Our latest stories
THERE ARE clear winners, as there are clear losers, in terms of provinces and congressional districts and project types, in the distribution of over P11 billion in tax money under the controversy-ridden Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP).
IT WAS supposed to speed up the disbursement of state monies for high-impact projects that have been badly needed by the people. Yet while there are government agencies that offer glowing reports on the status of the projects assigned to them with funding from the controversial Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), several admit to pale to poor performance when it comes to implementing DAP projects.
IN ITS 2012 Annual Financial Report for National Government, the Commission on Audit (COA) said regular appropriation for programmed activities of the departments and agencies of the national government amounted to P868.92 billion.
The amount includes P11.28 billion in SAGF (Special Account in the General Fund) for specific programs provided in the Special Provisions of the General Appropriations Act or GAA. The total available allocation left was P857.64 billion that was supported by funds from two sources.
THE GOOD, the bad, and the dead combine, in terms of projects and activities, under the Aquino administration’s Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), which is now wreaking havoc on relations between institutions, as well as between the government and the citizens.
Put aside the lack of transparency in details about which legislators and local officials pushed what projects, where, and for how much, under the “various priority local projects” funded by billions of DAP pesos. To date, the pace, quality, and impact of project implementation under DAP is a quizzical record.
“Good intentions are not good enough.”
That, according to Public Works and Highways Secretary Rogelio ‘Babes’ Singson, is the lesson from the sorry episode that was the Disbursement Acceleration Program or DAP.
The Supreme Court on July 1 voted 13-0 to declare DAP unconstitutional in part because of the amounts that crossed over to other branches of government, the withdrawal of funding for items enrolled in the national budget, and the transfer of funding to items not enrolled in the national budget.