CBCP wants DAP authors prosecuted

The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) has urged the prosecution of the authors of the unconstitutional Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) to deter future large-scale graft and corruption.

“It is also hoped that those who knowingly and deliberately misused public funds in a manner declared illegal by the Supreme Court should now be investigated and, if necessary, prosecuted,” said Lingayen Archbishop Socrates Villegas, CBCP president.

The CBCP has consistently called for a government that truly serves the nation by avoiding all forms of corruption and deceit. Its statement came a day after the Supreme Court affirmed an earlier ruling that funds from DAP, an economic-stimulus program of President Aquino and his Budget chief, Secretary Florencio Abad, are illegal.

The tribunal, however, partly granted the government’s motion for reconsideration by modifying the decision it issued in July 2014.

In its recent ruling, it said the authors of the spending program, Aquino and Abad, can be taken to court. They can only be cleared if the court found that they acted in good faith.

“(T)he proper tribunals can make concrete findings of good faith in their favor only after a full hearing of all the parties in any given case, and such a hearing can begin to proceed only after according all the presumptions, particularly that of good faith, by initially requiring the complainants, plaintiffs or accusers to first establish their complaints or charges before the respondents authors, proponents and implementors of DAP,” the High Court’s spokesman, Theodore Te, said.

“The want of good faith is thus better determined by tribunals other than this court, which is not a trier of facts,” he added.

The SC ruled that the proponents and implementors of the project will no longer be held liable for their acts.

Villegas has said the CBCP, with the aid of consultants and experts, will study the SC ruling on DAP and will make proposals for “change either by legislation or even by constitutional amendment

“While it does seem like the Supreme Court has maintained its initial characterization of transfer of funds from one branch of government to another, some are disturbed by the fact that its ruling apparently lends its judicial fiat to disbursements for unappropriated items or projects. Under our present constitutional system, the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says its text means,” Villegas said.