNOYs anointed and a greater percentage will be
ROXAS.let ABAD open the BOOKs for us to check where and how are
those savings spent FIRST.. DELIKADO @chit..madali namang ilahad
o ilabas iyan dahil may estimates na iyan bago ipinadala ni ABAD sa
kabilang departamento.pero kung ganyang katagal ,, may inaayos pa ba
sila? Kagaya sa dinala sa House saan saan napunta at kung papaano
ginasta? Transfarency tayo
Reply
o AngLagay says:
July 13, 2014 at 8:47 am
@ Victin. if is NO to Roxaz, NO to Binay and Marcos, so whose going to
get the YES? Any suggestions about it? Please naman, dont tell me YES to
Pacman.
Reply
Victin Luz says:
July 14, 2014 at 1:15 am
Si POE sana kaso ayaw naman ninyo di ayaw kunadin he he. Isang
babae na kapatid ni PNOY Palagay ko pwede ang isa sa kanila ,,, not to
KRISkung si PACMAN e di si BONG PINEDA nalang tayohe he
Iyong GIBO TEODORO ,,, hindi ba iyon pwede? Palagay mabuti ding tao si
GIBO?
Reply
54. baycas says:
July 13, 2014 at 4:45 am
Mang Bernie strikes again
cross-border
adjective
adjective used in this phrase: cross-border transfer of funds through
DAP
It is the money transfer from one Robin Hood to several Robin Hoods.
- Mang Bernie and the barbers, in unison
Reply
55. baycas says:
July 13, 2014 at 4:29 am
Technical malversation; mala prohibita. Ysidoro insists that he acted in
good faith when he diverted the food intended for those suffering from
malnutrition to the beneficiaries of reconstruction projects affecting the homes
of victims of calamities since, first, the idea of using the Supplemental Feeding
Program (SFP) goods for the Core Shelter Assistance Program (CSAP)
beneficiaries came, not from him, but from Garcia and Polinio; and, second, he
consulted the accounting department if the goods could be distributed to those
beneficiaries. Having no criminal intent, he argues that he cannot be convicted
of the crime of technical malversation. But criminal intent is not an element of
technical malversation. The law punishes the act of diverting public property
earmarked by law or ordinance for a particular public purpose to another public
purpose. The offense is mala prohibita, meaning that the prohibited act is not
inherently immoral but becomes a criminal offense because positive law forbids
its commission based on considerations of public policy, order, and
convenience. It is the commission of an act as defined by the law, and not the
character or effect thereof that determines whether or not the provision has
been violated. Hence, malice or criminal intent is completely irrelevant. Arnold
James M. Ysidoro v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 192330, November
14, 2012.
So the public may know
It is the commission of an act as defined by the law, and not the character
or effect thereof that determines whether or not the provision has been
violated. Hence, malice or criminal intent is completely irrelevant.
http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2012/12/12/november-2012-philippine-
supreme-court-decisions-on-criminal-law-and-procedure/
Reply
o baycas says:
July 13, 2014 at 4:41 am
cross-border
adjective
adjective used in this phrase: cross-border transfer of funds through
DAP
It is the money transfer from one Robin Hood to several Robin Hoods.
- Mang Bernie and the barbers, in unison
Reply
Victin Luz says:
July 13, 2014 at 8:45 am
@Sir Baycas..i thought Technical Malversation is a crime punished under
the Revised Penal Code? And that good faith or lack of criminal intent is a
valid defense on which ABAD was now using as his defense.
Intent meaning in the dictionary is the determination to do a certain thing,
an aim or purpose of the mind.
discernment is the mental capacity to tell right from wrong.
criminal intent is a deliberate intent we have to base this on the ACTs
of ABAD not on what he says ..
Even for a non-lawyer like us we have to analyze if ABAD was in good faith
when he releases funds to COA or to other Departments..when ABAD
discerned to cross border that savings , HE HAS THE INTELLEGENCE (
he knows what is wrong and what is right ) , he knows that under the
Constitution such action was prohibited he knows that sect. 49 did not
gave the President the power to juggle funds , he also knows that cross
border savins to COA was not considered to be a priority project that will
enhance the economy of our country. When ABAD commence on doing it
he has all the FREEDOM of ACTION, he was never threatened by TOBY
TIANCO or ENRILE or CARPIO do so so the INTENTION was
DELIBERATE but according to our LAWYERs a deliberate intent is a
CRIMINAL INTENT and if you have this three ingredients CRIMINAL
INTENT, FREEDOM of ACTION and INTELLEGENCE ABAD committed
a CRIME spicifically Technical Malversation under RPC. ..
Let us get back to the DELIBERATE INTENTION of ABAD His acts will
tell that his MOTIVE is for the enhancement and development of our
economy and it was even praised by the Supreme Court and also US
Filipinos,, but again ,, a crime can be committed without a MOTIVE ,,, ,,
HERE it goes the CRIME of Technical Malversation ABAD good
intention or motives in using crooss border savings does not save him from
the crime.. IMHO this is my ananlysis and you can have yours
DEMOCRACY we are he he not a coommunist isnt it.?
Reply
o Victin Luz says:
July 13, 2014 at 12:55 pm
Thanks @sir baycas ha Binabasa ko now,, ty
Reply
o raissa says:
July 13, 2014 at 7:48 pm
Hmm. I just learned something new.
mala prohibita.
thanks.
Reply
56. letlet says:
July 13, 2014 at 3:10 am
Everyone knows PNOY has a clean sheet of character, reputation, honesty
and a clean departure from corruption. Unfortunately, DAP has stained his
clean sheet with a black dot, wherein some people only see this black dot.
PNOYs best intentions and best efforts for our country and the people have
been brushed under the carpet. For a long, long, long time we PRAYED TO
GOD for a good leader to lead our country to the right direction, then GOD
ANSWERED OUR PRAYER AND gave us PNOY. Lo and behold, now the
black dot on his sheet is storming a surge of brick brats and muds. What are
we going to say to GOD, now that we are stoning His son whom he sent to
us? All of us are His children, but only few are chosen.
Reply
o vander anievas says:
July 13, 2014 at 5:29 am
sad thing that a lot of filipinos are quick to see that black dot.
as joam commented in his blog, we pinoys are spiteful, he may be damn
right at that.
shall the noble intention and sacrificial effort be washed/swayed at that turn.
i have faith in the man.
im still with him.
this chance of ours is once in a lifetime.
i prefer his style of a leader(even he is always maligned) over the
brilliant(kuno) but thieving/plundering leader.
Reply
57. Roger Lagarde says:
July 13, 2014 at 2:15 am
Ok if the EVIL GENIUS and his Mini-Me will get away with this legally,
assuming that those two would, does DBM have the right to withhold
information that was being asked of it like these ones Ive read from the PCIJ
website?
In particular, the PCIJ sought information about:
* The list of projects funded under the P85.5-billion DAP (as of 2011),
including the location of the project, date of release of the fund, name of
endorsing legislator or implementing unit, and the status of the project;
* The list of the projects, including the location of the project and
implementing unit, identified in FY 2011 and FY 2010 as slow-moving
projects and programs for discontinuance that became one of the sources of
funds for DAP;
* The list of budget items for realignment in FY 2011 that became one of the
sources of funds for the DAP; and
* The list of the unexpected remittance of dividends from GOCCs,
Government Financial Institutions, and sale of government assets.
Reply
o raissa says:
July 13, 2014 at 1:36 pm
wait for my post.
Reply
58. yvonne says:
July 12, 2014 at 10:50 pm
UNDERSTANDING THE DISBURSEMENT ACCELARATION PROGRAM
.
So the public may knowand decide
Indeed, not even the most irrational detractor can diminish the economic
gains and investment upgrades that the country attained only under this
administration partly due to the polemic DAP
Woodrow Wilson once said, If you want to make enemies, try to change
something.
No one can attest to the veracity of this statement better than President
Aquino and DBM Secretary Butch Abad.
When we assumed office in 2010, we were confronted with inefficiencies
and bottlenecks in the bureaucracy the delayed implementation of priority
programs and projects and inefficient disbursements among others so that
growth contracted for three quarters in 2011. With this, we introduced the
Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) as a reform intervention to
accelerate public spending and boost the economy. This program made way
for the remarkable improvement in government expenditure making a
significant improvement in GDP growth which rose to as high as 7.6% last
year, explained Abad.
As early as December 2013, the economic team composed of Secretary
Abad, Finance Secretary Cesar Purisima and NEDA Secretary Arsenio
Balicasan recommended the termination of DAP as written in a to the
President.
All economic and fiscal indicators point to the conclusion that DAP has
achieved its objective as a fiscal stimulus measure. We thus recommend for
His Excellencys consideration, the termination of DAP as well as the
vigorous implementation of budgetary reform measures to ensure the
irreversibility of reforms.
Three major reform measures were recommended to strengthen
transparency, accountability and efficiency in public spending. These are: the
GAA-as-Release Document, Performance Informed Budgeting, and the
Cashless and Checkless Regime. Florid media reporting gives the
misimpression that the entire DAP was declared unconstitutional.
But as published in Rappler:
SC declared 3 schemes unconstitutional:
1. The withdrawal of unobligated allotments from the implementing agencies
and the declaration of the withdrawn unobligated allotments and unreleased
appropriations as savings prior to the end of the fiscal year and without
complying with the statutory definition of savings contained in the General
Appropriations Act .
2. Cross-border transfers of savings of the executive department to offices
outside the executive department.
3. Funding of projects, activities, programs not covered by appropriations in
the General Appropriations Act.
So before volunteering an opinion, impeaching President Aquino, or
screaming for Butch Abad to resign or be thrown in jail, make it a point to
read Former Chief Justice Artemio Panganibans column, The DAP decision
(July 6, 2014).
Acts done in good faith pursuant to a law or executive act that is later
declared unconstitutional would remain valid and enforceable. It also applies
when the nullification of such acts would result in an injustice. In short,
unconstitutionality has prospective effects only.
Then read Raisa Robles well-argued piece, President Aquinos dead mom,
President Cory, may yet save her son from jail over DAP (And why there are
grounds for the Supreme Court to review its decision on DAP).
Raissa asks, Could the Supreme Court be wrong?The DAP is
unconstitutional if you only look at the 1987 Constitution and Chapter 5,
Section 38 of the Administrative Code of 1987 which is what the justices
did.
The DAP becomes constitutional if you look at the 1987 Constitution AND
Sections 38 and 49 of Chapter 5 of the Administrative Code of 1987.But
NOT ONE of them mentioned nor discussed Chapter 5, Section
49.Because of this, they unanimously ruled that the pooling of funds under
DAP and certain cross-border DAP projects violated the Constitution.
Raissa points out that the Administrative Code is not a mere Executive Order.
It has the status of a law as given by the Constitution.
SECTION 49. Authority to Use Savings for Certain Purposes. Savings in
the appropriations provided in the General Appropriations Act may be used
for the settlement of the following obligations incurred during a current fiscal
year or previous fiscal years as may be approved by the Secretary in
accordance with rules and procedures as may be approved by the President:
9.) Priority activities that will promote the economic well-being of the nation,
including food production, agrarian reform, energy development, disaster
relief, and rehabilitation.
10.) Repair, improvement and renovation of government buildings and
infrastructure and other capital assets damaged by natural calamities;
Finally, let us contemplate Franklin D. Roosevelts admonition, I ask you to
judge me by the enemies I have made.
Who are the enemies of PNoy and Butch Abad?
The list is long but the usual suspects are as perennial as they are familiar.
The most rabid attackers come from the left-leaning party list groups Bayan
Muna (recipients of PDAF and DAP) and its spawn Kabataan. It was also the
prime movers of the leftist political wing, National Democratic Front (NDF)
that brought the issue to the Supreme Court. The rallies, heckling and protest
stunts are all care of this block. Why are they so anti-Aquino? Their failed
senatorial bets in 2010 were not accepted in the slate, is one reason.
Then there are the unhappy politicians as represented by the devilishly
striking spokesperson, who changed allegiance early on; the supporters of
the 3 senators and the former president currently in jail for the non-bailable
crime of plunder; the former budget secretary and national treasurer who
tirelessly speak out on TV to point out the flaws of this government. (One was
accused of involvement in a multimillion textbook scam; the other was said to
be after an elusive post.)
There are the disgruntled elements in the Supreme Court who got bypassed,
the mordant joker who actually authored the Administrative Code of 1987,
and finally the jukebox media who play up whatever angle was paid for.
Who is serving our country better and is more deserving of our support? Its
our call.
Reply
o yvonne says:
July 12, 2014 at 10:55 pm
Disclosure:
The above piece is not mine but is a copy of a posting making the rounds of
the internet and, as such, Im not able to acknowledge or identify its source. I
find it of interest as the posting is making reference to Raissas current blog
post.
Reply
chit navarro says:
July 12, 2014 at 11:56 pm
THE article you posted is an article written by Yoly Villanueva Ong for
Rappler titled
SO THE PUBLIC MAY KNOW
Reply
yvonne says:
July 13, 2014 at 1:48 am
@chit, thanks for the heads up. I have not read the Rappler article but
although the main text was from Rappler, the source of the posting going
on around in the internet is not Rappler. I did not copy the entire piece,
only the salient points, and at the end of the piece it acknowledges Raffler
and Raissas blog post, as among its sources.
Reply
chit navarro says:
July 13, 2014 at 4:44 am
From the column of Prof. Randy David, PDI 13/07/2014
****************************************************************************
Not being a lawyer, I could be wrong in my interpretation. But, it is obvious
to me that there is a vast difference between pocketing huge sums of
public money intended for public use, which is what the crime of plunder is
about, and the rearrangement by the executive branch of the budgetary
priorities previously approved by Congress, which is what the
Disbursement Acceleration Program did. The first is a clear criminal
offense. The second has been pronounced by the Supreme Court as a
breach of the 1987 Constitutions principle of separation of powers, but it
remains to be seen whether any criminal liability proceeds from its being
declared unconstitutional.
The high court did not say or assume that public funds were stolen. In
fact, it praised the DAPs intention of stimulating economic growth. But it
emphatically said that this noble end cannot justify abuse of presidential
powers, and must not be allowed. The Solicitor General, arguing for the
government, maintained that, as a policy measure, the DAP was
conceived on the assumption that it was in accord with the Constitution
and the Administrative Code.
Reply
chit navarro says:
July 13, 2014 at 4:47 am
@yvonne -
yes, that is the complete article. Yoly Ong cited the article of Raissa = a
very well researched article of Raissa Robles
link as follows
http://www.rappler.com/thought-leaders/63093-so-the-public-may-know-
decide-dap
Reply
o Victin Luz says:
July 13, 2014 at 4:18 am
@yvonne ,,, ABAD is not even a finger of RoseveltSection 49 gave the
power of the President to pool government savings but not to juggle itThe
word MAYBE approved by the secretary in accordance to the rules and
regulations that MAYBE approved by the President shows that before
anything else it must conform with art. 25(5) of the Constitution , in case of
ABADs doubt to consider him acting in GOOD FAITH , ABAD could have
took refuge to the ConstitutionNow if ABAD does , why did he disburesd
such savings to COA? Was the COA a priority project that will enhance the
economy of our country? Big NO.
Kung Hindi napuna ang kamaliang ginawa ni ABAD sa savings natin..at
dahil mga ipinagbabawal sa ating saligang batas ang mga ganitong pagsalin
sa mga nalikom na pondo,,, what was the real objectives of ABAD? or
PNOY ? or tahimik si ROXAS ata..?
The reasons why the Constitution prohibits transfer of funds of this
magnitude was in order not to serve as an implementor of the President
POLITICAL MOTIVES as an exchange of favors he wanted from other Co
Equal Departments and the most that must be CHECK and BALANCE is
when 2016 comes , in the course of POLITICAL CAMPAIGN funds will be
trasferred from executive dept. to another ( house or senate ) so these can
be used as CAMPAIGN FUNDshmmm ROXAS ang karamihan yat
dito a. .as we can see BINAY was not Happy when ABADs resignation
was not accepted by PNOYsabi mga nila irrevocable sana ang
ginawa..Cayetano was happy ,,, ELECTION FUNDs can not flow easily at
the doorstep of ROXAS..
Reply
59. yu says:
July 12, 2014 at 8:59 pm
I think our laws assume that things are done in good faith. It is bad faith that
you have to prove, otherwise, good faith is assumed.
Reply
o drill down says:
July 13, 2014 at 6:27 am
the constitution pretty much assumes that you can trust no one.
Reply
drill down says:
July 13, 2014 at 6:30 am
thats why all these discretionary powers are very dangerous especially
when theres limited means to scrutinize them.
Reply
o drill down says:
July 13, 2014 at 6:37 am
good faith is always assumed only in dictatorships. the dictator always
makes the right decision for the good of the country.
Reply
60. raissa says:
July 12, 2014 at 7:05 pm
The working title of my next piece is
Saguisag fully backs me on DAP and shares a startling suspicion
And one Associate Justice agrees with my interpretation of Section 25 (5) of
the Constitution
Reply
o leona says:
July 12, 2014 at 8:46 pm
Correct Mam Raissa. In your query in bold you asked Is this inconsistent
with the Constitution? For me, YES, it is inconsistent.
Is it unconstitutional? No. Because EO 294 having a status of a legislative
power it is a law enacted by Pres. Cory PRIOR to the convening of
Congress.The Transitory Provisions allowed this in transition. Only laws
enacted AFTER congress had convened in violation of the Constitution can
be declared unconstitutional. [you interpreted this also]
Normally or simply understanding the word inconsistent would be
unconstitutional in effect. But the DAP touching as basis on Chap. 5 Art. VI
of EO 294 and Sec. 25 (5) Article VI of the Constitution together with Sec. 6
of the Transitory Provision of same Constitution, SECS. 38 and 49 of EO
294 or Rev. Adm. Code, cannot be unconstitutional though it is clearly
inconsistent with Art. 25 (5) Art. VI Constitution.
The saving point was clearly: x x x Section 6, of Article XVIII, Transitory
Provisions.
The incumbent President shall continue to exercise legislative powers until
the first Congress is convened.
[by Raissa]
Question: as Raissa suggested: This is what the justices have to determine
meaning the inconsistency of SECS. 38 & 49 of EO 294. But the justices
have to go much further into the tunnel on this by ASKING ALSO -
are these two SECTIONS unconstitutional? Under the prevailing conditions
how all these sections etc., all converged altogether at the time many years
back in 1987 etc., I doubt in my humble opinion the justices or the Court can
declare the sections unconstitutional for the preceding reasons etc. given
already here by Raissa.
So, how will the SC go about it? 1.) Nada. Ask Congress to repeal the
sections instead. 2.) Because of the SCs Operative Fact doctrine that it
discussed, the subject SECTIONS are operating in fact as a law or
legislative power. 3.) Remove that last Paragraph about Good Faith or Bad
Faith, and about investigating those responsible for the DAP etc., because it
runs counter to the doctrine of OPERATIVE FACT when the Court resolves
the govt via OSGs motion for reconsideration (assuming the Court finds
merit in it).
Or the Court can do this: Section 6 of Art. VIII of the Constitution on
Transitory Provisions does not and cannot allow even a legislative power
such as EO 294 to violate Art. VI SEC. 25 of the Constitution even before
Congress convened. Why? Because it is super dangerous! Super inviting
flagrant violations of the heart of the constitutional provisions! That is the
reason why even President Cory did not want to USE EO 294. The son
likewise cannot USE that if the mother believed it will be aBad precedent.
The doctrine of Operative Fact on Pres. Cory Aquino not using it applies
also to President Nonoy Aquino likewise. And we maintain this FACT as it
OPERATES since 1987 up to now!
Has Joker responded? Nada? Please tell us what, why, how,etc. if he replies
Raissa.
Reply
o baycas says:
July 13, 2014 at 4:03 am
Section 5
(5) No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations;
however, the President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the
House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the
heads of Constitutional Commissions may, by law, be authorized to augment
any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from
savings in other items of their respective appropriations.
is in ARTICLE VI, THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT.
So the public may be reminded, especially of the operative
word RESPECTIVE.
on Constituional Law issue of the CROSS-BORDER transfer of monies and
Technical Malversation, please read this:
http://marichulambino.com/2013/10/01/disbursement-acceleration-program-
dap-constitutional-law-issues-realignment-versus-technical-malversation/
Note also that PNoy and Abad are separate until the end of their term in
2016simply because one is immune and the other is susceptible
Reply
baycas says:
July 13, 2014 at 4:10 am
Oops, that would be Section 25
Reply
61. Danny says:
July 12, 2014 at 7:05 pm
Perhaps, when the Solicitor-General appeal for the SC consideration on DAP
both section of the Administration Code must be cited. If a valid statute laws
were applied to make the savings, pooling and cross-border legal the SC
justices have to make the whole DAP constitutional.
Reply
62. Rene-Ipil says:
July 12, 2014 at 3:23 pm
The critics of PNoy are hitting Abad hard to separate the two. I believe Abad
is merely a co-author of DAP. The principal author and mastermind is PNoy
the evil genius according to Joker. Without PNoy the operation will never
succeed. Without Abad, PNoy would merely assign the task of drafting the
necessary issuances to anyone of his economic managers like Purisima with
the aid of career budget experts that abound in DBM.
IMO it was PNoy who hatched the idea on DAP or its equivalent that had
been hibernating in his mind since 2009 when he authored SB No. 3121
The Budget Impoundment Control Act of 2009, amending Section 38. The
then congress refused to pass the same bill which could have effectively
spayed GMA and castrated Mike Arroyo in their conjugal plunder of the
nation. But PNoy very well knew that DAP in the hands of a bad or good
president could be a bane or boon to the Filipino people. Indeed, the
Supreme Court and the International community acknowledged the success
of DAP in providing much benefits to the country.
Many thought, including some CPMers, that without Abad PNoy would be
cerebrally handicapped. Far from it. As an appetizer the comment of Paolo C.
@104.1 is recommended.
Reply
63. tristanism says:
July 12, 2014 at 3:15 pm
Kung may bad faith sa pagbuo ng DAP, ano ang naging pakinabang nina
Abad at Aquino sa pagbuo nito?
Reply
64. hiddendragon says:
July 12, 2014 at 10:05 am
I have to admit all these articles and sections are flying over my head as I
read (or rather, skim through them). What might help enlighten us is Solita
Monsods column today. See link below. Perhaps we should ask these
constitutional experts suddenly sprouting about to step back and see what
Abad has done for the budget.
http://opinion.inquirer.net/76477/let-facts-speak-for-themselves.
Reply
o Victin Luz says:
July 12, 2014 at 11:08 am
Solita Monsod did not answer why ABAD did not committed a crime of
violating the cross borders appropriations and to the Constitution.Even
how good ABAD DID during the preparation of GAA , or how honest he
was,, the FACT was when He disbursed THEM after pooling , he violated
the Constitution does ABAD was guilty.if SC will not decide now that such
action was WRONG and UNCONSTITUTIONAL ,, when then ? Are we
going to wait for somebody like MARCOS or GLORYA to be our Presidentn
again and apply sect. 38 and sect. 49 WRONGLY , to the extent to
NANAKAWIN ULI NG KABAN ng ATING MAHAL na BAYAN.KAILAN nyo
GUSTO? MALI kahit saan mo tingnan ang ginawa ni ABAD.
Reply
hiddendragon says:
July 12, 2014 at 11:48 am
Grammatical errors I hope does not lead me to read you wrong. My view on
the PNoy administration has been I can look the other way if technical
violations were made in the pursuit of justice and progress. I bet my
precious balls there was never a President or government official who did
not take a little from here to help some work get done over there, for good
or evil. Were seeing and feeling the results with PNoy and theyre good, not
perfect but certainly better than what weve seen for so long.
NOW what I find strange and interesting is the INORDINATE,
DISPROPORTIONATE AND RABID efforts to damage the current
administration on the account of some less than lethally serious issue, from
Nora to DAP, dont know what it will be next week. Check Abads track
record. What is so despicable about him, more than Enrile, Revilla &
Estrada that we should act up and froth in the mouth over it?
Yes, investigate where DAP went, demand an audit. But dont you think we
might gain more traction in moving forward if we acknowledged what our
current administration is doing and work with it, rather than against it? FOI,
anyone?
Reply
Victin Luz says:
July 12, 2014 at 12:48 pm
I think you have to acess your examinations on the current ISSUEpursuit
for progress i agree but not for JUSTICE,, because your view on PNOYs
Administration in particular to the case at hand was not MERELY
TECHNICAL VIOLATION it was a CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION that
if allowed NOW by the S.C. then it can be utilize again by next
administration be a corrupt President or NOT..
We acknowledged what PNOY was doing to our country in fact we
TRIUMPED on Enrile, Revilla, Estrada and etc and also to CORONA ,,,,but
all of THOSE will vanished in the THIN AIR if the SIN of ABAD will be
forgiven.. PNOY could be in GOOD FAITH in approving the
disbursement but never to ABAD..
Reply
tristanism says:
July 12, 2014 at 3:13 pm
Abad should not be forgiven, the issue should be investigated further.
Nangawat ba si Abad? Magkano ang kinawat ni Abad?
Again with the SC, kung baligtarin ba ng SC ang desisyon nila regarding
DAP ano ang magagingin reaksyon mo?
Bakit sure ka na malisyosong tao itong si Abad? Nagtataka ako diyan e.
Bakit sure ang mga tao na salbahe si Abad? Magkano ba ang ninakaw ni
Abad? Ibig sabihin ginawa ni Abad ang DAP para lang labagin ang
consitution? Bored lang siya?
Somehow, I understand your indignationbut not really. It appears na ang
indignation na nararamdaman mo ay para sa isang taong tinarantado tayo
knowingly ni Abad (and by extension ni Pnoy), Again, bakit ginawa ni
Abad ang DAP?
You say imposibleng hindi alam ni Abad na unconstitutional ang DAP.
Bakit, perpekto ba ang mga taga Batanes? HIndi ba pwedeng magkaiba-
iba ang opinyon ng mga abugado? Hindi ba pwedeng ganito ang basa ni
Abad at ng ibang abugado at iba naman ang basa ng SC? Hindi ba talaga
pwede iconsider ang good faith?
Kung bad faith ang icoconsider, ano ang pakinabang ni Abad sa DAP?
Reply
Victin Luz says:
July 12, 2014 at 5:37 pm
Bakit ang GOOD FAITH ba ay nakukuha sa pag violate ng
CONSTITUTION? Hindi yata At saka wala akong sinasabi na
UNCONSTITUTIONAL ang DAP I said what is UNCONSTITUTIONAL
action by ABAD was when he allowed the disbursement of the pooled
funds to other department like COA and to the HOUSE of REP and not
where the sabongs came from. ang LINAW ang sinabi ko. Iyan din
ang sinabi ng SC the cross over appropriation was illegal as it did not
conform with art. 25(5) of the Constitution.KUNG in good faith sya ,
dapat ay sinabihan nya PNOY na wag dalhin ang savings sa COA at oba
pang sangay ng Gpbyerno where the savings did not came
FROM.papaano sya magkamali ,, abogado sya , SHORT CUT ang
ginawa nila sa pag cross over ng savings to the extent of violating the
Constitution REPEALING a LAW must be done with by the
CONGRESS and by a Supreme Court decision NOT by VIOLATING the
LAW as ABAD DID , even how honest was your intention ,,,you cannot
REPEAL a LAW by Violating them @ for chit navarro .
If you violate a law especially the Constitution , you have to answer first
what you have done in the court of LAW , show your good faith in trial
BUT suspension is inevitable while you are being investigated in order
not to influence the outcome of the trial.. Bakit ang ibang kawani ng
pamahalaan for the benefit sa kanyang co employees , pinasahod nya
galing sa maling PONDO , convicted of technical malversation,,,pag
malakihan palang pera .LUSUT NA in GOOD FAITH tapos na
ganoon ba ang batas natin?
Reply
Victin Luz says:
July 12, 2014 at 5:38 pm
Correction not sabongs .mean SAVINGs came from.
Victin Luz says:
July 12, 2014 at 5:46 pm
@TRISTANISM.sa art. 25(5) of the Constitution , sect. 38 and sect.
49 of the AC,,,sa mga ABOGADO ay hindi pweding magkakaiba ang
interpretasyon nilalalong lalo na sa pag HARMONIZE of a LAW and
the Constitution kung ang pagka akala nya ay conflicting ang
dalawa.ALWAYs the Constitution prevails GOOD FAITH is a
defence but it will not be us who will judge if that good faith excess ..
Only the court will tellso ABAD must be prosecuted first and argue
himself thereat
tristanism says:
July 12, 2014 at 6:41 pm
Bad faith , among others, ang pinaguusapan dito kasi sure na sure ka
na sinadya ni Abad na i-violate ang constitution. You said (I paraphrase)
na abugado siya kaya alam niya nung ginagawa pa lang ang DAP na
labag sa constitution ito. At parang sure ka nga na me sa demonyo tong
si Abad.
Thats whats confusing me. So dahil abugado siya, he must have
known na bawal ang ginawa niya pero itinuloy niya pa rin?
Sa akin naman abugado siya kaya naghanap siya ng batas na nag-
aallow sa kanya na bumuo ng DAP. Sa argumento mo kasi imposibleng
hindi alam ni Abad na bawal ang ginagawa niya.
Bad faith ang issue. Hindi mo maisip na maaring nagkamali si Abad ng
paghahanap ng batas na mag-aallow sa DAP.
So pag ni-reverse kunyari ng SC ang desisyon nila, how would you view
that?
Victin Luz says:
July 12, 2014 at 6:49 pm
Look @tristanismsaan ang good faith ang alam mu na ngang bawal
gamitin ang savings to other Departments where the savings did not
came from ,,, ano ginawa nya ibinigay sa COA ,,,o papaano ,,,di BAD
FAITH iyon .kasi nag short cut sya .samantalang ang pag
mababang kawani ang gumamit ng pondo na hindi para sa nakallaan na
babayaran ,, nakakasuhan sila, conbicted at tanggal sila sa trabaho
chit navarro says:
July 12, 2014 at 3:17 pm
I so totally agree with you. Please check out my upcoming comment on
GOOD FAITH which is an important part of the SC decision.
i am also thinking, based on some of the more sensible comments here,
that the President and the Budget Secretary purposely invoked the Admin.
Code to pave the way for its repeal, revoke, cancellation as a law. Then,
the President after PNoy will have no hidden law to back up its awesome
powers over the purse. Because you see, some commenters mentioned
that as a Senator, he sponsored a Bill to Repeal this Admin Code but it did
not gain any traction; there was also another bill sponsored by Cong.
Joseph Emilio Abaya and Party-List Rep. Rissa Hontiveros but did not see
the light of day. Because without this, then the policies and improvements
in the budgeting system will not be for naught as there will really be checks
and balance between the three departments of government.
I also posted excerpts of an interview on Sec. Abad by the group of Dr.
Romy Bernardo for the US Based Global Source Partner which is a very
interesting and intellectual discussion on the budget, PDAF & DAP, before
the SC handed its ruling.
Reply
chit navarro says:
July 12, 2014 at 3:21 pm
I so totally agree with you @HIDDENDRAGON & @TRISTANISM &
@REJTATEL
Reply
tristanism says:
July 12, 2014 at 5:22 pm
INORDINATE, DISPROPORTIONATE AND RABID efforts to damage the
current administration
My thoughts exactly. Now I understand why some personalities would want
to fan that. Pero yung sakay lang nang sakay sa indignation wagon against
the DAP, I dont get it. Konting hakbang lang ng logic at fairness
mapapansin na yang DISPROPORTIONATE AND RABID reaction to
issues.
Reply
Victin Luz says:
July 12, 2014 at 7:06 pm
Check and balance @tristanism in a democratic society this is the
beauty of a topic brought by the owner of this blogwe have our own
opinion and i can justify or prove minr Not that we admired @maam
Raissa or PNOYs excellent administration so we have to say YES or
BOW are head and tell them they were RIGHT on their assumptions
KAHIT MALI sila SAAN ang reasoning mo pala Si atty @leona
said GOOD FAITH is their defense so as atty@Rene . so i agree but
they have to prove in court ,,,not us to decide. I am not a lawyer nor an
English major but the way i understand the topic so as the ABADs case ,,
wala akong makitang Good Faith na ginawa nya , kaya ko nasabi na sa
appeal nila sa SC ,, nasa hindi pa din papanig ang Supreme Court kay
ABADillegal padin ang cross over appropriation na ginawa ni ABAD.
Reply
tristanism says:
July 12, 2014 at 9:53 pm
Nasa issue pa din kasi ako ng bad faith na ina-assume mo tungkol ke
Abad. I dont find it logical kasi.
Sinasabi mo na kahit alam ni Abad na mayayari sila sa DAP, tinuloy pa
din nila ito. Ganun kasi pagkakaintindi ko sa bad faith sa issue na ito:
alam mong mali pero tinuloy mo pa din.
Ngayon, sa dami ng nagaabang na magkamali ang PNOY government,
sa tingin mo magiging patumpik tumpik si Abad sa issue ng budget?
Kaya iniisip ko na na naniniwala si Abad na legal ang DAP nuong ginawa
niya kasi alam niya na naghahanap ng butas ang kalaban.
It does not make sense to me to assume na si Abad ay nagkibit balikat
na lang at sinabing, Bahala na kung hindi legal. Hindi naman siguro ako
babanatan ni Toby.
True, they may have to prove that in court. Pero di ko magets kung bakit
yun ang assumption mo na ilalaglag ni Abad ang sarili niya.
You cant assume na pare-pareho ang basa ng mga abugado sa batas.
Maging mga mahistrado nga ng SC nagkakaiba-iba ang interpretation e.
Kaya nga me majority vote na kinoconsider dun kasi iba-iba din ang
interpretasyon nila.
Reply
Victin Luz says:
July 13, 2014 at 3:38 am
Ito nalang ang itanung ko sa iyo. Para di tayo paikot ikot .was the
savings appropriated and given to COA and to the HOUSE a prioirity
project ? Does it fall under # 9 and # 10 of section 49of the Admin.
Code? BASAHIN MUNGANG MAIGE. ang layo diba. So i said the
DAP particularly the pooling of funds from government savings was
Constitutional under section 38 but the croos border appropriation
given to COA and etc. was also declared Unconstitutional. I dis agree
that section 49 of the AC carried itself an authority by the President to
juggle the government savings Saan ang GOOD FAITH ni ABAD
noong dinala nya ang savings sa COA? Does the juggled savongs given
to COA , enhance our ECONOMY? Iyong dinala sa House sa pang
repair nila , Cpnstitutional ba? Look at the timing of the released pf that
savings, nakakaduda
Nag short cut si ABAD sa pag release pf funds and the Constotution
was violated favoring COA and others.BAD FAITH iyan.no matter
how honest the intention of ABAD on the majority parts of that savings
illegally disbursed , when he gave that funds to COA and the House ,
ABAD good intention destroyed everything ,, and that was the BAD
FAITH i am implying to you
Rejtatel says:
July 12, 2014 at 3:10 pm
@victin luz
Assuming the acts are finally decided as unconstitutional (i will assume
because the decision is not yet final at this time), are these unconstitutional
acts criminal? We know that an act how egregious it may be cannot be
punished unless there is a law punishing it.
Dapat din kasi nating isipin na hindi porket deneklarang labag sa
konstitusyon ang isang batas o patakaran eto ay nangangahulugan na na
dapat kasuhan at ipiit ang pasimuno ng nasabing batas o patakaran. Ang
kasunod na katanungan na dapat masagot ay may nilabag bang batas na
kriminal ang sangkot. Kung meron nararapat siyang kasuhan ng paglabag
sa nasabing batas penal/kriminal. Kung wala, mukhang magsasayang lang
tayo ng lakas at galit sa wala.
Reply
Victin Luz says:
July 12, 2014 at 6:38 pm
Technical Malversation was written in the revise penal code ayan ang
pagkaalam ko ha juggling of funds ay bawal mayroong corresponding
punishments Juggling f funds is a crime @rejatel
The mere using that savings is a crime itself pag maliit na halaga mga ay
nakasuhan at nakulung pa ang mga mababang kawani ng gobyerno
natin They either were not benefited , but since a they violated the law of
using a fund not intented for their salaries ,, kulong sila at tanggal pa sa
trabahopero ang immediate outcome ang ginawa ay mayroong ginastus
ang kanikanilang familya sa pangararaw na pangangailangan .
Reply
Victin Luz says:
July 12, 2014 at 6:43 pm
Yes that act is criminal because it was technical malversation and
punishable under the revise penal code dawask your lawyer .bawal
ang juggling of funds.
Reply
Victin Luz says:
July 12, 2014 at 6:52 pm
Technical Malversation ang ginawa ni ABAD bawal sa RPC,,, tanung ka sa
abogadomo
Reply
Victin Luz says:
July 12, 2014 at 6:53 pm
Use your internet ,,,it said anti graft din daw ang kasalanan ni ABAD
Reply
Rejtatel says:
July 13, 2014 at 5:10 am
But DAP was approved by PNoy himself as shown by docs and paper
trail and as admitted by PNoy publicly. So while Abad may be the
proponent at the end of the day it was PNoy who approved the acts. So if
ever there may be a crime of either malversation or technical
malversation, the axe does not fall on Abad but PNoy himself.
So i ask again, what was the crime committed by Abad?
Reply
65. Rene Bas says:
July 12, 2014 at 7:48 am
Just to let you know I continue to be an admirer of yours, Raissa R.
I have been reminding/telling people who refer to you as just a blogger of
your brilliant career as a model journalist.
President Aquinos dead mom, President Cory, may yet save her son from
jail over DAP is one of the best pieces that have come out about the DAP
issue.
I want to punctuate the point you made about Sec. 49 being DANGEROUS
so I will have to refer to your article extensively in an article I will write after I
close this msg. I will of course publish all the links to your blog.
Rene Q. Bas
Publisher/Editor
The Manila Times
Reply
o raissa says:
July 12, 2014 at 5:01 pm
Thank you, Rene.
Go ahead. I merely wanted to prod people to use the issue to lead to
reforms in governance.
Reply
tristanism says:
July 12, 2014 at 5:32 pm
Manila Times, huh?
Matignan nga kung pano ang slant.
Reply
66. marcus says:
July 12, 2014 at 7:45 am
Curious though, if some provisions of the Administrative code runs
inconsistent with the 1987 Constitution, then it is deemed repealed based on
the repealing clause of the consitution, right?
Reply
o raissa says:
July 12, 2014 at 5:02 pm
Not yet.
But pls wait for my next article.
Reply
67. baycas says:
July 12, 2014 at 6:54 am
Genius?
Most likelya geniusits great that accountability can now be exacted even
to people in high posts.
DAP is another test case of accountability while in office: PNoy may be
ousted through impeachment and Abad may be criminally charged with
technical malversationwith the huge amount, possibly with a higher
offense.
Evil genius?
Sureevilwith masochistic tendency at that
Well, I think were the SELFIE capital of the world.
Reply
o jaxius says:
July 12, 2014 at 12:18 pm
I see you havent moved to India. Hahaha
Reply
baycas says:
July 12, 2014 at 8:49 pm
Hahaha
Nice to read you back again, Monsieur Jax.
Reply
baycas says:
July 12, 2014 at 9:13 pm
Btw,
Please look here
http://philippinecommentary.blogspot.com/2009/03/keeper-from-
baycas.html
Reply
jaxius says:
July 13, 2014 at 9:49 am
Baycas,
I now wonder what Sec. Lacierda would say if the PDAF detainees adopt
his argument from way back then, i.e., that they should be granted bail
because the millions that voted them to office will be disenfranchised?
Reply
baycas says:
July 13, 2014 at 10:22 am
Dawin on bail?
Great memory, jaxius
Hahaha
Reply
68. chit navarro says:
July 12, 2014 at 6:39 am
I am resposting here excerpts of an article posted by Philip I. Lustre Sr. in his
FB account, with the following intro:
Abad, the Point Guard
11 July 2014 at 22:46
Sharing an article of Dr. Romy Bernardo for the GlobalSource Partner.
Released in December 2013, unfortunately access to their publications are
for members-only so this did not get wide circulation. Dr. Bernardo is giving
clearance for public circulation. Good read (8 pages) on Sec. Abads view of
reforms in the DBM and the reform context of DAP.
As Bernardo wrote in the intro:
In his three and a half years so far atop the Department of Budget and
Management, Secretary Abad was a prime mover in what the World Bank
described as significant reforms in public financial management. Apart from
the greater transparency, accountability and openness to civil society
participation that the reforms brought to the Philippine national budget
process, the changes also helped to improve budget efficiency, thereby
creating fiscal space for government and allowed faster disbursements to
support economic growth and greater social inclusiveness.
SPECIAL REPORT
Romeo L. Bernardo & Christine Tang
708 THIRD AVENUE, NEW YORK, NY 10017
http://WWW.GLOBALSOURCEPARTNERS.COM
+1.212.317.8015
********************************
In his three and a half years so far atop the Department of Budget and
Management, Secretary Abad was a prime mover in what the World Bank
described as significant reforms in public financial management. Apart from
the greater transparency, accountability and openness to civil society
participation that the reforms brought to the Philippine national budget
process, the changes also helped to improve budget efficiency, thereby
creating fiscal space for government and allowed faster disbursements to
support economic growth and greater social inclusiveness.
Secretary Abads background in both social movements and mainstream
politics equips him with a keen understanding of the imperatives for growth of
democracy as well as the practical workings of governance. His ability to
balance idealism and realism puts him in a good position to navigate the
intricate process of reforming governance and public expenditure
management. (On this, he can count on a trusted ally his wife, Rep.
Henedina Abad, currently Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives).
As the Presidents point guard on budget matters, he sat down with us on a
Friday afternoon to talk about recent controversies the Priority
Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) and the Disbursement Acceleration
Program (DAP), their impact on public expenditures and the administrations
reform agenda as well as spending priorities in the 2014 budget, including
programs in support of public-private partnerships (PPPs). He also answers
our questions about the Liberal Partys plans for 2016.
**********************************************
GLOBAL SOURCE PARTNER:
What would be the impact of the Supreme Court decision regarding the
unconstitutionality of the PDAF on the quality of engagement between the
Executive and Congress?
ABAD: Institutionally, I dont think that the inherent powers of the Congress
have been eroded by the decision of the Supreme Court. I am referring to the
power over the budget, the power over appointments and the power of
oversight. I think the problem is that all these years, Congress has been more
preoccupied with constituency work service and not strengthening these
powers, which they have, but they hardly use. And because of that, it also
became a source of weakness. If the president withholds the pork, then
politically, it impacts individually on the legislators, but institutionally they
ought to be revisiting their powers to see how they can use that as a stronger
lever. But the one good thing about the decision is clarifying the roles of the
branches. In fact the gist of the PDAF ruling is declaring as illegal or
unconstitutional post-enactment interventions by Congress, except when they
are exercising their power of oversight.
GLOBAL SOURCE PARTNERS:
I see what youre trying to do long-term in terms of improved governance. But
I am more worried about the short-term. While the Supreme Court ruling
prohibits Congress from interfering in execution, nothing prevents it from
being involved, so its just a question of putting it ahead and being more
participatory in some sense, and maybe if they can get their constituency
involved in the process as well, you will actually have a more people-oriented
budget process.
ABAD: Exactly, there is nothing wrong with Congress participating during
budget preparation, especially during budget authorization, because that
really is in the realm of the power of Congress. But what I mean is they have
to do more work in order to get their proposed projects into the Budget before
it is enacted into law.
GLOBAL SOURCE PARTNER: That will really impose more on you, right?
To be more provocative or put it more bluntly, the PDAF system, stripped of
the abuses or criminality of the Napoles type, in which each legislator gets a
fixed allocation for projects for his constituency, is actually an efficient system
that meets the political objectives of the legislators in an equitable devolved
non-partisan and budgetwise limited manner, while engendering good
working relationship between the executive and legislative branches which
under a good president facilitates passage of key legislation. With the
Supreme Court decision, you will need to find less transparent ways,
involving 250 congressmen and 24 senators in opaque negotiations with so
many, with indeterminate bargaining outcomes, potential charge of
partisanship, high administrative and friction costs and potentially larger
budget spending distortions. How would you respond to thischaracterization?
ABAD: You have a good point. In fact, the President once told Congressmen
that if 300 of you called the Budget Secretary once, twice or thrice a week,
can you imagine the time it will take him to answer each of you? And you will
start by calling the provincial offices (of executive departments), the regional
offices, then the Secretary, until you see your projects in the NEP (National
Expenditure Program). As I mentioned, this is a lot of work that has to be
done in order to get representatives projects into the Budget before
enactment.
GLOBAL SOURCE PARTNER :
Is there a way of doing these efficiently before the budget is passed, without
violating the Supreme Court ruling?
ABAD : We havent been able to figure out how to do this in the most
transparent way. In fact, the legislature is at a disadvantage here. At the
same time, for us, administratively, it will mean a lot of work. The problem is
the negative public reaction even to be talking to politicians; that the mere
thought of the executive working with the Congress for projects in their
districts is already to them repulsive. Our challenge, really, is how do we
remove avenues for leakages and abuse; while at the same time addressing
the need to deliver basic services to the people, including the constituents of
legislators? The latter is a reality that we must acknowledge and address
together how do we help our representatives ensure that the legitimate
needs of their constituents are met, and without resorting to patronage-based
relationships of the past? Bottom line: we want to make public spending more
transparent, more accountable and more empowering for constituents. The
reality is that patronage cannot be overturned overnight: there are steps we
have to take, milestones we have to meet. And I believe we are already
moving forward in that direction for one, we are already disclosing budget
information in unprecedented ways, such as publishing detailed releases
from lump-sum funds, including PDAF before it was invalidated by the Court,
on our website.
********************************
to read the full article, you can go to FB of Philip I. Lustre
Reply
69. yvonne says:
July 12, 2014 at 6:10 am
Raissas blog must be pinching some raw nerves.
I cannot help but notice the rapid increase in the number of comments in her
blog in so short a time not seen since the days of the Corona impeachment
trial. Many CPMers who were in hibernation after the impeachment trial are
back, and many new commenters are joining in.
Raissa must be doing something right as I also notice an increasing number
of personal attacks on her coming from trolls.
Reply
o Daves says:
July 12, 2014 at 3:06 pm
Agreed. If anything, Ms. Robles at least gave some (if not many) people a
bunch of things to honestly think about for themselves.
Reply
70. Dan Dimasalang says:
July 12, 2014 at 6:03 am
Will this sudden found constitutionality switch Abad and Aquinos defense
from good intentions to legality? And how does this affect what critics term
Student Government? How knowledgeable is Abad in juggling funds when it
will take an independent journalist to get them a legal escape route? And
what kind of a shadow will such cast on the Palaces lawyers? Ah! Fire them
all, Mr. President. Fire them all!
And hire Raisa.
Reply
o raissa says:
July 13, 2014 at 9:42 pm
why sudden constitutionality when the constituionality has existed all along?
PNoy wont hire me.
He wont even let me interview him :) one-on-one. Im not kidding.
Reply
71. letlet says:
July 12, 2014 at 3:21 am
PNOY could be put behind the jail by section 38 AC, but SECTION 49 was
overlooked by the SC Justices for whatever reasons. I wonder who will
correct / apprehend the SC Justices. If their decision (irreversible) is
erroneous, is their first decision still going ahead for implementation, Is that
justifiable. Is justice denied?
I wonder if this is the payback time for SC Justices to PNOY for what he did
to Corona impeachment and putting the reputation of SC in quandary at that
time. I wonder if its something to do with installing Lourdes Sereno as CJ of
SC, overpassing Justice Carpio. Who was the figure head of the SC Justices
who presided over the unconstitutionality of DAP. I read before that whatever
Justice Carpio says, goes, He has the upper hand in almost everything in SC
matters.
Reply
o Victin Luz says:
July 12, 2014 at 8:53 am
It could be the payback time for SC against PNOY .but eventhough such
savings was wrongly used by MARCOS, ESTRADA, GLORYA then, it can
not CORRECT their mistakes so as ABAD mistakes in an
UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTION by doing a cross border appropriations on
PNOYs Savings to other Departments like to the COA section 49 was
CLEAR such savings can be used to more priority projects where the
savings came from.. Read between the line section 49 ,,it never stated
expressly nor impliedly that such savings if it comes from PNOYs , they can
used them to COAs priority project.
Reply
Victin Luz says:
July 12, 2014 at 9:07 am
It was never OVERLOOKED by SC , they like ABAD were LAWYERs , they
dont need to HARMONIZED the Constitution and sect. 38 and sect. 49
because it was never in conflict with each other.tayo pa non lawyers , we
have to HARMONIZED them kung conflicting mga.
Lawyers duty when applying a law was to study if such law contravene the
constitution , if not conflicting apply the LAW
Si ABAD tiningnan nya diba, itinuro nya pa kay PNOY ang sect. 38 na
pwedi nyang pahintuin ang isang proyecto ,,, pero hindi nya itinuro kay
PNOY na ang paggamit sa perang ito ay sa departamento lang kung saan
naggaling ang savingsmalinaw sa Constitution at sect. 49.. maaring
ang sinabi nya kay PNOY ay ganyan ang ginawa ni GLORYA at ninakaw
pa nila e tayo hindi naman natin nanakawin SIR, kaya pweding pwedi
.MALI si ABAD ..at kung palulusutin ng SC sa appeal .PAPAANO
KUNG SI NOG NOG o si BONG BONG o si GRACE POE ang manalong
presidente sa 2016 , at gamitin na naman sa pagnanakaw ang maling
interpretasyon ng sect. 38 o sect. 49 ng AC,,,kawawa na naman ang
BANSA natin,,,balik tayo sa nakawan dito nakawan doon.pag may
palulusutin si BNAY gamitin ang pera ng DAP sa paglagay sa mali ang
tama .
Reply
72. chit navarro says:
July 12, 2014 at 2:12 am
From the column of Solita Monsod in the Inquirer today.
Please read, analyse and ask yourself again if Abad should merit jail time (at
this point in time) or
if there is a basis for the President to be wary of jail time when he steps out of
office.
*+++++++++
Then there is the call for Budget Secretary Butch Abad to resign, or for
President P-Noy to fire him. That shows absolute ignorance, or, to put it more
kindly, no short-term memory, on the part of those behind the call.
First, they must have forgotten what the budget process was like under P-
Noys predecessor: There were the scam involving the Priority Development
Assistance Fund, particularly of 2007-2009, under that regime; the
congressional insertionsanother form of dispensing pork; the budget
reenactments, which totally destroyed any relationship between the budget
and the countrys declared development goals; and then the complete
distortion of the Malampaya Fund, which, although earmarked for energy-
related projects, could also be used for such other purposes as the
president directed (it was found that only 1 percent of the Fund releases were
energy-related).
Now for the DAP (Disbursement Acceleration Program). Visit the DBM
website and look it up. Heres my take: The Supreme Court praised it for
having achieved what it set out to do. However, the Court said that some of
the actions taken were unconstitutionaland then got all involved in
operative fact, which I take to mean that if the expenditures were made and
the projects were completed, they should not be reversed (but of course!).
And then the Court said that the people responsible for the DAP could be
held liable, depending on the evidence. Not should, not would, but could.
Well, let the facts speak for themselves. The DAP was an answer to a felt
need (there was underspending). When the need was reduced, the
expenditures were reduced: P75 billion for the last three months of 2011,
P53.2 billion for all of 2012, and P16.0 billion for 2013. And then it stopped.
Does that look like pork barrel? Please.
Reply
o Victin Luz says:
July 12, 2014 at 4:45 am
Ayaw pumasok ang sagot ko sa iyohe he Cpnstitutional Rights in your
example is very much DIFFERENT from the CONSTITUTION ITSELF
wherein ABAD VIOLATEDi will elaborate further pag pwede ng pumasok
kami..he he
Reply
Victin Luz says:
July 12, 2014 at 4:48 am
Sorry this answer was for yvonnee @ chit..nagloloko ata system natin
Reply
yvonne says:
July 12, 2014 at 5:23 am
@Victin Luz constitutional rights emanate from the Constitution; ergo,
you violate a constitutional right, then you violate the constitution thus the
act becomes unconstitutional. Im not a legal person but that is how I
understand it, and I may be wrong.
Reply
Victin Luz says:
July 12, 2014 at 6:07 am
No @yvonneduty bound ang Officer in your example to protect us and
to give us a better/safe living condition bit it should be done thru DUE
PROCESS in order not to violate our fundamental roghtsimayrrongg
boundaries iyan in executing your duty as an officer,, so that evidence
gathered during apprehension will be acceptable to the court..or ..so that it
will not be considred as FRUITs of POISONOUS TREE and such will be
thrown out or as if no evidence was taken..thats the MIRANDA
DOCTRINE . The same with the doctor, duty bound to save
life.CRIMINAL INTENT is not present at first hand when they performed
their respective duties
But for ABAD knowing the prohibitions on the Constitution under
art.25(5),, being a seasoned lawyer he could have HARMONIZED section
38 and 49 with the Constitution knowing further that by placing the TWO ,
contradicting with each othet the Constitution will prevail,,,so ..wrongfull
INTENT was present on ABAD BAD MOTIVE on his part
Reply
Victin Luz says:
July 12, 2014 at 6:15 am
@yvonnr , neither I , was lawyer. But i have to read the provision of the
Law to properly share my comments on this blogi am retired
government employyee and a license engineer thats allbut according
to them Ignorance of the Law excuses no one DAW. Papaano iyan,,,
sila ang nag aral ng BATAS sila naman nagtatama ang MALING MALI na
paggamit sa BATAS Papaano tayo uunlad nyan..
Reply
o baycas says:
July 12, 2014 at 6:15 am
newsinfo.inquirer.net/619032/who-are-liable-sc-issues-guidance-but-no-
names
Reply
baycas says:
July 12, 2014 at 6:19 am
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/619032/who-are-liable-sc-issues-guidance-but-
no-names
Reply
73. yvonne says:
July 12, 2014 at 12:06 am
WILL ALL CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS RESULT IN JAIL TIME?
.
I find this question interesting in reference to the title of Raissas post.
Or rephrased another way, if the Supreme Court decision on the
unconstitutionality of certain aspects of DAP were not reversed on appeal,
assuming there would be an appeal, would the SC decision result in
President Aquino serving some jail time after his term of office?
Im asking this question because it appears to me that certain questions of
law brought before the courts that resulted in the determination of
constitutional violations did not result in the violators serving some jail time. I
dont have any legal background, thus I find it interesting to throw this
question to my fellow CPMers for comments.
A couple of scenarios:
1. A police officer stopped a motorist driving recklessly. Upon questioning the
motorist unwittingly hinted that some illegal drugs he was transporting made
him drive nervously. The man was subsequently convicted of illegal drug
trafficking. The convicted fellon appealed claiming that the officer violated his
constitutional rights by failing to read him his Miranda rights, and by
questioning him without the presence of a lawyer. The conviction was
reversed on appeal, and the man was set free. Needless to say, the officer
was not sent to jail for violating his constitutional rights.
2. A woman was on life-support system and her doctors determined that her
comatose state was irreversible. The husband wanted the life-support system
disconnected to allow nature to run its normal course, but the wifes parents
objected. The doctors and the hospital refused the husbands request. The
husband sued. The court ruled that the doctors and hospitals refusal to
disconnect the life support system violates the husbands constitutional right
to make end-of-life decisions for his ailing wife. Again, needless to say, the
doctors did not go to jail for violating a persons constitutional right.
I can cite many other instances of court-ruled constitutional violations, but I
think CPMers already get my point.
Thus the questions: Does all constitutional violations merits a jail time to the
offending person? Or should there be an element of deceit, bad intentions, or
harm?
What about those cases brought before the Supreme Court mainly for the
purpose of clearing up a constitutional issue? Just last month, the U.S.
Supreme Court made a landmark decision that severely curtails a police
officers access to an individual cell phone. The SC ruled that many of the
evidence obtained by the police from a convicted drug dealers cell phone
were unconstitutional. The expected offshot of this decision is that the
accused will be re-tried but, of course, the police officers will not go to jail for
their act of constitutional violation.
Reply
o Victin Luz says:
July 12, 2014 at 3:59 am
Go to the process as required by Law much more as prescribed by the
Constitution For example the mere issuance of check lacking or short of
funds constitute an offense and punishable by Law , it was because you
distort the Banking System of our Country ( economic sabotage according to
our lawyers ). That Miranda Doctrine re: illegal possession of drugs
apprehension to those would be violators and securing of EVIDENCE HAD
boundaries/procedures as Supreme Court decided on many cases
OTHERWISE persons CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTs our
BASIC/FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTs under the Constitution are trampled and
such evidence will be declared as FRUITs of POISONOUS TREE, that can
never be accepted by our court of law to finally convict an accused.Parts
of the DUE PROCESS system.The officer who apprehended the drug
violator in your example was duty bound to protect us , the duty to make our
Country a better place to live but should be DONE in a proper procedures as
allowed by Law,,,so was the Doctor in the hospital in your example was duty
bound to save life WHY are they not jailed? because , as the cases were
being tried and heard NO CRIMINAL INTENT on the part of the Officer and
the Doctor were found , because they were duty bound to so only the
procedures were not properlly followed and that procedure is part of DUE
PROCESS
What was violated by ABAD and PNOY was a pertainent provision of the
Constitution itselfthe Revised Penal Code on Technical Malversation
,,,,the mere juggling of funds is punishable by law with corresponding
penalties ( for an ordinary employee of the Government, you go to jail ) . is
there any Law , exempting ABAD from criminal prosecution? NONE , so he
has to go to the court , defend himself and the court will decide if he will be
convicted and jailed SYA ang inabutan e ABOGADO SYA , TANGA
TANGA pala sya , dahil lang kakampi nya si PNOY , isinubo nya pa si
PNOY.ginawa ni Marcos lusut, ginawa ni Estrada lusut, ginawa ni Glorya
lusut ,, pero lahat ay mali,, pero hindi ibig sabihin na ginawa/ginaya ni ABAD
ang mga mali ay magiging TAMA sya.di hindi po.
Reply
o Victin Luz says:
July 12, 2014 at 4:40 am
I answered already in detailed nawala ,,pero ito na lang . Maiksi .in your
example Constitutional Rights were violated and the DUE PROCESS was
not afforded to drug pusher.. Si ABAD naman the CONSTITUTION itself
na nagsabing bawal ang augment of appropriatipns from savings of one
department to another department,, so the Constitution itself was violated
Sa Revised Penal Code ,, technical malversation or juggling of funds is also
punishable by law..you can be jailedABAD did kahit hindi nya ninakaw ang
DAP ay distorted disturbed our Constitution
Reply
74. letlet says:
July 11, 2014 at 11:30 pm
Like Saguisag, if theres no proven evidence saying that PNOY and Abad
had dipped their fingers from DAP into their pockets, I still support PNOY.
Abad and PNOY have juggled the DAP savings and funds for the sake of the
country and the people, for the best interest / best intentions of uplifting the
predicament of the needy and the poor people, the end justifies the means. In
their hearts desire to help the common people in many ways, they did the
DAP. I will show my gratitude, not being ingrata, and not join the stabbers of
PNOY and Abad. Into the eyes of PNOY, Abad did what he has to do, not for
plunder but for the right causes. I will repay their efforts and honesty for
BEING THERE FOR THEM. Justice is with them. God said whatever you
did for the people, you also did it for me. We the people SHOULD FULLY
SUPPORT THEM for putting their neck on the line for the common people.
Think where he money could have gone upgrading and modernizing our
military defense and for victims of yolanda typhoon. They cost billion and
billions of money
Just wondering, who is the figure head of those SC Justices who voted for
the unconstitutionality of DAP, who obviously overlooked section 49 of AC.
Are they for or against the daang matuwid of PNOY? Nasagasaan ba sila ng
daang matuwid ni PNOY?
Reply
75. thenavigator8 says:
July 11, 2014 at 5:41 pm
the Constitution is the supreme (or fundamental law) of the land. Laws, rules
and regulations that are not consistent with the Constitution can be declared
by courts to be unconstitutional, void and of no force and effect
Transitory provisions of the 1987 Constitution states that:
Sec. 3. All existing laws, decrees, executive orders, proclamations, letters of
instructions, and other executive issuances not inconsistent with this
Constitution shall remain operative until amended, repealed, or revoked.
it means that there is a RETROACTIVE effect of the constitution that ALL
existing laws that is NOT CONSISTENT with the constitution shall be void.
Section 23 (5) of Article VI on the Legislature that states that NO LAW
SHALL BE PASSED INCLUDES THOSE LAWS EVEN BEFORE THE
CONSTITUTION.
Since sec 38 and 49 of the Admin Code as you have discussed above is
clearly not consistent with Section 23 (5) of Article VI of the constitution, thus
VOID.
Reply
o raissa says:
July 11, 2014 at 9:07 pm
shall remain operative until amended, repealed, or revoked.
Reply
thenavigator8 says:
July 11, 2014 at 11:41 pm
the phrase shall remain operative until amended, repealed, or revoked
pertains only to those laws that are consistent with the 1987 constitution.
those that are inconsistent like secs. 38 and 49 of the admin code can be
considered as impliedly repealed.
Reply
thenavigator8 says:
July 12, 2014 at 3:53 am
the phrase shall remain operative until amendeed, repealed, or revoked
pertains to laws that are consistent with the 1987 constitution. but secs. 38
and 49 are inconsistent with sec. 23 (5) chapter vi of the 1987 constitution,
thus, it is impliedly repealed.
Reply
raissa says:
July 12, 2014 at 9:08 pm
wait for my next post.
Reply
Victin Luz says:
July 12, 2014 at 5:40 am
Yes operative until amended, and we can not see any provision/section of
the AC to be unconstitutional.. What was unconstitutional is the cross
border appropriations from PNOY to COA and etc. or to different
departmentssect. 38.. Of AC authorize that PNOY can suspend projects,
pool the savings.but it did not authorized PNOY to disbursed the savings
to another department other than where the savings cme from Not to
COA or House of Representativesect.49 also did not allow PNOY to used
such saving in a priority projects that will enhance our country in another
department like COA and other rather than where the savings came
fromABAD as a seasoned Lawyer could have HARMONIZED the
Administrative Code with the Constittution , in order not to be in CONFLICT
with each other where if SO , the Constitution PREVAILs.
Reply
Victin Luz says:
July 12, 2014 at 5:51 am
ABAD must go to court and defend himself..PNOY must be save from
asking favor to the TONGRESSMEN , a political favor that will
cut/disturbed his objective of TUWID NA DAAN.maglalagayan ng pera
na naman nyan to the extent LULUSUT pati ang plunder case nina
ENRILE , REVILLA at ESTRADA . sayang ang pinaghirapan ni PNOY
ABAD must resign irrevocably ISINUBU nya si PNOY.
Reply
drill down says:
July 12, 2014 at 6:39 am
the inconsistent ones are automatically void. foresight in the transitory
provisions to prevent mistakes/abuse. makes a lot of sense.
Reply
Victin Luz says:
July 13, 2014 at 4:27 am
Ha ha @drill downpalagay ko ang mga kasamahan natin dito ay wanted
ROXAS or talagang dying for ROXAS,,,he he .
Reply
76. leona says:
July 11, 2014 at 5:12 pm
Revised Administrative Code 1987
Link http://www.gov.ph/1987/07/25/executive-order-no-292/
Reply
o baycas says:
July 11, 2014 at 5:45 pm
http://www.gov.ph/1987/07/25/executive-order-no-292-book-vichapter-5-
budget-execution/
Reply
o leona says:
July 11, 2014 at 7:53 pm
For CPMers hereI went over again to read the SC decision 92 Pages
and JJ.: Carpios 27 Pages; Brion 62 Pages; Del Castillo -56 Pages;
Bernabe 8 Pages; and Leonen 29 Pages.
SEC. 49 of Book VI Chapter 5 Rev. Adm. Code of 1987 was not in any of
the: Decision nor of the concurring/SEPARATE and dissenting OPINIONS of
the Justices.
Some did discussed SEC. 38 of same Book VI Chap.5 like J. Carpio on: p.
8, 21, and 24. Other sections of Book VI Chap. 5 were taken up and
discussed.
This shows that the justices DID GO OVER many sections and chapters [
there are a total of 217 CHAPTERS] of the Rev. Adm. Code and CAME
ACROSS SECTION 49 for sure. The whole Code!
Not even in the footnotes was SEC. 49 noted.
In the ARGUMENTS portions, both the OSG and Sec. Abad, did nothing to
mention about SECTION 49 of Book VI Chap. 5 of the Rev. Adm. Code. And
neither of any of the justices also. Just wondering about this OMISSION.
My thought is Sec. Abad himself most probably [ my guess ] also did not
know about SECTION 49! And neither the OSG!
But I cannot believe the justices DID NOT, as many of them cited many
other sections of the Code from other Books & chapters [the CODE is
divided into Seven (7) Books] as I found reading their opinions.
Question is: why did everybody not blurt out about SECTION 49 of Book VI
Chap. 5 of the Code? Why O why?
And it took a journalist like Ms. Raissa Robles to come out in 12 PAGES
journalist reporting to find SECTION 49!
You know the Spanish meaning of the word robles? It means mountain.
We are now about 97 million 100 million! Only one person, a lady,
revealed that SECTION 49 Book VI Chapter 5 exists in the Revised
Administrative Code of 1987. Great! Thanks Raissa!
P.S.
Of course on the justices opinions I was ONLY looking for a sign, in word
and numbers, of SECTION 49. A smell of it if I could. I used magnifying
glasses on my eyes. No section 49. Nada.
Nowback to the Motion for Reconsideration of the OSG for the
government.
Abangan! Let us wait again.
Reply
Victin Luz says:
July 11, 2014 at 10:02 pm
Atty@Leona.still Sect. 49, did not state that savings from one
department can be transferred to another department It only stated that
such savings can be used for a priority projects within the same department
so that it will conform with atr.25(5) of the Constitution.They can not
use the savings for COA or at Lower House.. This is what the SC said
regarding NO to cross-border appropriations from one department to
another department.ABAD as a lawyer pinagsabung nya ang Admin
Code with the Constitution Kaya BAWAL ang ginawa nya it was
because a variety of political motives must be the reasons.was there
really a favor asked by PNOY to the Congressmen in exchange of
impeaching Corona before? ABAD must resign irrovecable.kakahiya
sya and to save PNOYs head sana. ABAD must go . Dapat mga
makulung sya. GAGO si ABAD e..
Reply
Victin Luz says:
July 11, 2014 at 10:07 pm
The BEST thing is for PNOY to anoint a good candidate that can beat
BINAY ,, otherwise he will support BINAY and a sure WIN by so many
MILEs by Nog-Nog and GRAFT dito GRAFT na naman tayo comes 2016
nyan.
Reply
leona says:
July 12, 2014 at 10:22 am
@Victin luzjust to reply partly to your comment 147.2.1, the first issue
after the DECISION, was [ or 'is'], is SEC. 49 DEFENSIBLE? Raissa and
Saguisag joined on thisdefensible for PNoy, Abad and et. al.?
In Sen. Arroyos comment days after, this point is brought out -
In declaring the DAP illegal, the high court, voting 13-0 on Tuesday, said
good faith would not apply to authors, proponents and implementers of
the DAP unless this was established by the proper tribunals determining
their criminal, civil, administrative and other liabilities.
Good Faithwill this ride smoothly on SEC. 49 Art. VI Chap. 5 Rev. Adm
Code?
If the Court brought out and discussed SEC. 49, that last point to do some
investigation who are not in good faith in the implementation of DAP, etc.,
would it still hold much water to CHARGE those responsible? My guess
would be NO MORE as SEC. 49s tenor of authority together with SEC. 38
would be DEFENSIBLE for those responsible.
So, what did the Court do? Discuss nothing about SEC. 49 then. Keep
quiet. Yes, the justices SAW IT, WENT OVER IT. Gosh, this section will
help those who are responsible to get away with it, one way or the other,
with any tribunal investigating them. And by the time the issue reaches the
SC, many of us here now are OUT OF OFFICE and another set of justices
are sitting to resolve this DEFENSE under SEC. 49 and SEC. 38.
This was just my wonderingWHY SEC. 49 was never discussed by the
justices though it was clear it should have been. If the justices DID
DISCUSS, that last portion about investigating etc. would be OUT OF
PLACE! So, TO BE IN PLACE, forget SEC. 49 and let them tremble, fear,
have anxiety, sleepless nights, whatever on it, just like those charged
under PDAF!
A wise or clever move by the Court. Beautiful!
Reply
leona says:
July 12, 2014 at 10:50 am
To follow up 147.2.1.2 above
If Sec. Abad and PNoy including the OSG DID argue SECTION 49
thoroughly together with SEC. 38 during the Courts deliberation on DAP,
it would have have been [maybe] a suicide for the respondents.
So? Keep QUIET about SEC. 49 too! Respondents ANTICIPATED the
Courts coming out to HOLD THEM responsible by that LAST PHRASE on
good faith etc.. Respondents guess DID COME OUT TRUE! The Court
was QUIET about SECTION 49 too!
So? There being TWO QUIET situations here, WHOSE QUIET situation
would in the end have better chances for the respondents plight?
Respondents OF COURSE!
Again, this is crucial: if SEC. 49 together with SEC. 38 were brought out
as respondents DEFENSE against the nine (9) PETITIONERS grounds,
the Court would have declared altogether SEC. 49 and SEC. 38
unconstitutional together with some provisions of the DAP
implementations.
With that, the respondents having LOST all defenses, now would be in a
straight jacket with that declaration of unconstitutionality, and the last
phrase re: good faith etc., would become so durable for investigation and
prosecution.
So? Respondents keeping QUIET about SEC. 49 still was their last card
[as their last belief]. It seems they still a good chance of GOOD FAITH as
a defense by having keeping QUIET!
A wise or cleaver move! Beautiful!
Reply
leona says:
July 12, 2014 at 11:02 am
Again, so now
if the OSG in its motion for recon now extensively ARGUE about SEC.
49 together with SEC. 38 as respondents principal defenses, the Court
might now declare [It cannot repeal those two (2) sections] those
sections unconstitutional. No more keeping QUIET since respondents
are now NOISY about it. Declared unconstitutional!
Too LATE!
sometimes it PAYS to be LATE going to Class.
hahaha
Reply
leona says:
July 12, 2014 at 11:07 am
What is the startling suspicion by the two: Raissa & Rene S.?
Victin Luz says:
July 12, 2014 at 11:24 am
Ganoon ba atty@leona.. Sir , if that was your explanation then GOOD
FAITH is a good DEFENSE of PNOY ( command responsobilty ) but do
you think ,, ABAD can USE good faith as his defense when he is a
lawyer , a congressman , a seasoned LAWYER pa? Can he @atty..
Ang ss akin kasi atty , baka sa kagustuhan ni PNOY na makalibre si
ABAD ay manuhul sya sa SC , that will compromise ang kanyang
MATUWID na DAAN and it will be a sickness of cancer and EAT the
cases of ENRILE, ESTRADA and REVILLA at wala na ding
patutunguhan ang kaso. TRADING HORSES ang mangyari di tayong
mga PILIPINO ang higit na masasaktan diba.
Bakit natin isasalba si ABAD e lumalabas salbahe talaga sya at isinubo
nya si PNOY
Victin Luz says:
July 12, 2014 at 11:28 am
We the Filipino people won against Enrile, Estrada and Revilla.and we
have to WIN back PNOY on this particular case , but we have also to
loss some or even one and that will be ABAD @sir Leona.what do ypu
think?
leona says:
July 12, 2014 at 2:19 pm
Yes, per my latest/later explanation@Victin luz,
For further reply to Victin luz
Sec. Abad even as being a lawyer etc., believed SEC. 49 & SEC. 38
as good defense, and convinced PNoy on that. Though SC just the
same declared the DAP implementations as unconstitutional as violating
the GAAs for the years up to 2013 and under the Constitution,
YET the Court did not touch SEC. 49 at all though it did touched SEC.
38 but sparingly only.
Since these two SECTIONS were not the principal issue, neither would
the Court touch it or even declare the sections as unconstitutional
because those SECTIONS were outside of the issues or not the main
defenses in the petitions.
That last Paragraph of the DECISION on good faith was an idea of J.
Brion on Page 62 of his OPINION, correlated from Pages 55-61. He
said
To be very clear about our positions, we can only apply the operative
fact doctrine to the programs, projects and works that can no longer be
undone and where the beneficiaries relied in good faith on the validity of
the DAP.
The authors, proponents and implementors of DAP are not among
those who can seek coverage under the doctrine; their link to the DAP
was merely to establish and implement the terms that we now find
unconstitutional. The matter of their good faith in the performance of
duty (or its absence) and their liability therefor, if any, can be made only
by the proper tribunals, not by this Court in the present case.
Based on these premises, I concur that the DAP is unconstitutional and
should be struck down. I likewise concur in the application of the
Operative Fact Doctrine, as I have explained above and adopted by the
ponencia.
Justice Brions idea above was inserted into the SC decision as J.
Bersamin acceded. You know why the latter did that? Because there is a
good reasonable doubt that PNoy and Sec. Abad and their other
implementors that they did all these in GOOD faith as it appears, unless
otherwise proven to the contrary later. There is no credible proof YET to
say they acted in BAD FAITH.
This LAST PHRASE on GOOD or bad FAITH is a chance to be
determined YET in the future. Remember it is a president who is or will
be INVOLVED. J. Bersamin wanted to show some due respect to the
president and the others as the highest and next rank of high officials of
the National Government.
Thus, thats how the ending of the SC decision ended up. This is my
personal explanation analyze from what I could gather so far. Others
may disagree but they can express the analysis also for us to
understand. Thank you Victin luz@
continue por favor.
leona says:
July 12, 2014 at 2:30 pm
Victin luz, you asked x x x but do you think ,, ABAD can USE good faith
as his defense when he is a lawyer , a congressman , a seasoned
LAWYER pa? Can he @atty?
Why not? No one, even a seasoned lawyer or whatever professional
one is, can always be directly accused of acts in bad faith without
contrary proof. The initial belief is: innocent.
Just like we opened up here who are the judges who never had
extensive legal practice but arrived at high judicial powersone said a
travel agent became a judge. One said a paper pusher did too. But yet
these classes of professionals arrived at good posts because they are
innocent and have to be accorded that until proven otherwise.
continue por favor.
Victin Luz says:
July 12, 2014 at 2:31 pm
Clear atty@leona ,,, thanks for the explanation, well sana GOOD FAITH
will save them BOTH then So let us pray that nobody will be
compromised if ever SC turn around and say they are both safe
Thanks atty
leona says:
July 12, 2014 at 9:20 pm
You are most welcome Victin luz@
77. leona says:
July 11, 2014 at 5:01 pm
For easier reference and convenience, here is the Rev. Administrative Code
of 1987 (O. Gazette source online),
CHAPTER 5 Budget Execution
Executive Order No. 292 [BOOK VI/Chapter 5-Budget Execution]
Published: July 25, 1987.
CHAPTER 5
Budget Execution
SECTION 32. Use of Appropriated Funds.All moneys appropriated for
functions, activities, projects and programs shall be available solely for the
specific purposes for which these are appropriated.
SECTION 33. Allotment of Appropriations.Authorized appropriations shall
be allotted in accordance with the procedure outlined hereunder:
(1) Appropriations authorized for any Department or agency of the
Government may be made available for expenditure when the head for each
Department or agency submits to the Secretary a request for allotment of
funds showing the estimated amounts needed for each function, activity or
purpose for which the funds are to be expended during the applicable
allotment period. The form and the time of submission of the request for
allotment showing the proposed quarterly allotments of the whole authorized
appropriation for the department or agency, shall be prescribed by the
Secretary.
(2) In the administration of the allotment system herein provided, each
calendar year shall be divided into four quarterly allotment periods beginning,
respectively, on the first day of January, April, July and October. In any case
where the quarterly allotment period is found to be impractical or otherwise
undesirable, the Secretary may prescribe a different period suited to the
circumstances.
(3) Request for allotment shall be approved by the Secretary who shall
ensure that expenditures are covered by appropriations both as to amount
and purpose and who shall consider the probable needs of the department or
agency for the remainder of the fiscal year or period for which the
appropriation was made.
(4) At the end of every quarter, each department or agency shall report to the
Secretary the current status of its appropriations, the cumulative allotments,
obligations incurred or liquidated, total disbursements, unliquidated
obligations and unexpended balances and the result of expended
appropriations.
(5) Releases of funds appropriated for a given agency may be made to its
regional offices if dictated by the need and urgency of regional activities.
(6) The Secretary shall have authority to modify or amend any allotment
previously issued. In case he shall find at any time that the probable receipts
from taxes or other sources of any fund will be less than anticipated and that
as a consequence the amount available for the remainder of the term of the
appropriations or for any allotment period will be less than the amount
estimated or allotted therefor, he shall, with the approval of the President and
after notice to the department or agency concerned, reduce the amount or
amounts allotted so as to conform to the targeted budgetary goals.
(7) The Secretary shall maintain a control record showing quarterly by funds,
accounts, and other suitable classifications, the amounts appropriated, the
estimated revenues, the actual revenues or receipts, the amounts allotted
and available for expenditures, the unliquidated obligations, actual balances
on hand, and the unencumbered balance of the allotments for each
department or agency of the Government.
SECTION 34. Program of Expenditure.The Secretary of Budget shall
recommend to the President the years program of expenditure for each
agency of the government on the basis of authorized appropriations. The
approved expenditure program shall constitute the basis for fund release
during the fiscal period, subject to such policies, rules and regulations as may
be approved by the President.
SECTION 35. Special Budgets for Lump-Sum Appropriations.Expenditures
from lump-sum appropriations authorized for any purpose or for any
department, office or agency in any annual General Appropriations Act or
other Act and from any fund of the National Government, shall be made in
accordance with a special budget to be approved by the President, which
shall include but shall not be limited to the number of each kind of position,
the designations, and the annual salary proposed for which an appropriation
is intended. This provision shall be applicable to all revolving funds, receipts
which are automatically made available for expenditure for certain specific
purposes, aids and donations for carrying out certain activities, or deposits
made to cover to cost of special services to be rendered to private parties.
Unless otherwise expressly provided by law, when any Board, head of
department, chief of bureau or office, or any other official, is authorized to
appropriate, allot, distribute or spend any lump-sum appropriation or special,
bond, trust, and other funds, such authority shall be subject to the provisions
of this section.
In case of any lump-sum appropriation for salaries and wages of temporary
and emergency laborers and employees, including contractual personnel,
provided in any General Appropriation Act or other Acts, the expenditure of
such appropriation shall be limited to the employment of persons paid by the
month, by the day, or by the hour.
SECTION 36. Cash Budgets.An operational cash budget shall be
implemented to ensure the availability of cash resources for priority
development projects and to establish a sound basis for determining the
level, type and timing of public borrowings. The procedure, format, accounts,
and other details necessary for the execution, monitoring and control aspects
of the system shall be determined jointly by the Secretary of Finance, the
Secretary of the Budget and the Chairman of the Commission on Audit.
SECTION 37. Creation of Appropriation Reserves.The Secretary may
establish reserves against appropriations to provide for contingencies and
emergencies which may arise later in the calendar year and which would
otherwise require deficiency appropriations.
The establishment of appropriation reserves shall not necessarily mean that
such portion of the appropriation will not be made available for expenditure.
Should conditions change during the fiscal year justifying the use of the
reserve, necessary adjudgments may be made by the Secretary when
requested by the department, office or agency concerned.
SECTION 38. Suspension of Expenditure of Appropriations.Except as
otherwise provided in the General Appropriations Act and whenever in his
judgment the public interest so requires, the President, upon notice to the
head of office concerned, is authorized to suspend or otherwise stop further
expenditure of funds allotted for any agency, or any other expenditure
authorized in the General Appropriations Act, except for personal services
appropriations used for permanent officials and employees.
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.
SECTION 40. Certification of Availability of Funds.No funds shall be
disbursed, and no expenditures or obligations chargeable against any
authorized allotment shall be incurred or authorized in any department, office
or agency without first securing the certification of its Chief Accountant or
head of accounting unit as to the availability of funds and the allotment to
which the expenditure or obligation may be properly charged.
No obligation shall be certified to accounts payable unless the obligation is
founded on a valid claim that is properly supported by sufficient evidence and
unless there is proper authority for its incurrence. Any certification for a non-
existent or fictitious obligation and/or creditor shall be considered void. The
certifying official shall be dismissed from the service, without prejudice to
criminal prosecution under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code. Any
payment made under such certification shall be illegal and every official
authorizing or making such payment, or taking part therein or receiving such
payment, shall be jointly and severally liable to the government for the full
amount so paid or received.
SECTION 41. Prohibition Against the Incurrence of Overdraft.Heads of
departments, bureaus, offices and agencies shall not incur nor authorize the
incurrence of expenditures or obligations in excess of allotments released by
the Secretary for their respective departments, offices and agencies. Parties
responsible for the incurrence of overdrafts shall be held personally liable
therefor.
SECTION 42. Adjustment of Appropriations for Reorganization.When
under authority of law, a function or an activity is transferred or assigned from
one agency to another, the balances of appropriations which are determined
by the head of such department to be available and necessary to finance or
discharge the function or activity so transferred or assigned may, with the
approval of the President, be transferred to and be made available for use by
the agency to which said function or activity is transferred or assigned for the
purpose for which said funds were originally available. Balances so
transferred shall be credited to any applicable existing appropriation account
or to new appropriation accounts which are hereby authorized to be
established, and shall be merged with any fund already in the applicable
existing or newly established appropriation account or accounts and
thereafter accounted for as one fund.
The funding requirement of agencies reorganized in accordance with
approved reorganization plans or reorganized pursuant to law enacted after
the approval of the General Appropriations Act, are deemed appropriated and
shall be available for expenditure as soon as the reorganization plans are
approved. The Secretary of Budget is hereby authorized to make necessary
adjustments in the appropriations to carry out the provisions of this section.
The department head concerned, with the approval of the Secretary of
Budget, is hereby authorized to make necessary salary adjustments resulting
from final selection of personnel to fill the positions in the staffing patterns of
reorganized agencies, to make necessary salary adjustments resulting from
new appointments, promotions or salary increases, subject to the provisions
of Presidential Decree No. 985.
SECTION 43. Liability for Illegal Expenditures.Every expenditure or
obligation authorized or incurred in violation of the provisions of this Code or
of the general and special provisions contained in the annual General or
other Appropriations Act shall be void. Every payment made in violation of
said provisions shall be illegal and every official or employee authorizing or
making such payment, or taking part therein, and every person receiving
such payment shall be jointly and severally liable to the Government for the
full amount so paid or received.
Any official or employee of the Government knowingly incurring any
obligation, or authorizing any expenditure in violation of the provisions herein,
or taking part therein, shall be dismissed from the service, after due notice
and hearing by the duly authorized appointing official. If the appointing official
is other than the President and should he fail to remove such official or
employee, the President may exercise the power of removal.
SECTION 44. Accrual of Income to Unappropriated Surplus of the General
Fund.Unless otherwise specifically provided by law, all income accruing to
the departments, offices and agencies by virtue of the provisions of existing
laws, orders and regulations shall be deposited in the National Treasury or in
the duly authorized depository of the Government and shall accrue to the
unappropriated surplus of the General Fund of the Government: Provided,
That amounts received in trust and from the business-type activities of
government may be separately recorded and be disbursed in accordance
with such rules and regulations as may be determined by the Permanent
Committee created under this Act.
SECTION 45. Special, Fiduciary and Trust Funds.Receipts shall be
recorded as income of Special, Fiduciary or Trust Funds or Funds other than
the General Fund, only when authorized by law and following such rules and
regulations as may be issued by a Permanent Committee consisting of the
Secretary of Finance as Chairman, and the Secretary of the Budget and the
Chairman, Commission on Audit, as members. The same Committee shall
likewise monitor and evaluate the activities and balances of all Funds of the
national government other than the General fund and may recommend for
the consideration and approval of the President, the reversion to the General
fund of such amounts as are (1) no longer necessary for the attainment of the
purposes for which said Funds were established, (2) needed by the General
fund in times of emergency, or (3) violative of the rules and regulations
adopted by the Committee: Provided, that the conditions originally agreed
upon at the time the funds were received shall be observed in case of gifts or
donations or other payments made by private parties for specific purposes.
SECTION 46. Service Fees and Honoraria.Agencies are authorized to
charge fees, including honoraria and other reasonable allowances as
compensation for consultation, seminars or training programs, or technical
services rendered to other government agencies or private parties. Such fees
or honoraria shall be recorded as income of the government and subject to
the usual accounting, auditing and other pertinent requirements.
SECTION 47. Administration of Lump-Sum Funds.The Department of
Budget shall administer the Lump-Sum Funds appropriated in the General
Appropriations Act, except as otherwise specified therein, including the
issuance of Treasury Warrants covering payments to implementing agencies
or other creditors, as may be authorized by the President.
SECTION 48. Cost Reduction.Each head of a department, bureau, office
or agency shall implement a cost reduction program for his department,
bureau, office or agency for the purpose of reducing cost of operations and
shall submit to the President reports on the results of the implementation
thereof. The Department of Budget shall provide technical and other
necessary assistance in the design and implementation of cost reduction
activities. An incentive award not exceeding one months salary may be
granted to any official or employee whose suggestion for cost reduction has
been adopted and shall have actually resulted in cost reduction, payable from
the savings resulting therefrom.
SECTION 49. Authority to Use Savings for Certain Purposes.Savings in
the appropriations provided in the General Appropriations Act may be used
for the settlement of the following obligations incurred during a current fiscal
year or previous fiscal years as may be approved by the Secretary in
accordance with rules and procedures as may be approved by the President:
(1) Claims of officials, employees and laborers who died or were injured in
line of duty, including burial expenses as authorized under existing law;
(2) Commutation of terminal leaves of employees due to retirement,
resignation or separation from the service through no fault of their own in
accordance with the provisions of existing law, including unpaid claims for
commutation of maternity leave of absence;
(3) Payment of retirement gratuities or separation pay of employees
separated from the service due to government reorganization;
(4) Payment of salaries of employees who have been suspended or
dismissed as a result of administrative or disciplinary action, or separated
from the service through no fault of their own and who have been
subsequently exonerated and reinstated by virtue of decisions of competent
authority;
(5) Cash awards to deserving officials and employees in accordance with civil
service law;
(6) Salary adjustments of officials and employees as a result of classification
action under, and implementation of, the provisions of the Compensation and
Position Classification Act, including positions embraced under the Career
Executive Service;
(7) Peso support to any undertaking that may be entered into by the
government with international organizations, including administrative and
other incidental expenses;
(8) Covering any deficiency in peso counterpart fund commitments for
foreign-assisted projects, as may be approved by the President;
(9) Priority activities that will promote the economic well-being of the nation,
including food production, agrarian reform, energy development, disaster
relief, and rehabilitation.
(10) Repair, improvement and renovation of government buildings and
infrastructure and other capital assets damaged by natural calamities;
(11) Expenses in connection with official participation in trade fairs, civic
parades, celebrations, athletic competitions and cultural activities, and
payment of expenses for the celebration of regular or special official holidays;
(12) Payment of obligations of the government or any of its departments or
agencies as a result of final judgment of the Courts; and
(13) Payment of valid prior years obligations of government agencies with
any other government office or agency, including government-owned or
controlled corporations.
SECTION 50. Appointment of Budget Officers.No person shall be
appointed as budget officer in any department, bureau, office or agency
unless he meets the qualification and training requirements established by
the Budget Commission as prerequisite to appointment, in addition to other
qualification requirements prescribed by the Civil Service Commission for the
position.
Reply
78. raissa says:
July 11, 2014 at 3:40 pm
Im now preparing a follow-up post tentatively titled -
Saguisag fully backs me on DAP and shares a startling suspicion
Reply
79. Kalahari says:
July 11, 2014 at 3:07 pm
Interesting contradictory decisions of associate justices Antonio Carpio and
Marivic leonen on their unanimous DAP ruling.
Justice Leonens 28-page decision reads, in part, Justice Carpios
interpretation of Section 38, Chapter 5, Book VI of the Administrative Code is
that the power to suspend can only be exercised by the President to
appropriate funds that were obligated. If the funds were appropriated but not
obligated, the power to suspend under Section 38 is not available. Justice
Carpio reasons that to allow the President to suspend or stop the expenditure
of unobligated funds is equivalent to giving the President the power of
impoundment. If, in the opinion of the President, there are unsound
appropriations in the proposed General Appropriation Act, he is allowed to
exercise his line item veto power. Once the GAA is enacted into law, the
President is bound to faithfully execute its provision.
I disagree.
When there are reasons apparent to the President at the time the General
Appropriations Act is submitted for approval, then he can use his line veto
power. However, at a time when he executes his priorities, suspension of
projects is a valid legal remedy.
Suspension is not impoundment. Besides, the prohibition against
impoundment is not yet constitutional doctrine.
But on the issue of criminality, Justice Leonen is clear. Likewise, to rule that
a declaration of unconstitutionality per se is the basis for determining liability
is a dangerous proposition. It is not proper that there are suggestions of
administrative or criminal liability even before the proper charges are raised,
investigated and filed.
Any discussion on good faith is thus premature. But, in our jurisdiction, the
presumption of good faith is a universal one. It assures the fundamental
requisites of due process and fairness. It frames a judicial attitude that
requires us to be impartial.
A good reading for law practioners and students.
Reply
80. yvonne says:
July 11, 2014 at 1:23 pm
START WITH ARROYO BEFORE AQUINO
.
To be clear the recent Supreme Court decision on DAP did not declare the
DAP unconstitutional in its entirety but only certain aspects in its program
implementation, such as the treatment of savings, cross-border transfer of
savings, impoundment, etc.
These aspects that the SC declared unconstitutional are not exclusive to
DAP but were implemented as well in various programs undertaken by
previous government administrations, most notoriously under the Arroyo
administration.
There are many faces to the budgetary aspects involving the treatment and
cross-border transfer of savings, realignment, budget impoundment, etc.
However, these many faces largely remain nameless, until they were
included in what is now known as DAP under the Aquino administration. But
this is not to say that previous administrations did not practice the same
budgetary aspects they just remain nameless ugly faces.
Indeed it is politically expedient for Jinggoy to use the name DAP as a
rallying point for criticizing the Aquino government for implementing the same
budgetary aspects that his father Joseph Estrada likely used also during
Estradas administration.
Prior administrations are known to have used the same aspects that anti-
Aquino forces are now quick to denounce as unconstitutional.
In fact, in a July 2009 report titled POWER OF THE PURSE REFORM IN
THE PHILIPPINES PROPOSED REVISIONS TO 1987 ADMIN CODE
(BOOK VI) it was noted that during the Arroyo Administration, there are
several questionable actions and budgetary scams that the current (Arroyo)
administration is facing and these include the following: premature release of
the Katas ng VAT (VAT proceeds); unreleased Priority Development
Assistance Fund (PDAF) or Pork Barrel; ambiguous appropriations of lump
sums; and the treatment on savings.
The report was the result of a conference-workshop conducted by the
Institute for Popular Democracy (IPD) and the International Center for
Innovation, Transformation and Excellence in Governance (INCITEGov), and
was supported by the United States Agency for International Development
(USAID) and Management Systems International (MSI).
According to the report:
x x x quote x x x
As stated in Sec. 35 and 47, Book VI of the Administrative Code, the
President has authority over
the appropriation and administration of expenditures from lump sums which
are released without
clear budget items.
One of the most recent and obvious manifestation of the abuse of power over
lump sums is the
Department of Agriculture (DA) fertilizer scam involving former Usec. Joc Joc
Bolante. He was
charged as the architect in the misuse of the P728 Million farm input and
implement program
funding which were allegedly diverted to the 2004 candidacy funds of Pres.
Arroyo. Usec.
Bolante ardently denied such scam and said that the money was from the
unreleased fund of the
Ginintuang Masaganang Ani (GMA) budget in 2003 under the Rice and Corn
and High Value
Commercial Crops budget. Such funds could be released even without
seeking approval from the
President.
Several of the observations in the Commission on Audit (COA) Audit report
states that the list of
proponents included in the SARO No. 04-00164 for the P728Million GMA
farm inputs fund
submitted to the DBM was not the same with the one used in the sub-
allocation of funds. Also,
only 59% of the P547Million transferred to the LGUs and NGOs-POs was
liquidated after 19
months of its implementation. Some of the NGOs that entered into
agreements concerning the
fertilizer fund were of dubious legitimacy.
As seen in the 2009 National Expenditure Program (NEP), a total of
P106Billion savings from the
2007 budget which should have been reverted to the General Funds were
realigned to augment
other items in the general appropriations laws for her office. However, it is still
unclear if these
are savings or unauthorized releases and this clearly show that the Congress
has lost its power
over the purse.
x x x unquote x x x
As a result of the abusive use of executive power in budget matters during
the Arroyo administration, several legislators filed proposed amendments to
the budget law. Among these reform bills were:
Senate Bill 3121, The Budget Impoundment Control Act by Sen. Benigno
Aquino III
Senate Bill 2995, Budget Impoundment Control Act and Senate Bill
2996, Budget Reform Act of 2009 by Sen. Mar Roxas
House Bill 6026, Impoundment Control and Regulation Act of 2009
and House Bill 6027, Savings and Augmentation Act of 2009 by Rep.
Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel
House Bills 6030 and 6031, An Act Prescribing Reforms in National
Government Budgeting, Amending for These Purposes Pertinent
Provisions of Book VI of Executive Order 292, Otherwise Known as the
Revised Administrative Code of 1987, and Providing for Other Related
Purposes by Rep. Joseph Emilio Abaya
But the proposed budget reform bills went nowhere due to the lack of political
will in Congress.
So to those who believe that certain aspects of budgetary programs, such as
the treatment of savings, cross-border transfer of savings, impoundment,
etc., are unconstitutional, you start by bringing to the court of law the biggest
practitioner of them all Gloria Arroyo. After all, she is no longer protected by
presidential immunity.
Reply
o leona says:
July 11, 2014 at 4:00 pm
Link please yvonnety.
Reply
Victin Luz says:
July 11, 2014 at 7:04 pm
PEOPLE of the Philippines will AGREE with you,, why not bring out
everything anomalous transaction during ARROYOs regime,,, pag ilinabas
ba o hindi .STILL ABAD with the approval of PNOY violated Art. 25(5) of
the Constitution.mali ginawa ni Marcos, mali ang ginawa ni Cory, mali
ginawa ni Estrada , si Glorya ,,, ngayong MALI ang ginawa ni PNOY , dahil
lahat naman sila ay MALIibig mong sabihin YVONNE ,,,,magiging TAMA
ang ginawa ni PNOY tungkol sa DAP releases , even though crystal clear
they violated the Constitution? Lalong lao ni si ABAD.TUWID na DAAN
pa ba iyan @yvonne?
Reply
tristanism says:
July 11, 2014 at 10:54 pm
Tuwid na daan pa din yan. Naniniwala ako na hindi ginawa ang DAP para
kurakutin. It may have been a miscalculation on the governments part or a
misinterpretation on the SCs part, pero I cannot let this be just a legal
issue. Me moral dimension din kasi ito e.
Sa legal side, SC magdedesisyon niya. Pwede nilang i-uphold ang
desisyon nila or kaya ay bawiin yun.
Sa moral side, pagnanakaw ba talaga ang dahilan ng pagkakabuo ng
DAP?
If we make this purely a legal issue, then 10 points na kagad si Jinggoy. Si
jinggoy ang naginsinuate ng issue na to.
Im not saying that the constitutionality of DAP is not important. All im
saying is bago tayo magkagulo, tignan natin kung ano ang issue:
pagnanakaw ng pondo ng bayan.
Malaki ang premium sa akin ng issue ng pagnanakaw ng pondo kasi ito
ang pinakamalaking problema ng bansang to.
Reply
yvonne says:
July 12, 2014 at 1:07 am
@ tristanism,
I fully agree with you. I could not have said it better.
Reply
Victin Luz says:
July 12, 2014 at 4:19 am
I agree @tristanismDAP was made not to kurakot those funds but to
disbursed such government savings in one department to another
department ( paggamit nila sa COA at House of Reperesentative ) ay
BAWAL nga as presribed in the Constitution under art.25(5) .technical
malversation nga e is a crime under the revised penal code ,juggling of
funds pa sa DAP di mas lalo ng BAWALan exchange of would be
POLITICAL FAVORs ang iniiwasan dito o pag malapit na ang election ,
DAP will be use as election funds for the desirec candidate of the
Executive Department to win..
Parang ganito a mere issuance of check , not properlly funded is
punishable by Law because it distort or disturbed our Banking System so
punishable iyan..DAP if not properly disbursed and juggled , you distort
and disturbed everything
You , see now that impeachment was filed against PNOY,,,mayroon na
namang bargaining power ang mga Congressman kay PNOYbigyan mo
kami nito para boboto kami na hindi impeachable ang ginawa
mo.lagayan na naman,, TUWID na DAAN ba iyan kung sakasakali?
Reply
tristanism says:
July 13, 2014 at 9:57 pm
Were not going to talk about technical malversation or the
constitutionality of DAP. The two goes hand in hand. If DAP is
unconstitutional then technical malversation can stick, since intent is not
relevant in technical malversation. We will leave that to lawyers.
Ang nalilito ako ay sa paniniwala ng tao sa bad faith. Hindi ko kasi
maintindihan kung saan sa DAP, sa ginawa ni Abad at Aquinno lumilitaw
ang bad faith. As I mentioned, sa dami ng nagaantay na magkamali sila,
hindi pwedeng patumpik tumpik sina Abad sa budget. Kung sa
disclosure, inilathala ang DAP as early as 2011.
As I said, yung bad faith na inaatribute ng tao sa DAP ang pinagtataka
ko. I dont see it. Ang nakikita ko ay nagkamali si Abad ng batas na
tinignan o kaya nalingat ang SC.
Reply
Victin Luz says:
July 12, 2014 at 4:28 am
I answered already @tristanism your commentsnawawala sa airydont
know why
Reply
tristanism says:
July 12, 2014 at 11:24 am
Could you post it again, please. I would love to know your thoughts on
this.
Reply
tristanism says:
July 12, 2014 at 11:42 am
Also, kung ginawa nga ito ni Gloria at ni Estrada at kung sino man, while
it may be unconstitutional depending on the final decision of SC, we
should also check kung bakit ginawa ang DAP nila? That is still the main
question.
Porket gumawa ba sila ng budget e magnanakaw na kagad? Sure,
tingan natin kung constitutional o hindi. Pero to assume na pangangawat
kagad ang rason WITHOUT further inquiry is not fair.
Kung me pinapagawang banyo sa bahay niyo at mabagal ito at
nagdesisyon ka na unahin muna ang baon ng mga bata tapo sinabi ng
kung sinong authority na mali ang ginawa mo, that would make your
conduct wrong (unconstitutional but thats subject to appeal).
Pero if we crucify you without looking at your intent, without considering
your charcter (because this is a political/moral issue) that would be unfair
to you.
Remember, (tapos na ang banyo analogy) kung ikaw ang presidente at
balak mo ikulong ang mga magnanakaw, ang mga magnanakaw na yan
ay makapangyarihan at madaming budget at malakas ang koneksyon.
Kung konting insinuation lang ay guguho na ang resolve ng kakampi mo,
walang mangyayari sa atin.
Again, DAP may or may not be unconstitutional, pero I believe that the
bigger question is ginawa ba ang DAP para nakawin? At kung OO ang
sagot, nasaan na ang money trail?
Reply
vander anievas says:
July 12, 2014 at 6:14 pm
@tristanism,
agree ako
Reply
yvonne says:
July 12, 2014 at 12:49 am
Firstly, The Supreme Court decision can still be appealed, and possibly
reversed on appeal. Knowing the courts history of flip-flopping this is still a
possibility (remember those cases involving the PAL employees and the
conversion of municipalities into cities?)
Secondly, if we were all motivated by doing the right thing and of cleansing
the govenment of graft and corruption devoid of any political partisanship,
then let us start with Arroyo after all, she no longer enjosy presidential
immunity so we can prosecute her now. We can wait to prosecute Aquino
after 2016, when he is already out of office.
Thirdly, see my post #149 above.
Reply
Victin Luz says:
July 12, 2014 at 4:25 am
Honest appeal without bribing the SC , HOW? Where is your new
evidence? I answered your comment #149 kanina pa di makapasok o
ayaw papasukin dahil , totoo ang sinasabi ko , siguro.
Reply
yvonne says:
July 12, 2014 at 5:37 am
@ Victin Luz, are you implying that appealing a Supreme Court decision
will necessarily involve bribing the justices? I dread to think that when the
SC flip-flopped on the PAL case, for example, the justices must be
receiving bribes from both sides of the fence if I would follow your logic.
Where is the evidence, or shall I say the argument, that could sway the
SC to reconsider its decision on DAP, assuming an appeal is filed? Read
Raissas next blog post.
Reply
Victin Luz says:
July 12, 2014 at 6:28 am
PAL cases and sa pula sa puti ang SC ,,, maniniwala ka ba ng hindi
naglagay si LUCIO TAN? Ask the SOLGENS or former SOLGENs who
investigated TAN tax evasion cases,, huling huli na daw ,,, nanalo na
nakapag refund pa ata.
In order for the SC justices to change their decision , makikiusap si
PNOY nyan na tama sya kahit kitang kita na mali SI ABAD . Kung
hindi iyan magbibigay ng kapalit si PNOY,,,the SC original/first decision
will stay.wala naman kasing katuturan ang art.49 at art. 38 sa
pagiging tama ang ginawa ni ABADinterpret nyo kasing maige Read
between the LINEbaka si SAGUISAG ang namalikmata.
tristanism says:
July 12, 2014 at 11:48 am
If you think the SC is so dirty, bakit ang laki ng paniniwala mo sa
unconstitutional verdict nila? Pag inoverturn ba nila yan hindi ka
maniniwala? Sa appeal lang ba sila dishonest?
Reply
Victin Luz says:
July 12, 2014 at 1:34 pm
Sa particular na kaso ni ABD ngayon ,,, basahin mung maige nga ang
sect. 49, sect. 38 at art. 25(5) ng Constitution ,,, mali talaga ang ginawa
ni ABAD dahil lawyer pa sya ,, hindi nya pwedingnsabihing na over
lokked nya ang tamang nakalaad sa ating batas .kaya kung sa appeal
ay babaliktad ang SC ay malamang mya horse trading na mangyayari o
dilit kayat kwartahan.. But for sure SC will not overturn their previous
decision.nakaaktakot baka ang bargain nila ay ang kaso nina Enrile
and etc Para lang mawala nadin ang kaso ni ABAD
yvonne says:
July 12, 2014 at 1:12 am
@leona
Somehow I could not paste the link with the PC Im using right now (could
be a software issue). Ill try again later using another PC.
Reply
-->
Older Comments
Trackbacks
1. A matter of trust: the rest of the Abad story | The Society of Honor by
Joe America says:
July 13, 2014 at 9:07 pm
[] What if the Supreme Court is wrong, or remiss, or did a poor reading of
the constitutional issues and historical precedents? (refer to Raissa Robles
article). []
Reply
2. Of artists and presidential awards | In Medias Res says:
July 11, 2014 at 5:21 pm
[] about the Administrative Code and its application to the process of the
budget, which journalist Raissa Robles examined in detail as a source of the
validity of DAPs use of savingssections 38 and 49 of []
Reply
3. DAP constitutional after all? | Inside The Kulambo says:
July 10, 2014 at 1:01 pm
[] http://raissarobles.com/2014/07/08/president-aquinos-dead-mom-
president-cory-may-yet-save-her-son-fr… []
Reply