MIRIAM LAUDS SC DECISION ON DAP
"DAP chips away Congressional power of the purse" - Miriam

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, the country's foremost constitutional law expert, praised the Supreme Court decision declaring the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) unconstitutional.

Santiago anticipated this ruling months ago, even before the matter reached the high court.

"It's basically a no-brainer. The DAP is illegal because it was not contained in the 2011 or 2012 budgets, and because the alleged savings were used to augment new budget items which was not previously authorized by Congress," she said.

Santiago said the DAP violates the constitutional provision that: "No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations; however, the President, . . . may, by law, be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations."

The senator said that the Constitution allows fund transfers only if there are savings, meaning that the project was completed, and yet the appropriation was not exhausted; but there are no savings if a project was merely deferred.

"The first issue is that the DAP was not taken from savings. The second issue is that the DAP was not used to augment items in the budget that were previously authorized by Congress. The alleged savings were used to augment new budget items not previously authorized by Congress," the former UP College of Law constitutional law professor said.

Santiago said that it appeared that DAP funds were taken from alleged slow-moving projects. "If so, no savings were generated, and therefore the DAP is illegal," she said.

The senator also said that the budget department should have sought the approval of Congress, because under the Constitution, it is Congress that exercises the power of the purse.

"Using the DAP, the budget department is basically realigning funds without public discussion in Congress. In effect, they are chipping away at the legislative power of the purse by fiddling with the budget," she said.

DAP violates equal protection clause

Santiago also said the DAP funds appear to have been disbursed in violation of the Constitution's equal protection clause, which is the keystone of all human rights.

According to budget secretary Florencio Abad, additional pork under the so-called DAP (Disbursement Acceleration Program) were released reportedly during and after the impeachment trial against former Chief Justice Renato Corona.

"It should illegal for the budget department to discriminate among senators. While all other senators received an average of P50 million in DAP funds, reportedly three senators got P100 million each. They are Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile, Sen. Franklin Drilon, and Sen. Francis Escudero," she said.

The three senators did not explain why they got more than the others, but merely defended themselves with the excuse that they spent the money on public projects. By contrast, each representative allegedly received P15 million.

Those who were not given any additional pork from the DAP were Santiago, Sen. Bongbong Marcos, and Sen. Joker Arroyo--- the three senators who voted against impeachment.

"In releasing funds, the executive branch cannot play favorites when carrying out constitutional commands such as social justice, social services, and equal work opportunities. The DAP releases, flawed as they were from the very beginning, played favorites among senators. That was clearly unconstitutional," she said.

Santiago said that after the scandalous but secret releases at the end of 2012, then Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile followed the example of favoritism by giving all senators, except four, nearly P2 million in Christmas bonuses. Enrile particularly excluded from his Christmas bonus his political enemies, namely, Santiago, Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano, Sen. Pia Cayetano, and Sen. Antonio Trillanes.

Legislators bribed with DAP in Corona trial?

Following the Supreme Court ruling, Santiago renewed her call for the Commission on Audit to probe into the alleged bribery of Congress members during the impeachment trial of ex-Chief Justice Renato Corona in connection with the DAP.

"Both the pork barrel and DAP scandals are equally repulsive, and the Supreme Court declared both funds as unconstitutional. I wholeheartedly welcome the impartial adjudication of these abominable abuses of public funds by the Supreme Court since I cannot obtain relief from the Senate itself, which appeared to have been complicit in bribery," she said.

She quoted Article 210: "Direct Bribery. - Any public officer who shall agree to perform an act constituting a crime, in connection with the performance of his official duties, in consideration of any offer, promise, gift, or present received by such officer."

Santiago said that every senator who voted to convict, and every representative who voted to indict, if each one is shown to have received additional pork during and immediately after the impeachment trial, are presumably guilty of bribery, because of the close timing between the two events.

She said that under the Penal Code, each senator or representative was guilty of the crime of "knowingly rendering unjust judgment."

She quoted Article 204: "Any judge who shall knowingly render an unjust judgment in any case submitted to him for decision, shall be punished by prision mayor, and perpetual absolute disqualification."

Miriam guns for budget impoundment control

Santiago is also pushing for the passage of her Senate Bill No. 404, or the Budget Impoundment Control Bill, which seeks to increase congressional oversight and to limit executive influence over specific appropriations in the national budget.

Taking a cue from American laws, Santiago's bill aims to restore the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches

"The bill provides that---like its American version---after Congress authorizes appropriations, and the executive department does not intend to spend the budget items for which he is authorized, then the President has to go back to Congress with a request to impound the appropriations. The power to grant or not the request to impound will continue to belong to Congress. Thus, such a law will preserve the congressional power of the purse," she said.

Santiago noted that her bill is based on a similar one filed by then senator Benigno S. Aquino III during the Fourteenth Congress, and was filed with the permission of his staff.

"President Aquino was correct when he was a senator. The President should not make a habit of requesting large budgets for some departments and then, in the middle of the year, juggle the funds, repackage it as Disbursement Acceleration Program, and spend it the way he wants," she said.