THE Supreme Court (SC) affirmed with finality on Tuesday its decision declaring as unconstitutional several acts committed by the Executive branch in implementing the controversial Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP).
At a media briefing, SC Spokesman Theodore Te said the Court unanimously denied the motion for reconsideration filed by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) on behalf of the Executive branch seeking to reverse its ruling issued last July 1.
The High Tribunal maintained that the withdrawal of unobligated allotments from the implementing agencies, and the declaration of the withdrawn unobligated allotments and unreleased appropriations as savings prior to the end of the fiscal year and without complying with the statutory definition of savings contained in the General Appropriations Act (GAA); and the cross-border transfers of the savings of the Executive to augment the appropriations of other offices outside the Executive remain unconstitutional.
Malacañang, reacting to the latest SC ruling on the Aquino administration’s controversial DAP, quoted government lawyers, claiming it was “a de facto reversal” of the earlier unanimous verdict handed down by the justices outlawing the DAP.
“We note that based on the limited information provided by Atty. Ted Te, the SC has upheld the doctrine of operative fact which declared all acts are valid until they are declared unconstitutional,” Palace Spokesman Edwin Lacierda said.
He added: “The presumption of good faith has been preserved and emphasized, which clarified the previous impression that the authors are presumed to be in bad faith.”
The Court stressed that the said acts violate Section 25 (5) Article VI of the Constitution and the doctrine of separation of powers.
Article VI, Section 25 (5) of the Constitution authorizes the President and heads of other branches of the government and constitutional commissions to augment any item in the GAA for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations.
The Court also affirmed its decision which declares void the use of unprogrammed funds despite the absence of a certification by the national treasurer that the revenue collections exceeded the revenue targets for noncompliance with the conditions provided in the national budget.
All magistrates led by Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno approved this ruling, except for two—Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo-de Castro and Francis Jardeleza—who inhibited from the case.
However, the Court reconsidered its ruling on the act under DAP that declares the funding of projects, activities and programs that were not covered by any appropriation in the GAA unconstitutional.
Partially granting the motion for reconsideration of the OSG, the High Court now declared such act as constitutional.
The SC agreed with the OSG that there is no constitutional requirement for Congress to create allotment class within an item and that what is required is for Congress to create items to comply with the line-item veto of the President.
“There is no requirement in the Constitution or the GAA that the subject of augmentation should be the expense category allotment class. Accordingly, so long as there is an item in the GAA for which Congress had set aside a specified amount of public funds, savings may be transferred thereto for augmentation purposes,” the SC said in clarifying its decision.
“The interpretation is consistent not only with the Constitution and the GAAs but also with the degree of flexibility allowed to the Executive during budget execution in responding to unforeseeable contingencies,” it added.
But Te pointed out, that based on the ruling, the “modified interpretation nonetheless does not take away the caveat that only DAP projects found in the appropriate GAAs may be subject of augmentation by legally accumulated savings.”
“Whether the 116 DAP-funded projects had appropriation cover and were validly augmented require factual determination which is not within the scope of the present consolidated petitions under Rule 65 [or the Rules of Court],” he added.
The SC, likewise, made a clarification on its ruling with regard to possible culpabilities of executive officials for the implementation of DAP.
It can be recalled that in its original decision, the SC held that while recipients cannot be held liable for benefiting from programs, activities and projects (PAPs) under the DAP in good faith, the Executive branch cannot be instantly cleared of culpabilities.
It cited the doctrine of operative fact, which recognizes the validity of the assailed law or action prior to the determination of its unconstitutionality as an operative fact that produced consequences that cannot always be erased, ignored or disregarded.
It explained that “the doctrine of operative fact can apply only to the PAPs that can no longer be undone, and whose beneficiaries relied in good faith on the validity of the DAP, but cannot apply to the authors, proponents and implementors of the DAP, unless there are concrete findings of good faith in their favor by the proper tribunals determining their criminal, civil, administrative and other liabilities.”
However, the Court this time removed the words “proponents” and “implementors,” leaving only “authors” of the DAP as those who could possibly be held liable.
“The Court also decided to clarify the language it used insofar as those subject to the consequences of the operation of the operative fact doctrine by removing ‘proponents and implementors’ and leaving only ‘authors’ within the ambits of its coverage,” the Court ruled.
“If the authors will be identified, only those could possible be held liable, according to the Court,” Te told reporters.
But he added that the presumption of good faith in the implementation of DAP-related projects still stands in the latest ruling.
(With Butch Fernandez)