PNoy: We will appeal the Supreme Court’s decision – explained DAP

History of DAP

President Benigno S. Aquino III said during his national address Monday, July 14, “We discovered that there were departments that were able to implement projects quickly and efficiently using the funds given them, because they immediately streamlined their system. There were also agencies that were in the process of examining their system, with an eye toward fixing flaws, to ensure that the people’s money wouldn’t be wasted. But, naturally, time didn’t stop as all this was going on; there were agencies that understood that they wouldn’t be able to use funds appropriated for the year toward projects for the people. So the question then was: What do we do with the funds we haven’t yet touched?”

“Is it not right that funds that had been otherwise left unused were utilized for programs that had proven effective, so that targets can be met and the benefits to the people can ensue at the soonest possible time? Another advantage of this system: Projects that were temporarily suspended for a given year would not have to compete for funding with the other finished projects in the following year. This is clearly a win-win situation.”

“Our aim is to not prolong the implementation of projects. The Cabinet agreed, regarding their respective funds: Use it or lose it. If you cannot use the funds allotted for this year, clearly, those are savings.”

“We are given the chance to extend, at the soonest possible time, those benefits that have immediate impact to our Bosses. In this way, benefits that may have been delayed are replaced by other benefits.

“Let us also remember that the government is at a deficit: We have to borrow funds for our projects. If we allow funds to go unused, then we would be paying interest for nothing. The people clearly have nothing to gain from this setup.”

DAP’s Unconstitutionality

“We were surprised to find that the Supreme Court decision did not take into account our legal basis for DAP. How can they say that our spending methods are unconstitutional when they did not look into our basis?”

“There are also those who say that DAP and PDAF are the same thing. Excuse me. DAP is different from PDAF. With PDAF, the corrupt funneled government funds into fake NGOs, money then allegedly divided among themselves. It’s clear that with DAP the people’s money was never stolen — the funds were used for the benefit of Filipinos. And not for later, not soon; but — now: Programs that could be implemented immediately were implemented immediately.”

“We will appeal the Supreme Court’s decision. We will do this by filing a Motion for Reconsideration, which will allow them to more fully and more conscientiously examine the law.”

“My message to the Supreme Court: We do not want two equal branches of government to go head to head, needing a third branch to step in to intervene. We find it difficult to understand your decision. You had done something similar in the past, and you tried to do it again; there are even those of the opinion that what you attempted to commit was far graver.”

“Our intentions, our processes, and the results were correct. Bosses, I promise you: I will not allow your suffering to be prolonged — especially if we could do what we can as early as now.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.