DAP unconstitutional SC

Written by Benjamin B. Pulta

Wednesday, 02 July 2014 00:00

Jinggoy: Palace execs liable for DAP, heads must roll

Its official. The Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) was ruled by the Supreme Court (SC) yesterday as
unconstitutional, for which detained Sen. Jinggoy Estrada, in a statement issued by his office, said heads must roll as the
Palace executives, must be held liable.
A unanimous SC ruled to outlaw the presidential pork barrel, known as the DAP.
Court spokesman Theodore Te told newsmen that at the end of its regular en banc session the high court in the
decision by Associate Justice Lucas Bersamin declared the program as unconstitutional for being in violation of the
Constitution and the doctrine of separation of powers.
Senior Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr., who is on official leave, left his vote on the issue with Chief Justice
Lourdes Sereno while Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo-de Castro had inhibited from the case.
The use of unprogrammed funds by the Executive Branch was declared illegal despite the absence of a certification by
the National Treasurer that revenue collections exceeded the targets.

Te said the fund was in violation of Section 25 (5) Article VI of the

Constitution and the doctrine of separation of powers in implementing DAP, National Budget Circular
No. 541 among others.
Article VI, Section 25 (5) of the Constitution authorizes the President and heads of other branches of
government and constitutional commissions to augment any item in GAA for their respective offices
from savings in other items of their respective appropriations.
The Court cited the three

specific acts of the President and his co-respondents that are

unconstitutional, namely: (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the declaration of the withdrawn unobligated allotments and unreleased appropriations as savings, prior to the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 GAA; (2) the
cross-border transfers of the savings of the Executive to augment the appropriations of other offices outside the
Executive; and (3) the funding of projects, activities and programs that were not covered by any appropriation in
the GAA.
Te said Subject to the views expressed by some justices in their separate opinions, the Court en banc voting
unanimously...partially granted the petitions for certiorari and prohibition challenging the Disbrusement Acceleration
Program.
The nine petitions against the DAP were filed last year by losing senatorial candidate Greco Belgica, former Iloilo Rep.
Augusto Syjuco, lawyers Jose Malvar Villegas Jr. and Manuelito Luna; Philippine Constitution Association (Philconsa);
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP); the militant Bayan Muna, Kabataan and Gabriela party-list groups; Confederation
for Unity, Recognition and Advancement of Government Employees (Courage); and the Volunteers Against Crime and
Corruption.
The case was heard in three-part oral arguments last January and February.
Solicitor General Francis Jardeleza, in its reply to the petitions, has described DAP as a mechanism of public expenditure

designed to fast-track public spending for priority programs, activities and projects with the use of savings and the
Unprogrammed Fund.
The OSG also insisted that there is no law required for the creation of DAP since the President has the constitutional
authority to create policies in the execution of laws.
The OSG added that the Constitution provides that the President...may, by law, be authorized to augment any item in the
general appropriations law for [his] office from savings in other items of [his] appropriations.
Jardeleza said the legislative authorization for the Presidents exercise of his augmentation power is found in the GAA,
the Administrative Code, and in the Budget Reform Decree of 1977.
The petitioners alleged that the discretionary fund of the President violates the exclusive power of Congress to
appropriate funds - just like in PDAF.
They said the use of the DAP violated Section 29 (1), Article VI of the Constitution, which requires that no money shall be
paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law.
They also argued that the Constitution prohibits the transfer of funds between branches of government without necessary
law.
They cited Section 24, Article XXV and Section 25, Article VI of the Constitution in questioning the legality of DAP.
The first provision gives Congress exclusive power of the purse while the second requires a law in transferring
appropriations from one government branch to another.
Petitioners also argued that the Constitution restricts augmentation of budgets of offices of the President, the President of
the Senate, the Speaker, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of Constitutional Commissions by their
respective savings.
Aside from the President, also named respondents in the petitions were Budget Secretary Florencio Abad, Executive
Secretary Paquito Ochoa and the Senate and House of Representatives.
It was Senator Estrada, who, in a privilege speech exposed Aquinos DAP, unaware of its existence then, believing that it
was additional priority development assistance fund (PDAF) given to senators as incentives. The amounts given to the
senators who had voted to acquit then Chief Justice Renato Corona were P50 million in pork with other allies of President
Aquino, such as Franklin Drilon, then chairman of the Finance committee, and Sen. Francis Escudero, among others,
given P100 million in pork projects.
Budget Secretary Abad later admitted that the additional funds came from the DAP, but maintained that the allocations
were neither bribes nor incentives.
In his statement, Estrada commended the high court for respecting and upholding Congress exclusive power of the
purse.
Now that the highest court of the land said that the DAP mechanism is unconstitutional and illegal, heads must roll and
budget officials must be held accountable, he said.
UP School of Economics Professor Benjamin Diokno commented on the ruling of the SC, saying: Offhand, Its a great
day for Filipinos. The SC has effectively restored the Congresss power of the purse. It has strictly defined the powers of
the President and Congress with respect to the budget process. The checks and balance embedded in th Constitution
have been strengthened. The Executive department will take budget preparation more seriously.
Sen. Miriam Santiago, who appears still to be smarting over the budget chief having excluded her from the DAP inititive
renewed her call for the Commission on Audit to probe into the alleged bribery of Congress members during the
impeachment trial of ex-Chief Justice Renato Corona in connection with the DAP.
Both the pork barrel and DAP scandals are equally repulsive, and the Supreme Court declared both funds as

unconstitutional. I wholeheartedly welcome the impartial adjudication of these abominable abuses of public funds by the
Supreme Court since I cannot obtain relief from the Senate itself, which appeared to have been complicit in bribery, she
said.
It should illegal for the budget department to discriminate among senators. While all other senators received an average
of P50 million in DAP funds, reportedly three senators got P100 million each. They are Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile, Sen.
Franklin Drilon, and Sen. Francis Escudero, she said.
The three senators did not explain why they got more than the others, but merely defended themselves with the excuse
that they spent the money on public projects. By contrast, each representative allegedly received P15 million.
In releasing funds, the executive branch cannot play favorites when carrying out constitutional commands such as social
justice, social services, and equal work opportunities. The DAP releases, flawed as they were from the very beginning,
played favorites among senators. That was clearly unconstitutional, she said.
Senate President Pro Tempore Ralph Recto, an administration ally, said that while executive officials may have committed
some oversight, most of the DAP funds were properly spent.
Remember that there is no allegation that they were stolen. The debate was on the process followed. The discussion
centered on the means rather than the end, Recto said in a separate statement.
He added that the Aquino administration has already unilaterally terminated the DAP ever since legal questions were
raised against the program.
Senator Escudero, finance committee chairman, for his part, said the SC ruling on DAP will have far reaching
consequences on government budgeting.
With the Supreme Courts ruling of the DAP as unconstitutional, Kabataan Partylist Rep. Terry Ridon said that the next
step would be to ensure that President Aquino and Budget Secretary Abad would be held accountable for the inventing
and abusing the said fiscal program.
Ridon said that the Supreme Courts ruling on DAP is a solid ground for culpable violation of the Constitution and
betrayal of public trust, both of which are impeachable offenses.
It (impeachment) is a daunting task, but we are prepared to fight, Ridon said, adding that Abad can be charged with
malversation of public funds, at the bare minimum, Ridon added.
Buhay Rep. Lito Atienza, who belongs to the House independent bloc, while lauding the SC decision declaring parts of
the DAP unconstitutional, supported Ridons position that those responsible for its creation be held responsible.
The brains behind the DAP Budget Secretary Butch Abad, who claims to be patriotic, should now be resigning to pave
the way for an impartial investigation into this. He should also make a complete accounting of the billions of pesos he
disbursed under this illegal program he conceived and concocted, according to his own admission, Atienza stressed.
For their part, Bayan Muna Reps. Neri Colmenares and Carlos Zarate claim the SC decision as a partial victory of the
peoples struggle to abolish the gargantuan pork barrel system
An administration lawmaker yesterday doused cold water on the planned impeachment moves by the militant left and the
political opposition.
Eastern Samar Rep. Ben Evardone said filing an impeachment complaint against the president is a right of every Filipino
citizen but that would not prosper under the present Congress.
Speaker Feliciano Belmonte said the Aquino government has to comply with the SC decision, adding that the
unconstitutional provisions of the DAP have already been withdrawn by President Aquino.
Paraaque Rep. Gustavo Tambunting, also a member of the minority bloc, said that the decision was not surprising.
Im not surprised; Ive always been saying this: the DAP could not be declared constitutional if the PDAF (Priority

Development Assistance Fund) is unconstitutional, Tambunting said.

Tambunting, who was guest at the weekly Ugnayan sa Batasam media Forum in the House of Representatives, said that
the SC is just being consistent.
If they want to be consistent then theres only one way they can rule on this and that is to declare DAP unconstitutional
and illegal, Tambunting said.
Ako Bicol Rep. Rodel Batocabe said Abad could be liable if he continues with the DAP despite the SC decision.
Marikina Rep. Miro Quimbo, refuted Ridons statement saying that Abad cannot be held liable for the DAP.
He said that any impeachment complaint filed against President Aquino has no basis in law.
Akbayan Rep. Walden Bello, an ally of the administration, said that President Aquino is not in any danger of impeachment.
He shared the position of Eastern Samar Rep. Ben Evardone.
On the calls for Abad to resign, Bello said: No, I do not think Secretary Abad should resign or be fired since the SC ruling
carries liability only from hereon, from the time of the ruling. The SC ruling clarified the status of a practice. So the
Executive now has a clear ruling on which to base its future actions. With Angie M. Rosales, Charlie V. Manalo. Gerry
Baldo and Pat C. Santos

Decision on Joseph Estrada's PLUNDER and PERJURY Case

PLUNDER case

In sum, the Court finds that prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt the commission by
the principal accused former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada of the crime of plunder but not so
in the case of former Mayor Jose Jinggoy Estrada and Atty. Edward Serapio.

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered in Criminal Case No.
26558 finding the accused, Former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada, GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of PLUNDER defined in and penalized by Republic Act No. 7080, as amended.
On the other hand, for failure of the prosecution to prove and establish their guilt beyond
reasonable doubt, the Court finds the accused Jose Jinggoy Estrada and Atty. Edward S. Serapio
NOT GUILTY of the crime of plunder, and accordingly, the Court hereby orders their ACQUITTAL.

The penalty imposable for the crime of plunder under Republic Act No. 7080, as amended by
Republic Act No. 7659, is Reclusion Perpetua to Death. There being no aggravating or mitigating
circumstances, however, the lesser penalty shall be applied in accordance with Article 63 of the
Revised Penal Code. Accordingly, accused Former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada is hereby
sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and the accessory penalties of civil
interdiction during the period of sentence and perpetual absolute disqualification.

The period within which accused Former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada has been under
detention shall be credited to him in full as long as he agrees voluntarily in writing to abide by
the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners. Moreover, in accordance with
Section 2 of Republic Act No. 7080, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, the Court hereby
declares the forfeiture in favor of the government of the following:

(1) The total amount of Five Hundred Forty Two Million Seven Hundred Ninety One Thousand
Pesos (P545,291,000.00), with interest and income earned, inclusive of the amount of Two
Hundred Million Pesos (P200,000,000.00), deposited in the name and account of the Erap Muslim
Youth Foundation.

(2) The amount of One Hundred Eighty Nine Million Pesos (P189,000,000.00), inclusive of
interests and income earned, deposited in the Jose Velarde account.

(3) The real property consisting of a house and lot dubbed as Boracay Mansion located at #100
11th Street, New Manila, Quezon City.

The cash bonds posted by accused Jose Jinggoy Estrada and Atty. Edward S. Serapio are hereby
ordered cancelled and released to the said accused or their duly authorized representatives upon
presentation of the original receipt evidencing payment thereof and subject to the usual
accounting and auditing procedures. Likewise, the holddeparture orders issued against the said
accused are hereby recalled and declared functus oficio.

SO ORDERED.

SGD.
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Presiding Justice
Chairperson

SGD. FRANCISCO H. VILLARUZ, JR., Associate Justice

SGD. DIOSDADO M. PERALTA, Associate Justice
PERJURY Case

After a judicious evaluation of the evidence in this case, the Court cannot assert with moral
certainty that accused former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada is guilty of the crime charged. All
told, the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused with moral certainty. Its evidence
falls short of the quantum of proof required for conviction for the crime of Perjury under Article
183 of the Revised Penal Code. Accordingly, the constitutional presumption of the petitioner's
innocence must be upheld and he must be acquitted.

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in Criminal Case No. 26905 finding the accused
former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada NOT GUILTY of the crime of Perjury defined in and
penalized by Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code, and he is hereby ACQUITTED.

Accordingly, the Hold Departure Order dated February 4, 2002 issued by the Court against
accused former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada is hereby recalled and rendered functus oficio.

SO ORDERED.
Sgd.
TERESITA LEONARDO DE-CASTRO
Presiding Justice
Chairperson

Sgd.
FRANCISCO H. VILLARUZ, JR.
Associate Justice
Sgd.
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice