In Re: Taxpayers of the Philippines vs. Pork Barrel, DAP, et al.

by REYMUND B. FLORES

The Filipino taxpayers are on a massive call to abolish the Pork Barrel, and all of its forms in the Philippines, including the Disbursement Acceleration Program initiated by the administration of President Aquino. It is believed that the former is one major source of corruption in the Philippines. On the other hand, DAP became a hot issue because of the question of its constitutionality and of the popular belief that it was a creative and effective tool initiated by the current administration to champion its campaign to oust the former Chief Justice Renato Corona from his post, in a form of incentives to senators who will vote against the former chief magistrate. Thus, this article was written to digest the issues in these two adopted systems.

Facts/Background

Pork barrel system is a democratic way of apportioning government resources to allocate funds equally to every congressional district to be used for the residents‘ most urgent needs. It is anchored on the premise that elected officials representing these congressional districts know better on what their respective localities urgently need.

Various groups across the islands are uprising to totally abolish the pork barrel system, as a direct emotional effect; as to how their funds are spent by their then honorable and trusted elected representatives. As these groups further assert, legislators should better enact or review existing laws for the common good, being their primary task mandated by the constitution.

The systems evolved through various nicknames, for one it was called Countryside Development Fund to highlight its focus on the rural areas, and later called Priority Development Assistance Fund, in which through this nickname that many taxpaying Filipinos are at one side calling to abolish because they believe that this "fattening system" is self-serving to many of the government officials of this country; who supposedly will work for the people and carryout the citizens‘ general will.

Last October 16, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) asked the Supreme Court to stop the release of funds from the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) and declare it as unconstitutional.

With reports from the Philippine Daily Inquirer, petitioner said in its 24-page petition for prohibition, through IBP counsel, former University of the Philippines Law Dean Pacifico Agabin, "unless restrained, the taxpayers will suffer irreparable injury because the money they have paid to the government was illegally utilized."

The IBP said its disbursement is not only grave abuse of discretion but can even be considered a criminal act—it is technical malversation under the Revised Penal Code.

Petitioner explained that the Constitution limited the power of the executive department as a disbursing authority by releasing only funds that are listed in appropriation law passed by Congress.

They further asserted that DAP was never mentioned in the 2011, 2012 and 2013‘s General Appropriations Act. It was also pointed out that even Budget Secretary Florencio Abad admitted the DAP was not in the GAA.

Issues

The growing clamor of the Filipino taxpayers revolves on these two common issues: (1) Whether or not Pork Barrel, and all sorts, shall be abolished; and (2) Whether or not the Disbursement Acceleration Program initiated by the Aquino administration is within the bounds of the Philippine Constitution.

[Sound] Decision

To prevent abuse, aside from the already instituted safeguard policies and procedural requisites for fund releases, the government shall initiate reforms to cure the controversies that the current system had created. For instance, taxpayers/citizens through a series of dialogues and consultations shall be given the opportunity to discuss the extent and limitations on the disbursement and uses of the pork barrel, including the project/program monitoring and auditing procedures and the corresponding liability accountable to government agency or official who fails to perform the functions expected in them. An independent-third party evaluator shall be utilized to work together with the Commission on Audit and review the programs and projects implemented under this system.

The Philippine Institute of Certified Public Accountants can be tapped to act as third party audit monitoring team as part of their social services program, or through a network of accountancy students associations or organizations in the Philippines, with the help of their respective university or college advisers, as part of their extension services.

Amidst this controversy, The author of this agrees that the main job of our legislators is to make laws and review these laws to address the needs of this country‘s present condition, not to build roads, school houses and medical clinics, or feed orphans, grant scholarships, or distribute fertilizers and swine as these things are the primary tasks assigned to the executive.

However, let‘s take a second look at this issue; legislators are not the ones who implement and closely monitor the implementation of these projects. Their tasks are to identify programs and projects that their share in the pork may be channeled. It is the DBM that certifies the allocation of budget to a particular implementing agency – most likely under the executive department. It is in this context that technically the program and project implementation still lie within the executive department, not to legislatures. In this issue, the author of this believes that the call to abolish the pork barrel system is an act of oversimplifying the issue. Taxpayers are advised to take part in decision-making process on up to what extent that these discretionary funds shall be given to whom and in the monitoring process of future programs and projects that may be implemented.

On the issue of the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), Department of Budget and Management says, in a statement posted on its official website, "it is a stimulus package under the Aquino administration designed to fast-track public spending and push economic growth. This covers high-impact budgetary programs and projects which will be augmented out of the savings generated during the year and additional revenue sources."

DBM stresses that DAP was conceptualized in September 2011 and introduced in October 2011. Further it says, "funds used for programs and projects identified through DAP, the DMB were sourced from savings generated by the government, the realignment of which is [then] subject[ed] to the approval of the President; as well as the Unprogrammed Fund that can be tapped when government has windfall revenue collections, e.g., unexpected remittance of dividends from the GOCCs and Government Financial Institutions (GFIs), sale of government assets."

This creative and noble intention of the Aquino administration is, of course, appreciated by the author of this. However, no matter how creative and noble our intentions are, there are procedures that govern the processes of their implementation that need to be followed. It shall be noted that when DAP was conceptualized and implemented, the fiscal year was not yet over. Hence, it is so premature to declare the existence of savings by that time. Funds coming-in to the government from any sources expected or not, shall be properly accounted against government expenditures by the end of the fiscal year. Later it will be accumulated to the government funds and form part of its revenue, and the disbursement depends on the Congress‘ approval.

The constitution reserves the power of the purse to the Philippine Congress. A better communication between these two branches is necessary, where the executive may lay down the dynamics of the program subject to legislatures‘ approval. In this case, the legitimacy of the program shall be freed from questions and doubts.

Pareo: While the constitution gives the power to the Honorable Supreme Court to decide on the constitutionality of the policy and program that are implemented, such as this Disbursement Acceleration Program, the author of this respects the authority vested by the constitution to the Honorable Court; and whatever decision, and orders that the highest tribunal may promulgate relating to this controversy.