EDITORIAL - The end of DAP

There were minor changes, but the Supreme Court affirmed yesterday its ruling issued last year, which declared unconstitutional several key provisions of the Disbursement Acceleration Program. The affirmation was not surprising, considering that the vote last year was 14-0.

In its latest ruling, the SC clarified that “proponents and implementors” of DAP projects were not liable, but “authors” of the program could be held accountable for unconstitutional acts if they fail to prove “good faith.” In another modification, the high tribunal also removed from the list of unconstitutional acts the funding of projects, programs and activities that are not covered by any allotment in the annual General Appropriations Act or GAA.

Palace officials, who probably realized there was a slim chance of a full reversal of the SC decision, welcomed the minor modifications in a ruling on a controversy that has earned the budget secretary a complaint for plunder.

With the latest SC ruling, the administration that professes to tread the straight path or tuwid na daan should concentrate on promoting transparency and accountability in the utilization of public funds, minimizing if not eliminating personal discretion in the use of people’s money.

The scandal over the misuse of public funds by lawmakers is not over; people are still waiting for more senators and congressmen – particularly allies of the administration – to be indicted for plunder and other charges. The Commission on Audit presented “truckloads” of evidence implicating nearly 200 current and former members of Congress in the misuse of their Priority Development Assistance Fund or pork barrel using bogus non-government organizations. The DAP came under fire for its perceived use by Malacañang as a reward for congressional cooperation.

Congress is still tasked under the Constitution to deliberate on the annual budget, but lawmakers’ proposals for funding must now be submitted before the GAA is approved and must adhere to priorities set by the executive. The SC has also clipped the power of the president to define “savings” and realign the funds for various uses before the fiscal year is over. Instead of trying to skirt the SC ruling, the executive should consider it an opportunity to pursue reforms in the utilization of public funds.