Diluting the decision on the DAP

Dean dela Paz / The Next Page

Following the profound and learned wisdom of the Supreme Court (SC) on the motion for consideration filed by the powers that-be on the original July 2014 ruling of unconstitutionality on the presidential Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), for many, perhaps too blinded by tears from constantly wailing against the pork-barrel system, it is difficult to see through the teary blur the inscrutable logic of dismembering one of the original decision’s three most salient points.

While maintaining that portions of the DAP remain unconstitutional, in reconsidering, the SC altered its stance on one of three supremely important aspects. One has to do with what constitutes unconstitutionality. Another, on the very important issue of accountability, or even criminality, for that matter.

Imagine that the anti-pork barrel advocacy stands on a three-legged stool, where each leg is a critical pylon, albeit each evading the patronage aspect of pork barrels, politically and civilly deferring to the presumption of regularity, thus diplomatically conferring good faith despite evidence to the contrary.

Hopes had been hung on these three supports, three points if you will, which practically everyone applauded as historic watersheds in judicial insight and wisdom. Allow us to paraphrase, if only to exorcise some of the convoluting demons of legalese.

One, an act or practice was deemed unconstitutional if it involved “the withdrawal of unobligated allotments from the implementing agencies, and the declaration of the withdrawn unobligated allotments and unreleased appropriations as savings prior to the end of the fiscal year and (sic) without complying with the statutory definition of savings contained in the General Appropriations Acts (GAA).”

Two, acts or practices were likewise unconstitutional if these involved “the cross-border transfers of the savings of the Executive to augment the appropriations of other offices outside the Executive.”

Lastly, DAP acts and practices were deemed unconstitutional if these involved “the funding of projects, activities, and programs that were not covered by any appropriation in the GAA.”

This last leg is load bearing and structural. What it effectively requires of all government expenditures is a firm foundation within the GAA. It likewise requires the strength of a statute for every expense. Its foundations lie in the Constitution’s Section 29(1), Article VI that clearly declares that, “no money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law.” Note that an appropriation must be made by law, passing though the strict congressional sieve of first to last readings where, in a dedicated gauntlet, it is subjected to strict scrutiny and diligent debate.

So that there may be no mistaking the criticality of an expenditure as emanating from law, note that in a previous section (Article VI, Section 25(5)) augmentation is only allowed on items already in the GAA. To wit, “no law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations; however, the President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of Constitutional Commissions 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.”

While the original SC decision on DAP’s GAA requirement is founded on clear and definitive constitutional firmament, its substance is founded on even firmer rock – fiscal prudence, fiduciary responsibility and accountability. This is the substance behind the budgetary process and the foundation for granting Congress, the representatives of the people, the “power of the purse” to establish in strict detail where our money is to be spent.

For those who’ve become complacent and comfortable thinking that the problem of the pork barrel-fed and fattened political-patronage system and the insidious presidential DAP has gone away, think again. It has not, though compelling controversies have taken center stage, hogging the limelight and casting such blinding glares that now hide DAP’s criminality behind the darkest shadows.

It has not been supplanted by the gross and colossal criminal ineptitude and the fatal lack of leadership that enveloped our government in recent days. It was not taken aback by a spiritual renaissance and a firm resolve to do what is right even where the Vicar of Christ had repeatedly admonished an agenda of compassion, mercy and equity for the poor. As the President had so eloquently said on those didactics, the papal messages were not targeting him.

It has also not been overwhelmed by a belated and painful realization that the notorious and dysfunctional KKK (kabarilan, kaibigan and kaklase) criteria founding presidential appointments can cost the lives of half a league of good men tragically turned into expendable pawns and bloody pulp in the valley of death in a ludicrous narcissistic gambit to enhance damaged imagery and frayed egos.

Political patronage continues to fester and grow. Criminal ineptitude continues. The unaccountable KKK remain behind the throne. The presidential pork barrel is not dead. Given a presidency that wallows in, has a penchant for, and is nourished by political patronage, that is understandable.

Following a motion for reconsideration from the Palace, the SC recently reversed itself on a critical point on the DAP. The High Court restored and declared constitutional DAP expenditures that are un-budgeted and un-appropriated. These are those that have not passed congressional scrutiny and debate, and are not originally in the GAA. Previously declared unconstitutional, these are now legitimized when so declared by the President.

Fearing resurgent political patronage fattened by the presidential pork barrel, critics able to discern the gambit are aghast, especially considering an attendant SC decision to hold innocent DAP proponents and implementors, thus limiting accountability only to its authors.

Needless to say, at the Palace of Pork, the Pork Barrel King reigns supreme.