Massive scale corruption exposed/unfolding

[wowiesy]

may technical issue ata if a project runs for more than a year... kaya pilit ginawa ito. sa dotc din ganun din..

Posted via Tsikot Mobile App

[baludoy]

interesting read

DAP: What did the Supreme Court really say?

Gerry Geronimo

Published 3:43 PM, Jul 18, 2014
Updated 8:42 PM, Jul 19, 2014
(Part 1)

It is crucial for non-protagonists to listen carefully, and at least not to be deaf, to what the Supreme Court en banc decision really says about the DAP



With President Benigno Aquino III’s announcement on July 14 that the government will ask the Supreme Court to reconsider its July 1 decision en banc on the DAP (Disbursement Acceleration Program, i.e. Araullo, et al v. Aquino III, et al, G.R. 209287 and 8 other petitions), it is certain that the national disturbance called DAP will outstay typhoon Glenda which, by now is reported to be out of the PAR (Philippine Area of Responsibility).

It needs to be recalled that the Supreme Court promulgated its en banc DAP decision on the 9 consolidated petitions which were filed by various groups, mostly civic and non-governmental organizations, “within days of each other” (sic; words of the ponencia itself) only a little over 6 months after the Supreme Court had decided the PDAF (Priority Development Assistance Fund) cases of Belgica, et al v. Ochoa, et al, GR 208566, on November 11, 2013.

The PDAF and DAP cases essentially suits that question before the judiciary the legality of certain acts of the legislature and/or the executive concerning the payments of public monies.

DAP defined

The DAP petitions were filed after Senator Jinggoy Estrada (now in jail awaiting trial for having received PDAF kickbacks) revealed that some senators (himself included) had been allotted an additional P50 million ($1.15 million*) a couple of years back, by way of, according to him, “incentive” for voting in favor of the impeachment of Chief Justice Renato C. Corona.

Department of Budget and Management (DBM) Secretary Florencio Abad immediately responded with a public statement, contesting Estrada’s characterization of the motive behind the allocation, which benefitted those who voted for impeachment as well as those who voted against it, e.g. Joker Arroyo.

Abad claimed that on the contrary, “the funds released to the senators had been part of the DAP, a program designed by the DBM to ramp up spending to accelerate economic expansion.” That public debate, which was as noisy as backyard quarrels of housewives, on what the allocation was for “brought the DAP to the consciousness of the nation for the first time.”

The DAP, as it was embodied in Budget Circular No. 541 and related issuances of the DBM, was actually a response of the government to criticisms that it was not spending enough to spur the local economy onwards.

The World Bank itself had at that time warned in its quarterly update released in September 2011 that “the Philippines’ economic growth could be reduced, and potential growth could be weakened should the government continue with its underspending ....”

The government had justified its foot dragging by claiming the need to examine carefully the expenditures of the previous administration but nevertheless took the cue and since then had taken steps to increase its spending. Among those steps was the DAP.

It is to be noted that the World Bank, obviously as a result of the government’s increased spending through, among others, the DAP, had since then accordingly revised its views of the country’s steps to ensure its future.

In fact, the visiting World Bank President Jim Yong Kim personally announced the international organization’s intent to offer the country substantial concessional loans to keep the Philippines’ progress on course.

DAP as a 'national disturbance'

However, the DAP controversy had taken a life of its own, parented by polygamous political motivations and nursed undoubtedly by expressions of the pros and cons of the program in traditional mass and social media alike.

With the national disturbance called DAP currently still raging within the PAR, it is crucial for us non-protagonists to listen carefully, and at least not to be deaf, to what the Supreme Court en banc decision really said about the DAP, to be deft in sorting out the media’s statement of facts from the spin of those doing the reporting, and, with 2016 elections at hand, expose the daft who are obviously exploiting the bad weather for their selfish interests, selling needless and non-functional protective gear against the storm as well as passage through unstable make-shift planks over flood waters.

The Supreme Court clearly recognized that the DAP, as the P in its name stresses, is a program. It is not a single act or issuance, but a combination of many acts and several issuances.

Thus, it must be stressed that what the Supreme Court did was to declare questionable not all, but only some of acts and practices in the program.

The dispositive provision stresses this fact. It states that the decision only “PARTIALLY grants the petitions for certiorari and prohibition” brought before it.” Partial, not total.

The decision declared as “UNCONSTITUTIONAL”, only 3 kinds of “acts and practices” in the program and ruled as “VOID” only one kind. (The capitalization and block of “PARTIALLY,” UNCONSTITUTIONAL,” and “VOID” are the Supreme Court’s, not mine.) – Rappler.com

To be continued

Reynaldo "Gerry" Geronimo is a partner at the Romulo, Mabanta, Buenaventura Sayoc & De los Angeles law office. He is known as The Trust Guru and maintains a website, theTRUSTGURU - Philippines Trust Expert | Filipino Estates and Tax Planning | Keynote Speaker | Trust and Estates Advocate and Mentor | Lecturer and Consultant on Trust and Estates| Asset Management and Portfolio Management Expert.

DAP: What did the Supreme Court really say?

[baludoy]

another insightful read from a straight shooter

What Economic Impact did the DAP Have?


16 Jul 2014 Written by John Mangun

DISCUSSIONS about the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) seem to come down to three issues: its constitutionality; the “good faith” involved in its implementation and funding; and its economic benefits.

Those discussions, however, mainly focus on the first two issues. President Aquino and Budget Secretary Florencio B. Abad have defended the program in the face of intense criticism by emphasizing its benefits. While the President, in his nationally televised address on Monday, gave specific examples of how certain individuals had benefited from the DAP, Abad qualified, if not quantified, the economic gains from the program.

A GMAnetwork.com report posted on July 15 said: “Abad said the DAP was vital in the country’s economic performance, as the Philippines’s gross domestic product spiked after [the] DAP’s implementation.” It added: “The economic growth then was 3.6 percent GDP [gross domestic product], but after we did that, GDP went up 6 percent [in] 2013 and 7.2 percent in 2014,’ he said.”

The Department of Budget and Management released, also on Monday, a detailed list of the projects funded by the DAP. There are 116 listed, although a few were not funded. A brief look at these projects seems to show that the money was spent for mostly noble and important purposes. Money was made available to hire 15,000 non-uniformed personnel for the Philippine National Police. School infrastructure were built. A Philippine tourism media campaign received funding.

The P30 billion used to increase the capitalization of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) might merit my personal objection, which lies more in what I feel about central banks in general and less in anything specific about either the BSP or the DAP.

There are many other people who are going to scrutinize the 116 items on the list better than any team from the Commission on Audit could, but what has captured my interest is Abad’s statement on the economic impact of the DAP. While not quantifying how much the DAP contributed to the increase in the country’s GDP from 3.6 percent to 6 percent in a couple of years, we do know these numbers: The DAP accounted for about P120 billion (P150 billion minus P20 billion for the BSP) in directed spending. Total GDP was about P10 trillion in 2011, the year of 3.6-percent GDP growth. At the end of 2013, total GDP was about P12 trillion. Therefore, the economic benefits of the government spending P120 billion seems to have helped add P2 trillion to the total output of the Philippine economy, according to the Aquino administration.

Obviously we cannot measure how much of the P2-trillion increase was due to the P120 billion of the DAP. But if GDP was even 10 percent higher in two years because of DAP spending, then this may be the most successful government-spending stimulus program in history.

But this raises a question, considering that the government is supposed to spend and has budgeted P400 billion in 2014 for infrastructure alone: If the Aquino administration’s assessment of the economic impact of the DAP is valid, then why didn’t we see the same results in GDP growth from “normal” government spending?

The political issues are not the concern of this discussion. Ignore the legality of the DAP for a moment and assume that the money was spent properly, even if that is a big leap, considering that it was government spending.

The President is the chief executive officer (CEO) of the government and is in charge of its spending. In a private corporation, a CEO could make spending adjustments, even on a quarterly basis, and it might be prudent and financially successful.

Is this what happened with the DAP, or is this too far-fetched to be believed? I don’t know, but it is interesting to think about it.



E-mail me at mangun*gmail.com. Visit my website at Welcome To Mangun on Markets | Mangun on Markets. Follow me on Twitter at *mangunonmarkets. PSE stock-market information and technical analysis tools provided by the COL Financial Group Inc.

http://businessmirror.com.ph/index.p...d-the-dap-have

[A121]

A question DAP is how do "needy" agencies tap these so-called "savings"?
Does it go through the same budgeting process?
I think "good faith" can be equivalent to how much good *ss kissing is needed to access these funds.

[Ry_Tower]

Ah wala, ibalik daw DAP sabi nang makikitid utak. Sige singilin niyo mga ito.

PNP got more than P3-B from DAP | Headlines, News, The Philippine Star | philstar.com

Also, lalong gumaganda kuwento sa 3 nakakulong na sendor.

CA orders scrutiny of 3 senators' bank accounts | Headlines, News, The Philippine Star | philstar.com

[lowslowbenz]

Binay looks sick.

I mean really sick.

[macsd]

ABNOY, ipako mo ang yellow ribbon mo sa bumbunan mo at ikaw lang yata ang sumusunod sa kalokohan mong ito. As they use to say before:

1983 : Ninoy , hindi ka nagiisa.

2014 : Noynoy, hindi ka nagiisip!

[Balikpinoy]

http://www.rappler.com/thought-leade...le-martial-law

Let's not forget who the real enemy is.


Posted via Tsikot Mobile App

[shadow]

Pnot admin is hinging on Cory's Presidential Decree for the creation of DAP and SC deemed it's unconstitutional since constitution trumps PD...

eh bakit yun JDF, it was also created through Marcos's PD, eh bakit yun hinde unconstitutional? was also not pass through congress...so pag sa kanila walang problema pero sa iba unconstitutional?

[ClaNker]

Blank monday protest daw ang SC. Tangn* nyo daming hoodlums in robe sa judiciary, tangal na rin yang JDF nyo. Itemize nyo lahat ng pagkakagastosan nyo bago kayo mag request ng pondo.