Let’s not preempt DAP probe – Palace

MANILA, Philippines - With the Office of the Ombudsman’s clearing President Aquino but pursuing probe on two ranking officials in the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) issue, Malacañang said it’s best for concerned parties not to preempt the investigation by the anti-graft agency.

Deputy presidential spokesperson Abigail Valte made the admonition yesterday following pronouncements from Sen. Aquilino Pimentel III that President Aquino could still face charges related to DAP after the end of his term next year. Pimentel chairs the Senate committee on justice and human rights.

While the ombudsman’s preliminary investigation has excluded the President, Pimentel said the anti-graft body can expand its probe to include the President depending on the accounts or affidavit of one of two officials being probed, Budget Secretary Florencio Abad. The other is his Undersecretary Mario Relampagos.

“Well, at this point, that remains to be seen (Aquino not off the hook). We note that, at least, at the level of the ombudsman there has been such kind of a discussion when it pertains to the President’s involvement, or at least what was needed to be the focus of attention when it came to that issue,” Valte said over dzRB.

“We don’t want to preempt the investigation of the ombudsman.”

While clearing Aquino of criminal liability in the DAP issue, the ombudsman found sufficient basis for a preliminary investigation of Abad and Relampagos. The Supreme Court declared part of DAP unconstitutional in 2014.

No impeachable offense

In absolving Aquino, ombudsman investigators ruled that charges against him did not amount to an impeachable offense and should thus be dismissed.

Presidential Communications Operations Office Secretary Herminio Coloma Jr. earlier said the conduct of preliminary investigation would provide an opportunity for concerned parties to clarify the legal issues on DAP implementation, considering that upon the government’s motion for reconsideration, the Supreme Court upheld the principle of operative fact. This meant, he said, there was presumption of regularity and good faith on the part of the officials when the program was carried out.

Coloma maintained the government acted in the interest of the public when it implemented DAP.

The Department of Budget and Management also stressed in an earlier statement that the DAP was not a novel program since its implementation only followed precedents set by previous presidents and their respective budget secretaries.

“We must also remind our people that despite several news reports, the final Supreme Court decision on DAP did not declare the program unconstitutional,” the DBM said.

At the same time, the DBM pointed out technical malversation did not suggest that acts of graft or corruption were committed.