8/13/2019 DAP vs PDAF

1/2

The main issue on the Disbursement Acceleration Program(DAP) concerns

question on constitutionality, the main issue on the Priority development

assistance fund(PDAF) concern the crime of plunder

Economist felipe medalla pointed out in a recent speech before the Philippine

Chamber of Commerce and Industry. IN this Inquirer column, Fr. Joaquin Bernas

similarly asserts: the accusation against DAP is constitutional extravagance inthe use of public money. The accusation against Janet Lim- Napoles ( the central

figure in the PDAF scandal) Is criminal extravagance and corruption of the not-

so-innocent.

To paraphrase, the DAP issue is about the executive exceeding the bounds o fits;

power the PDAF issue is about private individuals and public officials stealing

the peoples money. It is a question of constitutionality vs. criminality.This distinction must be made clear, Medalla asserts, lest the former issue be

used to unduly muddle the latter and deflect attention from the need to identifyand punish the plunderers. There has indeed been a tendency in recent public

discussions to seemingly take both in the same light. To be sure, there is a bit of

interface between the two, with suspicions that some DAP funds had gone the

way of the PDAF scams modus operandi- that is, via fictitious project by bogus

nongovernment organizations. But the DAP came about to address a clear and

urgent need, and for the most part yielded the desired effects on the economy as

a whole.

BRIEF HISTORY ON WHY

Two years ago, the government was roundly criticized for causing an economic

slowdown. Upon assumption into office in the third quarter of 2010, the Aquinoadministration applied the brakes on government spending, particularly on

infrastructure. At first, it was because it had little choice; the President lamented

how his predecessor had already spent most of the budget allotted for the entire

year, ( INSERT SONA VIDEO 2010 regarding PNOY on BUDGET) In the following

year, the spending cutback continued, this time because government, in its push

for matuwid na daan,worked to improve the quality of public expenditures andstop erstwhile massive corruption leakages. As explained by Budget Secretary

Florencio Abad, government decided to cancel projects embarked on by the

previous leadership that were found wanting in economic viability and

credibility. Meanwhile, Public Works Secretary Rogelio Singson was pluggingloopholes in his departments procurementand bidding systems, slowing

implementation of programmed infrastructure projects in the process

For five consecutive quarters, beginning when President Aquino assumed the

reins of government, public construction dropped consistently by as much as

58.6 percent on year in one quarter. The economy grew by only 3.9 percent in

2011, down from a hefty 7.3 percent in 2010. The project cancellations earned

for government the displeasure of, even legal action from, donor agencies. The

resulting growth slowdown drew severe criticism from business and other

economy watchers.

8/13/2019 DAP vs PDAF

2/2

It was in this context that the Development Budget Coordinating

committee(DBCC), chaired by Abad and composed of governments keyeconomic managers, saw urgency in accelerating government disbursement to

reverse the slowdown. Thus was the DAP born. In October 2011, the DBCC be

supported under DAP: (1) Fast-moving or quick-disbursing (2) urgent or high

priority in terms of social and economic development objectives; and (3) wellperforming programs or projects that could further expand benefits to the public

with additional funds. Based on Department of Budget and Management data,

among the initiatives that received major funding were health insurance for

indigent families, education and training assistance for students from the

poorest of the poor families, rural farm infrastructure, upgrading of hospitals,

rehabilitation of the mass rail transit systems, and disaster prevention and

mitigation. All told, P72.1 billion was reported to have been released under the

DAP in 2011 and P54.8 billion in 2012.

Economic data indicate that the hiked spending achieved its professed goal or

reigniting economic growth. By late 2011, public construction had reversed five

quarters of decline, and grew by 36.4 percent year-on-year. By the first half of

2012, it had grown by 53 percent. It appears that in the effort to reverse the

previous years self-inuced overall economic slowdown, the government front-

loaded infrastructure spending in 2012, with public construction growth

modertating to 12.4 percent by the second half. From the subdued 3.9-percent

GDP growth in 2011, the overall economy surged by 6.8 percent in 2012,

building a momentum that has led it to further up to 7.6 percent this year (2013)

so far. With a zooming 36.2 Percent growth in this first half this year, public

construction continues to be a key driver of the economys overall growth.

Were all of the DAP funds spent well? Probably not; even the most determined

government couldnt stop graft and corruption 100 percent. Were the DAPreleases used to bribe or reward favored legislators? Abad insists and offers

proof that DAP releases did not discriminate among the law makers, whose

involvement was limited to

9 percent of the DAP releases, with amounts released directly to concerened

implementing agencies. Did the executive branch overstep its constitutional

bounds in allocating the funds for specific projects? I will leave it to the lawyers

to explain that. What I know is that the Philippine economy is now the faster-

growing economy in asia, thaks in large part to the DAP.