Powder keg issue

In ruling to outlaw the Priority Development Assistance Fund, or PDAF, in 2013 and declaring the Disbursement Acceleration Program, or DAP, in 2014 as unconstitutional, the Supreme Court put its foot down on discretionary funds in the budget.

The PDAF was the legislative pork barrel, while the DAP was considered the President’s lump sum.

The High Tribunal stood firm on the twin decisions despite recriminations from the Executive and Legislative branches.

The Palace, in response to the decision on the DAP, claimed the program was not entirely rejected as the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional only certain acts creating it.

In the SC decision, the following were found in violation of the Constitutional provisions:

* The withdrawal of unobligated allotments from the implementing agencies and the declaration of the withdrawn unobligated allocations and unreleased appropriations as savings before the end of the fiscal year and without complying with the statutory definition of savings contained in the General Appropriations Act;

* Cross-border transfers of savings of the executive branch to offices outside the executive branch and

* Funding of projects, activities, and programs not covered by appropriations in the General Appropriations Act.

The court also declared the use of unprogrammed funds void despite the absence of a certification by the National Treasurer that the revenue collections exceeded the revenue targets or were noncompliant with the conditions provided in the relevant General Appropriations Act.

Notably, several unprogrammed funds have been found in the 2024 national budget.

The SC ruling came amid a massive public clamor during the term of the late President Noynoy

Aquino to end all lump-sum items in the budget.

Aquino also defended the PDAF as necessary, saying that the illegal use of it, which was the subject of the pork barrel scam exposed in a Commission on Audit Special Report, was isolated.

The twin SC decisions ignited a countermeasure as Congress and the Palace threatened a probe into the Judiciary Development Fund or JDF.

The JDF probe was based on a claim that the fund lacked transparency and was not different from any pork barrel or lump sum fund.

The JDF, however, has long been held as part of the autonomy exercised by the SC and thus was left to the Justices to manage judiciously.

The JDF is estimated to be around P5 billion yearly. The Aquino camp had demanded that SC return some P500 million to the national treasury, saying that the increase in judges’ salaries in 2012 had already inputted the amount.

The Palace was suspected of having supported the House offensive against the SC since the High Tribunal’s DAP ruling did not in any way affect the business of the legislature, and the SC only followed its line against the abuse of lump sum items in its decision junking the PDAF.

The JDF had always been the first to be subjected to threats from the Palace or its allies in Congress whenever a quarrel with the Judiciary erupted.

The misuse of the JDF was also one of eight articles of impeachment raised against the late Chief Justice Renato Corona in the Senate court trial.

The DAP was believed to have been used to persuade the senator-judges to convict Corona.

A Commission on Audit review of the 2010 JDF, however, cleared Corona of any irregularity.

In its audit findings on how the High Court spent the 2010 JDF collection, CoA belied claims by 188 complainantcongressmen that Corona had prevented state auditors from examining how the JDF was disbursed and misused.

Earlier, the House allies sought impeachment cases against SC justices for the most obscure reasons, including their ruling against the constitutionality of the PDAF.

The pork barrel, then and now, is a divisive issue that always drives a wedge between the government’s three branches.

“Aquino also defended the PDAF as necessary, saying its illegal use that was the subject of the pork barrel scam exposed in a Commission on Audit Special Report, was isolated.

“The PDAF was the legislative pork barrel, while the DAP was considered the President’s lump sum.