SC rules on PDAF constitutionality today

MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court (SC) is set to rule today on the legality of the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF).

A member of the high court, who asked not to be identified, said yesterday they are expected to decide on three petitions questioning the controversial discretionary fund of Congress in their regular session.

The petitions filed by losing senatorial candidates Greco Belgica and Samson Alcantara and former Boac, Marinduque mayor Pedrito Nepomuceno are included in the SC agenda and have been submitted for deliberations, he told The STAR.

The source revealed that a draft decision had already been distributed to them and they might vote on it today.

He said the justice-in-charge of the case submitted the opinion that the PDAF is unconstitutional, but did not reveal the grounds that they have yet to discuss in session.

Several justices have come up with concurring opinions, he added.

The magistrate, however, clarified a report from another newspaper that the SC was collegially poised to declare PDAF illegal.

“We have not deliberated on the draft yet. You really cannot conclude until the voting is done. That (report) is actually preemptive of the court’s decision,” the source stressed.

Petitioners faced off with government lawyers in oral arguments on Oct. 8 and 10. In the debate, Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio was quoted as saying the “provision on PDAF (in the General Appropriations Act of 2013) is riddled with unconstitutionality.”

The high court issued last September a temporary restraining order enjoining the Palace from releasing the remaining P24.79-billion PDAF for this year.

Petitioners argued that the system on discretionary funds of both Congress and Palace “violates the constitutional limits given to the executive and the legislative because they are able to spend money beyond what is approved by Congress since these are lump sum funds.”

The Office of Solicitor General (OSG), on the other hand, stressed that the SC already upheld the constitutionality of the PDAF system in previous cases, including LAMP vs Department of Budget and Management.

While it admitted that there are “problems of implementation” in the PDAF system – referring to reported abuses and scams – the OSG argued that the issue should be resolved by a “political solution.”

Gov’t, DAP critics face off

Meanwhile, the government and critics of the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) will face off today in the oral arguments before the SC on the legality of Aquino’s controversial discretionary fund.

This developed as Justice Secretary Leila de Lima called on the high court to be “judicious” in deciding on the bid of nine petitioners for issuance of a TRO that she said could limit the Palace’s resources to effectively respond to the needs of areas devastated by Super Typhoon Yolanda.

De Lima said she hopes the high court would not issue the TRO, considering proposals for the Palace to use DAP funds to augment relief operations in areas devastated by Yolanda or in provinces hit by earthquake last month.

“The major crisis that the national government now faces in the aftermath of Yolanda is a matter of judicial notice,” she stressed.

In the oral arguments at 2 p.m., petitioners will be represented by former University of the Philippines law dean Pacifico Agabin, Philippine Constitution Association chair Manuel Lazaro, Bayan Muna Rep. Carlos Zarate and lawyers Roger Rayel, Manuelito Luna and Raymond Fortun.

They will argue on six major issues laid down by the high court in its guidelines last week. The justices will then interpellate each counsel.

Solicitor General Francis Jardeleza and other government counsels will take the podium after the presentation of petitioners’ arguments and answer the allegations of petitioners.

On the technical aspect, the SC directed parties to resolve if there is a controversy ripe for judicial determination, if petitioners have legal standing to question DAP and whether certiorari, prohibition and mandamus are proper remedies to assail the constitutionality and validity of the DAP.

As to the substantive issues, the high court also wanted the debate to settle whether or not the DAP violates Article VI Section 29 of the Constitution, which provides that “no money shall be paid out of the treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law.”

Petitioners and respondents should also resolve if the use of unreleased appropriations and allotments withdrawn from government agencies as “saving” violates Article VI Section 25 (5) of the 1987 Constitution, which requires a law in transferring appropriations from one government branch to another.

The SC also ordered parties to tackle the alleged “violation of equal protection clause, the system of checks and balances and the principle of public accountability enshrined in the Constitution considering that it authorizes the release of funds upon the request of legislators.”

The SC told parties to resolve whether or not factual and legal justification exists to issue a TRO on the DAP implementation.

The petitioners against DAP alleged that the discretionary fund of the President violates the exclusive power of Congress to appropriate funds – just like in PDAF.

The respondents in the case – Office of the President, DBM and the Senate and House of Representatives – have asked the SC to dismiss all petitions for lack of merit.

They argued there was “no genuine question of law, only error in petitioners’ appreciation of the facts” and that critics could have just conducted “reasonable inquiry and reading of publicly available information.”