Gov’t bid to defer oral arguments on DAP opposed

MANILA, Philippines - Former Iloilo Rep. Augusto Syjuco yesterday opposed the government’s bid to postpone anew the continuation of the oral arguments on petitions questioning the constitutionality of President Aquino’s discretionary funds known as the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP).

In a 23-page comment, Syjuco said there is no basis for the Supreme Court (SC) to grant the request of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) for the postponement of the second round of debate from Jan. 28 to March 25.

He said the SC should not buy the OSG’s excuse that its collaborating counsel, retired SC Justice Vicente Mendoza, would not be ready by next week to defend the DAP.

Syjuco pointed out that Mendoza has entered his appearance one month before the scheduled oral argument.

The one-month period, Syjuco stressed, is enough for the retired justice to familiarize himself with the issues and facts surrounding the case.

“With all due respect for retired Justice Mendoza, I believe that he is a competent and proficient lawyer. A month of preparation and study is an adequate period of time in order for him to intelligently and competently defend his clients,” Syjuco said.

He added that the claim of the OSG that their new counsel needs more time to prepare for the case is “hearsay.”

He also said the new counsel should be the one to manifest before the SC that he should be given more time to prepare for the case.

“The OSG is incompetent to claim this matter. This is a matter to be claimed and declared personally by retired Justice Mendoza and not the OSG,” Syjuco stressed.

He also alleged that the Palace is just trying to buy time in order to secure enough votes to favor DAP. 

“The frequent postponements and delays in the proceedings of this case appear to be another masterful work of ‘walkers.’ It is said by many that the necessary number of votes favoring the DAP is not yet secured. The ‘walkers’ are still working on their mission of ‘conversion’ and they need more time to complete it,” he claimed.

Syjuco defined the so-called “walkers” as unscrupulous persons who may or may not be officially involved in the operation of government offices or agencies, but “facilitate speedy completion of transactions for pecuniary gain or any other advantage or consideration.”

The OSG is representing Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa Jr. and Budget Secretary Florencio Abad in the case.

In its motion filed last week, the OSG told the high court that the government would not be ready with its defense of the assailed funds by next week as it has tapped the services of Mendoza as collaborating counsel in the case.

The OSG said Mendoza “needs additional time to review the documents to be submitted by the DBM (Department of Budget and Management) to prepare for the oral arguments.”

Apart from resetting of the oral argument, the OSG also sought more time to comply with the high court’s order for the DBM to submit “on or before Jan. 21, 2014 a list of the sources of funds brought under the DAP, the uses of such funds pursuant to DAP per project or activity and the legal bases thereof.”

The OSG wanted the court to give them until March 18 to comply with the order as the DBM has been busy preparing for the 2014 national budget  and contributing to the “unified effort to provide immediate relief and rehabilitation to the affected areas in the aftermath of Typhoon Yolanda.”

Syjuco also opposed this.

He branded as “incredible, ridiculous and absurd” the claim of the DBM that it has not yet fully completed their listing of sources of funds and disbursements of these funds under the DAP because they were busy preparing for the 2014 budget and rehabilitation plans for the calamity-stricken areas.

He added that Abad had claimed that he has the complete record of the sources of funds and funds disbursements of the DAP and assured the court  that he would submit this record before the Dec. 10, 2013 scheduled oral arguments.

“Moreover, the recording of funds sourcing and disbursements is the main function of the DBM. This act of recording is one of the basic purpose of the DBM. This means that the DBM has a complete and ready record of the DAP allocations at any given day,” Syjuco insisted.

“There is no need for a substantial period of time for its preparation. This is a matter of record,” he added.

The SC had reset the schedule of oral arguments several times since its original date on Oct. 22, 2013.

From Oct. 22, the SC decided to move the first oral argument on the petitions on Nov. 11, 2013. Later, the Court postponed anew the oral argument to Nov. 19, 2013.

The Nov. 19 arguments proceeded and the petitioners orally presented their case.

Subsequently, the SC issued an order continuing the oral arguments on Dec. 10, 2013 in which the respondents were ordered to present and orally argue their defense.

The Dec. 10 oral arguments were again cancelled and moved to Jan. 28, 2014.

The court ordered the transfer and postponement after resolving the motion filed by respondents House of Representatives and Senate that they intend to engage the services of their own counsel other than the OSG.