Category: DAP

With SC decision on DAP, expect impeachment charges vs Aquino

Ellen Leave a comment

SC decision: reminder to Aquino that good intentions do not necessarily mean right and legal.

SC decision on DAP: reminder to Aquino that good intentions do not necessarily mean right and legal.

With the Supreme Court’s ruling that President Aquino and Budget Secretary Florencio “Butch” Abad’s baby- the Disbursement Acceleration Program – is unconstitutional, expect impeachment charges against Aquino to be filed soon.

Main Decision
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2014/july2014/209287.pdf

Separate Opinions:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2014/july2014/209287_carpio.pdf
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2014/july2014/209287_brion.pdf

Concurring and Dissenting opinion
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2014/july2014/209287_delcastillo.pdf

Separate Concurring Opinion
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2014/july2014/209287
_bernabe.pdf


Concurring Opinion
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2014/july2014/209287_leonen.pdf

The progressive groups –Anakbayan and Kilusang Mayo Uno- have hinted on impeachment in their statements hailing the High Court’s decision on DAP.

Anakbayan’s Vencer Crisostomo said, “Aquino and his pork gang should resign now in shame. Calls for him to be removed from office via impeachment or via a people’s uprising is growing and is increasingly justified. Aquino and his pork gang should be ousted.”

KMU’s Elmer Labog said, “The SC ruling could only further fuel calls for the Pork Barrel King’s resignation, if not ouster from office.”

Yesterday, the Supreme Court, voting unanimously (13-0) ruled as unconstitutional “cross border transfers of the savings of the Executive to augment appropriation of other offices outside the Executive; funding of projects, activities and programs that were not covered by any appropriation in the General Appropriations Act; and withdrawal of unobligated allotment from the implementing agencies and the declaration of the withdrawn, unobligated allotments and unreleased appropriations as savings prior to the end of the fiscal year and without complying with the statutory definition of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.”

The President's trusted one.

The President’s trusted one.

It will be recalled that the DAP came into the public knowledge after Sen. Jinggoy Estrada delivered a privilege speech September last year complaining why Malacanang is zeroing on him and his two colleagues in the opposition – Juan Ponce- Enrile and Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr.

Not knowing about DAP then, Estrada revealed that he and 19 other senators received at P50 million to P100 million in additional lump-sum allocations and linked the huge sums to their votes for the conviction then Chief Justice Renato Corona in the 2012 impeachment trial.

Abad later confirmed the release of P1.107 billion to 20 senators and said that the funds came from the DAP.

It was later found out that there were a number of infrastructure projects in the GAA that were called canceled and the funds were re-aligned to projects submitted by the senators.

Malacanang supporters then twitted that Estrada’s speech was a “dud.” Well, they spoke too soon.

The SC decision has given enemies of the Aquino a potent weapon to attack him and that would be through the filing of impeachment complaints. But the question is, will the impeachment complaint prosper?

House Speaker Sonny Belmonte is said to be in firm control of the Lower House but Malacañang can’t be complacent. They will have to make sure that congressmen won’t succumb to the lure of the enemies of Aquino. Without DAP and the Priority Development Assistance Fund (which has also been declared unconstitutional by the SC), Malacanang would be hard put to match the incentives of those who want to oust Aquino.

This is definitely a blow to Aquino and his “Tuwid na Daan.

This will hurt his ego but it should tell him and his advisers that just because they are in power, they are not infallible. Some humility should do them good.

Aquino and the beetle experiment

Ellen Leave a comment

"Hindi tayo pareho. Hindi kami nagnakaw, at hindi kami magnanakaw."

“Hindi tayo pareho. Hindi kami nagnakaw, at hindi kami magnanakaw.”

President Aquino wants the public to believe that he and his team are God’s gift to democracy. That they can do no wrong. Corruption in government is confined to some members of the political opposition. His men are like him : upright, honest and candidates for sainthood.

That’s the essense of Aquino’s televised ranting last Wednesday.

Apparently, Aquino and his team have sensed the public indignation over misuse of pork barrel funds, intended in principle for the poor but ended up in public officials pockets. If everything is going well, why would he make changes in his communication setup. He enjoyed high approval ratings with the condescending Presidential Spokesperson Edwin Lacierda (aligned with Mar Roxas faction) assisted by Abigail Valte and Communications strategist Ricky Carandang as his mouthpieces. Why then the need to bring in the unassuming Press Secretary Sonny Coloma, aligned with the 2010 election Samar group that supported Vice President Jojo Binay?

Aquino rails at those who criticize his creation: the Disbursement Accelerated Program.

His reaction was to blame senators Jinggoy Estrada, Ramon Revilla, Juan Ponce-Enrile (whom he didn’t even name.)

What happens when you cut the beetle's legs?

What happens when you cut the beetle’s legs?

His off-target solution to the people’s dismay of how he is handling the pork barrel abuse reminds us of the anecdote about the beetle.

A boy wanted to find out what happens if the legs of the beetle are removed.

At first he shouted at the six-legged beetle “Move” and tapped the table. The beetle moved fast. He started with removing two legs of the beetle on both sides. Then he tapped the table and instructed “the beetle to “Move”. He noticed the beetle moved slower. He removed the next two legs and again told the beetle to “Move”, and he noted the beetle moved even slower. Then he removed the last two legs, shouted at the insect and tapped the table. The beetle didn’t move.

His conclusion: when you remove the beetle’s legs, it becomes deaf.

Hopeless.

Using calamity an excuse for another calamity

Ellen Leave a comment

Aquino inspecting damage in Bohol. Photo by Malacañang.

Aquino inspecting damage in Bohol. Malacañang photo.

One week after the 7.2 magnitude tremblor that shook Bohol, Cebu and other parts of Central Visayas, many are still unaccounted for.

Heart rending is the report about the missing five children playing by the waterfall, which has also been obliterated by landslides that followed the quake.

There may still be areas, isolated by the destruction of roads and bridges that are still to be reached by rescuers and people who are bringing assistance.

Speaking of assistance, it is good to know that China has set aside the strain in diplomatic relations and condoled with the Filipino people in this moment of tragedy. Beijing sent through the Red Cross $80,000 assistance.

Taiwan, with whom the Philippines recently patched up relations after the unfortunate killing by a member of the Philippine Coast Guard of a Taiwanese fisherman in the disputed waters in Balintang Channel gave $100,000. The Taiwan Economic and Cultural Office in Manila said more humanitarian assistance for the quake victims is being organized.

The United States donated $50,000 for relief operations for Bohol quake victims.

Aquino distributes goods to victims of the earthquake in Bohol. Malacañang photo.

Aquino distributes goods to victims of the earthquake in Bohol. Malacañang photo.

Legal aspects of these donations are covered by the declaration of the earthquake-stricken areas under the State of Calamity.
Republic Act 10121 provides that “The President’s declaration may warrant international humanitarian assistance as deemed necessary.”

VERA Files Yvonne Chua, wrote a piece about her conversation with Eddie, a driver in Guadalupe, Cebu whose house was damaged by the earthquake on how the President’s declaration of a State of Calamity can benefit him.

Chua wrote:”The President can declare a state of calamity in ‘a condition involving mass casualty and/or major damages to property, disruption of means of livelihoods, roads and normal way of life of people in the affected areas as a result of the occurrence of natural or human-induced hazard.’”

“The presidential declaration paves the way for the release of calamity funds, a price freeze for basic necessities of 60 days unless lifted, and the granting of no-interest loans, as well as international humanitarian assistance.

“Under the Local Government Code, local government units in areas declared to be in a state of calamity may draw from their calamity funds, a lump-sum appropriation generated from the 5 percent of the estimated revenue from regular sources. The funds are to be used for the repair and upgrading of public infrastructures and facilities, among others.

“On top of that, local government units may enact a supplemental budget to buy supplies and materials or pay for services to prevent danger to or loss of life or property.

“The importation of rice and payment of hazard allowance to public health workers and science and technological personnel may also be authorized during a state of calamity.”

Chua said it is the grant of no-interest loans by government financing or lending institutions that interests Eddie especially those for home repairs.

Chua related that Eddie was told to take pictures of his damaged house and attach them to his loan application with the Social Security System.

Chua further wrote that, “The SSS on Wednesday approved a calamity relief package for SSS members and pensioners in Central Visayas, especially Cebu and Bohol, who were affected by the earthquake. The package includes early renewal of salary loans, relaxed loan terms for home repairs and advance release of three months’ worth of pensions.

“The SSS said it has relaxed its terms for the House Repair and Improvement Loan Program for members living in the declared calamity areas like Eddie. House repair borrowers can avail themselves of reduced interest rates, to be fixed at 6 percent a year instead of the existing 9 percent. The regular application fee of up to P3,000 will also be waived.

“The SSS is allowing members one year to apply for house repair loans to give them time to prepare the required documents.”
The 2013 budget has allotted P7.50 billion for calamities and P1 billion for contingencies. The two fundsa are part of the P957.77 billion special purpose fund which some describe as the President’s pork barrel.

Aquino last week said there’s only P1.37 billion in the calamity fund. The unspoken message, of course, is this is not enough, we will have to tap “savings” which is the controversial Disbursement Acceleration Program.

Many saw through the deodorant ploy.

Not to be outdone, members of the Senate, which has been shaken by the Janet Napoles pork barrel scandal, are suggesting re-aligning their unused PDAF (Priority development Assistance Fund) to the Calamity Fund.

Lawyer Harry Roque said:” This cannot be done. Budget is a law. A (Senate) resolution can’t amend a law! Only an amendatory or repealing law can do that. In any case, the Senate president can only realign items from savings in its own budget. They can’t do that to budget of executive and vice versa.”
Doing that would make calamity an excuse for another calamity.

DAP- pork in another form

Ellen Leave a comment

Thanks to Inquirer for photo.

Thanks to Inquirer for photo.

Malacañang must be feeling beleaguered.

Press Secretary Edwin Lacierda went all the way from Malacañang to ABS-CBN to appear personally in Anthony Taberna and Gerry Baja’s radio program “Dos por Dos” to insist that DAP (Disbursement Acceleration Pogram) is not violative of the Constitution according to the opinion of former Senator Joker Arroyo.

Arroyo said it’s the first time that he heard such an animal called DAP.

Former National Treasurer Leonor Briones questioned the legality of this DAP, which was created in October 2011, two months before the start of the impeachment against Corona. “Is there an executive order? Is there a provision in the Constitution which legitimizes its creation?”

Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago has also questioned the constitutionaity of DAP and has asked the Commission on Audit to look into the DAP.

DAP surfaced as the new buzzword in political patronage DAP after Sen. Jinggoy Estrada exposed that Malacanang gave each of the 20 senators who voted to convict Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona on May 29, 2012, for culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust P50 million each.

Estrada said it was not a bribe. He called it “incentive.” The public saw it as political patronage, the common practice in political systems to award a special favor to persons whose cooperation the giver needs.

The evolution of Malacañang’s reactions (I will refrain from saying “lies”) on Estrada’s P50 million expose would have been amusing if it were not our hard- earned money.

In the beginning they outrightly denied it. But some senators confirmed the distribution of the post-Corona largesse. Sen. TG Guingona admitted he got lump sum. Former Sen. Panfilo Lacson, they discussed it in a caucus but he did not get his share.

Senate President Franklin Drilon, who initially denied it, later said it was the much-maligned PDAF (Priority Development Assistance Fund) which were withheld during the four –month Senate impeachment.

The Department of Budget later admitted they released lump sums after the Corona impeachment . They gave out the list which showed that Drilon, who was the chairman of the Senate Finance committee got P100 million, Sen. Chiz Escudero P99 million, and then Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, P92 million.

DBM changed tune and said it was not PDAF. It’s DAP, Malacañang said. Lacierda said they money (P72 billion in 2011) came from the savings?

“Is savings illegal,” he challenged critics.

Mr. Secretary, that’s not issue. The question is the legality of the re-alignment of savings, without Congress approval.

As Briones said, “If the source is from different savings then we have to clarify constitutional provision. Who has power to realign? Isn’t it the legislature? After the budget is passed and the President realigns again, how do you call that? It is pork. Clearly, the source has to be clarified as to legitimacy and constitutional basis.”

Briones said DAP is clearly pork barrel. “By definition and tradition and international language, pork is given to legislator. Is it correct? No because it is pointed out that their function is to create laws not implement projects.” she said.

Lacierda said the question should be was the money under DAP used properly? Isn’t that the same issue with PDAF?