Reaction Paper on the case of DAP (Disbursement Acceleration Program)

By Gil Camaymayan

As most of us probably known by now that the highest court of the land has already declared that the DAP or the Disbursement Acceleration Program initiated by the current government administration has been declared unconstitutional which has caused other issues and concerns that our country would probably face in the near future. But before going deeper in understanding the issues involved we probably need to ask the question why was there so much attention given on this. We probably need to go back several months or years ago pertaining to several events that has changed the political landscape of this country. I am pertaining to the Impeachment of the chief justice of the Supreme Court and the declaration of unconstitutionality of the PDAP or Pork Barrel Fund. These events had its own pros and cons in this country, for through such events people became aware on political issues we do face and has made the people to be more involve to strive for better governance. Unfortunately some people do take advantage of the situation to further their political agenda, careers and ambitions. Public sentiments back then was pretty intense which I think was carried over through this current case for reason that some people do try to link the issue to PDAP for most of the critics of the current administration are trying to find loop holes and mistakes either for reason to strive for a better government or trying to bring this administration to the ground. Understanding on how this DAP issue came up was in connection with the impeachment case of the former chief justice of the supreme court, It’s really quite amusing on how this issues are relatively connected with each other but this has already been the political scene in this country where in cases and issues stems out from another case or issue. It’s a never ending circle of agony and despair that this country would probably and currently facing, that hopefully we would be able to solve in the future.

Going back to the current topic at hand, on analyzing a decision especially on something as controversial as the DAP case, we should always try to look on both side of the border and try to make reason and justification specially to the losing end. This DAP was something that our incumbent president has approved and the current administration has implemented. Let us give them the benefit of the doubt that they have done so with all good intentions and plans. That they have implemented such disbursement of funds to work as a stimulus package to fast track spending and to push economic growth, resulting to a higher GDP and growth for the country. This has also resulted to better public infrastructure and projects implemented by the government that the citizen in general has benefitted. It is undeniable that the DAP has given a lot of benefits and growth to the country and that the continued implementation of such program would bring improvement and growth in this country, from which everyone would benefit from. We should also look into it not only on its positive side but also into the negative.

1

If ever we do continue such program there is a big possibility that this could be use by future politicians to do their corruptive ways, thus deviating from its original intention. A good example of this the PDAP or the Pork Barrel, when it was introduced the intention was for a noble cause and the implementation was for the betterment of the constituents of the members of congress within their municipalities and district. Eventually it was used to funnel corruptive acts of non trust worthy public officials. I think the same could be said for DAP, the intention on its current implementation was for good and noble intentions but it could also be used to destroy this country unless precautionary measures are taken and implemented to avoid such circumstance.

Looking into the other side, there’s a saying the end does not always justify the means. No matter how beneficial the result was, we should always look into procedure and actions taken to achieve such result. In the case of DAP, the program was implemented by funneling funds which are in the form of savings by one department of the government to another (either within the same or different department) to augment any insufficiency of budget. The act of funneling or transferring such funds was deemed to be unconstitutional by law, for the augmentation of items in the general appropriation by the president or any entity allowed by law could only be done if there was a law enacted that would allow it. In the case of DAP the said implementation was only an administrative program approved by the president and was not authorized by any law enacted by congress. The legal principle of dura lex sed lex is applicable in this case for reason even if the DAP was implemented with all good intentions and benefit but such program contravenes what was specified in our constitution then is should not be allowed. The law maybe hard but it is the law. Speaking as a law student and I was taught that all laws (including administrative law, rules and regulation) should not be inconsistent with the constitution, this is the golden rule that we should follow and abide for the supremacy of the constitution should be recognized and respected. Independence of the co-equal branches of the government should always be respected. Congress as a branch of the government who exercise its function on the approval and modification of the General appropriation should not be encroached by the Executive branch by implementing DAP which serves as an appropriation program to provide additional funding to an existing and non existing item on the General appropriations Act.

As a law student I would have to agree with the ruling of the Supreme Court to hold the supremacy of the constitution but If I was not a law student and was not aware of the technicalities of the law I would probably disagree with the ruling for I would only be concerned with the benefits and improvements that the program has provided. I’ll probably even argue that it’s the money of the government anyway so why not let them use it and have everyone benefit from it.

2