Supreme Court ruled DAP or the ‘president’s pork barrel’ as unconstitutional during the Aquino Presidency.
Department of Budget and Management (DBM) Sec. Benjamin Diokno rebuffs the allegation that some provisions in the proposed 2017 annual budget were deliberately included to bring back the mechanism of the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP).
The cross-border transfer practice of realigning savings under the DAP, which critics slammed as the presidential pork barrel, was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court during the presidency of Pres. Benigno Simeon Aquino III.
Kabataan Partylist Rep. Sarah Elago announced earlier that there are DAP-like provisions in the proposed bugdet, referring to Section 59 of the proposed General Appropriations Act for 2017 which stated that savings can be modified instead of realigned.
Under the 2017 budget, savings are defined as a “portion or balance of any released appropriations … which have not been obligated” due to completion or discontinuance of the project.
Elago said the realignment of savings allowed in the 2016 budget has been redefined as modification in the 2017 budget, which smacks of the mechanism similar to the DAP, the savings impounding mechanism under the previous Aquino administration.
But Diokno emphasized that the provision is consistent with the Supreme Court decision, outlawing the DAP.
“Ang position ko kasi, realignment is not in the language of the Constitution. We have to generate savings to augment an item in the budget… You are allowed modification only with respect to the personal services (PS). That’s it. But you will not be allowed to transfer it from PS to another expense class,” said Diokno.
The cabinet secretary explained that realignments can only be made if the the government agencies have enough savings.
He further discussed that the definition he used to define ‘savings’ in the proposed 2017 budget is different than how the previous administration defined it to enable them to cull out funds from the DAP.
Diokno said the exceptional circumstances that allow the modification of allotment from savings only pertain to personal services, but even this expense item is not allowed to be transferred to other expense item which would be a violation of the Supreme Court decision.
“I know I have changed the definition of savings in this budget, different from the definition of savings in the last post-DAP budget. If you see any provision that is consistent with the Supreme Court decision, call my attention,” Diokno told the lawmaker.
Diokno assured the lawmaker that he would not allow the DAP mechanism, concocted by his predecessor Aquino’s budget secretary Florencio Abad, to be back in the budget, having been a petitioner before the Supreme Court against the DAP.
“I’m telling you, I’m one of those petitioners of DAP. I will not dare violate the Supreme Court decision,” Diokno said.