In defense of DAP and PNoy’s lump sum (1)

28 October 2013

There are various reasons being advanced by the different groups and personalities opposing, and demanding, the abolition of the Disbursement Acceleration Program and the lump sums funds provided for in the GAA, as well those classified as non-budget funds.

Among the reasons advanced by those opposing the DAP and lump sum funds  are that they are unconstitutional  and illegal (at least for the DAP), discretionary  - therefore a source of corruption, un-equitable, as well as, subject to abuse - in the future - by a corrupt president.

I believe that our democratic way of life entitles every bonafide citizen to his/her own view over issues, and he/she is free – if so desired – to publicly express such view. Given this, I now indulge in such prerogative and express my own position - on the two issues - which incidentally are not consistent with the views of the anti-DAP and anti-lump sum crowd.

Despite this, however, I declare that I respect their views, with the hope that they likewise respect mine. And having stated this, I now present my various positions regarding the said issues:

On the constitutionality and legality of the DAP. As soon as the existence of the DAP was made known, the reason for the existence of the DAP was explained by the administration which to my understanding is as follows:

The government underspent during the FY 2011, and this detrimentally affected the country’s economic growth which – in terms of Gross Domestic Product - shrank to only 3.7% of GDP as compared to 7.6% of GDP the previous year -2010 (en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_thePhilippines). So, because of this, the government had to scramble to catch up by accelerating the implementation of projects in 2012 using the savings (i.e. the unspent project funds in the 2011 GAA).

In searching for substantiations and explanations, a check with the 2011 President’s Budget Message to the 15^th Congress, dated August 24, 2010 (http://www.dbm.gov.ph/ ?page_id=632), revealed that this first ever national budget submitted by President Noynoy to congress, which he termed a “Reform Budget” proposed that “To maximize the efficient use of our scarce resources…more stringent measures…be observed in the release of funds” so as to “…curb inefficiencies and corruption in the disbursement and utilization of public funds.”

The message went on to cite an example of a stringent measure which is “…a special provision… requiring the Department of Agriculture’s (DA) farm-to-market roads (FMRs), for construction by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) to be based on a network plan…[which] shall be supported by a construction design submitted by the DA.”

The President also appealed to the members of both chambers of Congress to be his “…mighty ally in instituting reforms” and “…to join [him] in putting an end to the wanton waste of… [the] people’s money.”

In the same message, he also underscored the need for the help of “…civil society, the academe, public servants and private individuals, to track government expenditures… [and that] he believe[s] that the responsibility to check where the funds go and how these are spent should not be left to the COA alone. [He says] we are all tasked with looking after the public welfare, and this includes prudence and accountability in the allocation and spending of public funds.”

The said 2011 Budget message also included an explanation that the proposed “Capital outlays… [was] decrease[d] by 5.7 percent…” or P12.8 billion as compared to that of 2010, and that this “…decrease in outlays can be mitigated by…efforts to attract public-private partnerships and improve the implementation of government capital projects.”

Interpreting (and extrapolating from) the information contained in the foregoing paragraphs, I formed at least two impressions, the first of which reflects the intense desire of the President to fight corruption as reflected in the mechanisms he installed in the budget, not only to check leakages but in harnessing also the participation of the various sectors of the society in monitoring the national budget.

The second impression is that it seems that the under-spending that caused the low economic growth in 2011 stemmed from not only the deliberate 5% reduction in that year’s Capital outlays. It seem to have been caused also by the (unintended) delay in the implementation of programmed capital projects due to factors like the new administration still in the early stage of their “learning curve” and therefore not yet up to par in the use of the governments systems, as well as the effect of the implementation of more stringent controls (to contain fund leaks and wastages), but which have stalled execution. There was also, I think, an over expectation of PPP projects which did not materialize.

Due to space limitations, the continuation of this article will follow as Part 2 in the next column. Meanwhile, comments/reactions will be appreciated and can be sent through this writer’s email (sl3.mekaniko @gmail.com) or this writer’s blog (http://mekaniko-sl3.blogspot.com).