SC sets points for oral arguments on DAP legality

MANILA, Philippines - As it prepares to hear oral arguments on petitions against the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), the Supreme Court (SC) laid down yesterday the major issues that it wants the parties in the debate to tackle – with allegation of misuse of funds not included.

The high court released yesterday the guidelines to be followed in the Nov. 11 oral arguments focusing on constitutional questions raised in seven petitions against the DAP.

Also being questioned in the petitions is the constitutionality of the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF).

On Wednesday, President Aquino made an unprecedented television appearance to emphasize that there had been no anomaly in the use of funds released through DAP.

None of the petitioners had alleged corruption in the release of DAP funds. What they want is for the SC to declare it void and unconstitutional.

The high tribunal principally wants to determine the real nature of the DAP – whether it is a fund or a program.

In its guidelines, the SC also ordered petitioners and respondents from the executive and legislative branches to tackle the legal basis for the creation of the DAP as well as its constitutionality with respect to releases requested by several lawmakers.

The definition of “savings” under the Constitution and other relevant issuances, the legality of the DAP as a program under existing laws, and its being used to augment expenses in the General Appropriations Act would also be included in the debate.

The high court came up with these issues after a preliminary conference with counsels of petitioners and of respondents last Wednesday.

It was agreed during the closed-door meeting that petitioners and respondents would be given 30 minutes each to present their arguments on issues before interpellation by the justices.

“The petitioners will submit to the Court, through the member-in-charge, their proposal on how to divide the allotment of time as well as the order and identity of speakers,” an SC advisory read.

The petitions against DAP were filed by former Iloilo Rep. Augusto Syjuco, lawyers Jose Malvar Villegas Jr. and Manuelito Luna; Philippine Constitution Association (Philconsa); Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP); Bayan Muna, Kabataan and Gabriela party-list groups; and Christian sects led by former Manila councilor Greco Belgica.

Petitioners have alleged that the discretionary fund of the President violates the exclusive power of Congress to appropriate funds. 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 transfer of funds from one branch of government to another without necessary law as stipulated in Section 25, Article VI of the Constitution.

Section 24, Article XXV, on the other hand, gives Congress exclusive “power of the purse.” Critics of DAP have also branded it as pork barrel in disguise. The congressional pork barrel is officially called Priority Development Assistance Fund.