MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court (SC) has deferred ruling on an appeal filed by the government questioning its declaration of parts of the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) as illegal.
While the high court could have opted to dismiss instantly the motion for reconsideration filed by the Office of the Solicitor General last week, the justices decided yesterday to first seek comment from anti-DAP groups before resolving the appeal.
Ordered to comment were the groups of former Manila councilor Greco Belgica; former Iloilo Rep. Augusto Syjuco; lawyers Jose Malvar Villegas Jr. and Manuelito Luna; the Philippine Constitution Association (Philconsa); the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP); the party-lists Bayan Muna, Kabataan and Gabriela; the Confederation for Unity, Recognition and Advancement of Government Employees (Courage), and the Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption.
SC spokesman Theodore Te said the anti-DAP petitioners were given 10 days from receipt of notice to comply with the order and file their respective answers.
A court insider said the high tribunal could instantly deny an MR, particularly when the appealing party failed to raise new arguments or if the assailed decision was unanimously approved by the justices. In this case, the magistrates decided otherwise.
Last week, President Aquino indirectly threatened the SC magistrates of impeachment in a televised national address where he assailed their unanimous decision on DAP.
Voting 13-0, the justices struck down acts and practices under DAP that violated the doctrine of separation of powers and a provision prohibiting inter-branch transfer of appropriations.
Court observers saw the Palace’s appeal as a long shot.
In a 52-page MR filed last July 18, Malacañang insisted that the economic stimulus program designed to accelerate public spending did not violate the Constitution.
In justifying good faith behind DAP, the government urged the high court to consider institutional competence and the value of bureaucratic practices in understanding the role of the executive branch in managing the economy, the authority of Congress to define savings, the shared role of the political departments in preparing the budget and the limited role of the judiciary in these matters.
The Palace argued that the high tribunal erred in applying the doctrine of operative fact, which recognizes the validity of the assailed law or action prior to the determination of its unconstitutionality.
It turned the tables on SC by citing the supposed cross-border transfer of funds committed by the high court in 2012.– With Christina Mendez