Don't judge DAP by releases to solons, DBM says

MANILA, Philippines — The Department of Budget and Management (DBM) on Monday explained the bulk release of Special Allotment Release Orders (SARO) to a lawmaker office.

According to the DBM, it was "misleading" to say that 900 of the 1,000 SAROs released from 2001 to 2013 were given to members of the Senate and the House of Representatives.

"When the DBM issues SAROs to implementing agencies for legislator-backed projects, that usually involves several SAROs all at once," the DBM's information office explained in a statement.

"That's because each allocation under a legislator's office is used for many projects at the same time," it continued.

The DBM said that releases requested by senators and members of the House for state-run colleges and hospitals as well as infrastructure projects for local governments each have to be issued with a SARO.

Related: Revisiting DAP: 3 senators got biggest from P1.1 billion

"You can't put all these projects in one SARO. Separate SAROs are required because the implementing agencies are different, each with its own set of accountable officers," the agency said.

The DBM acknowledged that the reports imply that the DAP, created by Budget Secretary Florencio "Butch" Abad in 2011 as a savings transfer mechanism, was intended for legislators.

"Instead, what lawmakers only do is nominate projects from a list of priorities that will benefit their constituents or districts," the agency said. "The funds for these projects are then released to and implemented by national agencies.

President Aquino vehemently defended the DAP on national television after the Supreme Court declared acts and practices under it unconstitutional. The ruling said that the executive's transfer of funds to the legislative violates the doctrine of separation of powers of the executive and legislative branches.

Last week, Aquino announced that Abad has passed his resignation letter but he did not accept it.

Aquino's lawyers led by Solicitor General Francis Jardeleza has asked the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision.