The DAP story started 26 months ago supposedly as “a fiscal stimulus measure” designed to shore up public spending and boost economic growth. The Department of Budget and Management has conceived it to bankroll supposedly fast-disbursing, high-impact, and socially responsive projects.
But through it all, according to Cabinet secretary, DAP offers public officials a singular lesson: “Good intentions are not good enough.”
In truth, until a fortnight ago, DAP was a concept not quite clear to even some Cabinet members themselves.
What apparently started as a mere budget management tool soon evolved into “a big pool of funds” or a virtual special purpose fund that did not exist as a line item in the General Appropriations Acts for 2011, 2012, and 2013.
Under DAP, the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) released a supposed total of P144.38 billion in taxpayers’ money for supposedly 116 projects from October 2011 to December 2013.
DBM itself could not seem to get its numbers right, however. Various official DBM statements place the DAP funds that had been disbursed to be anywhere from P136 billion to P144 billion to P149 billion, for a significant variance of P5 billion to P13 billion.
In truth, DBM’s list of “DAP-funded projects” is a virtual smorgasbord of specific projects to be implemented by single agencies allotted relatively smaller amounts, as well as unspecified “various priority local projects” or “various priority infrastructure projects” given billions of DAP pesos.
Two to four agencies were assigned to implement the latter through transfers or sub-allotment of funds covered by a web of inter-agency memoranda of agreement. In these cases, accountability for fund spending and project implementation had been shared, and thus diffused, among the agencies.
This vague category of DAP “projects” include those that DBM said had been “requested by legislators, local officials, and national agencies.”
But 10 months after the DAP row broke in September 2013, DBM has yet to disclose the full details of which lawmaker or agency had proposed what types of projects, where, and for how much, with lump-sum fund cover under DAP.
The saga or DAP lingers on, however, as the Senate is poised to hold a public hearing starting tomorrow, even as the Executive branch has filed a motion for reconsideration of the Supreme Court's 13-0 decision declaring DAP unconstitutional in part..
The DAP story started 26 months ago supposedly as “a fiscal stimulus measure” designed to shore up public spending and boost economic growth. The Department of Budget and Management has conceived it to bankroll supposedly fast-disbursing, high-impact, and socially responsive projects.
But through it all, according to Cabinet secretary, DAP offers public officials a singular lesson: “Good intentions are not good enough.”
In truth, until a fortnight ago, DAP was a concept not quite clear to even some Cabinet members themselves.
What apparently started as a mere budget management tool soon evolved into “a big pool of funds” or a virtual special purpose fund that did not exist as a line item in the General Appropriations Acts for 2011, 2012, and 2013.
Under DAP, the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) released a supposed total of P144.38 billion in taxpayers’ money for supposedly 116 projects from October 2011 to December 2013.
DBM itself could not seem to get its numbers right, however. Various official DBM statements place the DAP funds that had been disbursed to be anywhere from P136 billion to P144 billion to P149 billion, for a significant variance of P5 billion to P13 billion.
In truth, DBM’s list of “DAP-funded projects” is a virtual smorgasbord of specific projects to be implemented by single agencies allotted relatively smaller amounts, as well as unspecified “various priority local projects” or “various priority infrastructure projects” given billions of DAP pesos.
Two to four agencies were assigned to implement the latter through transfers or sub-allotment of funds covered by a web of inter-agency memoranda of agreement. In these cases, accountability for fund spending and project implementation had been shared, and thus diffused, among the agencies.
This vague category of DAP “projects” include those that DBM said had been “requested by legislators, local officials, and national agencies.”
But 10 months after the DAP row broke in September 2013, DBM has yet to disclose the full details of which lawmaker or agency had proposed what types of projects, where, and for how much, with lump-sum fund cover under DAP.
The saga or DAP lingers on, however, as the Senate is poised to hold a public hearing starting tomorrow, even as the Executive branch has filed a motion for reconsideration of the Supreme Court's 13-0 decision declaring DAP unconstitutional in part..
The DAP story started 26 months ago supposedly as “a fiscal stimulus measure” designed to shore up public spending and boost economic growth. The Department of Budget and Management has conceived it to bankroll supposedly fast-disbursing, high-impact, and socially responsive projects.
But through it all, according to Cabinet secretary, DAP offers public officials a singular lesson: “Good intentions are not good enough.”
In truth, until a fortnight ago, DAP was a concept not quite clear to even some Cabinet members themselves.
What apparently started as a mere budget management tool soon evolved into “a big pool of funds” or a virtual special purpose fund that did not exist as a line item in the General Appropriations Acts for 2011, 2012, and 2013.
Under DAP, the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) released a supposed total of P144.38 billion in taxpayers’ money for supposedly 116 projects from October 2011 to December 2013.
DBM itself could not seem to get its numbers right, however. Various official DBM statements place the DAP funds that had been disbursed to be anywhere from P136 billion to P144 billion to P149 billion, for a significant variance of P5 billion to P13 billion.
In truth, DBM’s list of “DAP-funded projects” is a virtual smorgasbord of specific projects to be implemented by single agencies allotted relatively smaller amounts, as well as unspecified “various priority local projects” or “various priority infrastructure projects” given billions of DAP pesos.
Two to four agencies were assigned to implement the latter through transfers or sub-allotment of funds covered by a web of inter-agency memoranda of agreement. In these cases, accountability for fund spending and project implementation had been shared, and thus diffused, among the agencies.
This vague category of DAP “projects” include those that DBM said had been “requested by legislators, local officials, and national agencies.”
But 10 months after the DAP row broke in September 2013, DBM has yet to disclose the full details of which lawmaker or agency had proposed what types of projects, where, and for how much, with lump-sum fund cover under DAP.
The saga or DAP lingers on, however, as the Senate is poised to hold a public hearing starting tomorrow, even as the Executive branch has filed a motion for reconsideration of the Supreme Court's 13-0 decision declaring DAP unconstitutional in part..
The DAP story started 26 months ago supposedly as “a fiscal stimulus measure” designed to shore up public spending and boost economic growth. The Department of Budget and Management has conceived it to bankroll supposedly fast-disbursing, high-impact, and socially responsive projects.
But through it all, according to Cabinet secretary, DAP offers public officials a singular lesson: “Good intentions are not good enough.”
In truth, until a fortnight ago, DAP was a concept not quite clear to even some Cabinet members themselves.
What apparently started as a mere budget management tool soon evolved into “a big pool of funds” or a virtual special purpose fund that did not exist as a line item in the General Appropriations Acts for 2011, 2012, and 2013.
Under DAP, the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) released a supposed total of P144.38 billion in taxpayers’ money for supposedly 116 projects from October 2011 to December 2013.
DBM itself could not seem to get its numbers right, however. Various official DBM statements place the DAP funds that had been disbursed to be anywhere from P136 billion to P144 billion to P149 billion, for a significant variance of P5 billion to P13 billion.
In truth, DBM’s list of “DAP-funded projects” is a virtual smorgasbord of specific projects to be implemented by single agencies allotted relatively smaller amounts, as well as unspecified “various priority local projects” or “various priority infrastructure projects” given billions of DAP pesos.
Two to four agencies were assigned to implement the latter through transfers or sub-allotment of funds covered by a web of inter-agency memoranda of agreement. In these cases, accountability for fund spending and project implementation had been shared, and thus diffused, among the agencies.
This vague category of DAP “projects” include those that DBM said had been “requested by legislators, local officials, and national agencies.”
But 10 months after the DAP row broke in September 2013, DBM has yet to disclose the full details of which lawmaker or agency had proposed what types of projects, where, and for how much, with lump-sum fund cover under DAP.
The saga or DAP lingers on, however, as the Senate is poised to hold a public hearing starting tomorrow, even as the Executive branch has filed a motion for reconsideration of the Supreme Court's 13-0 decision declaring DAP unconstitutional in part..
DAP Projects: By Recipient Agency/ies Recipient Agency/Agencies AIIotment ReIease (PhP) Legislators, local government officials, and national agencies P 17,310,194,000.00 Department of Public Works and Highways 13,624,047,000.00 National Housing Authority 11,050,000,000.00 Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao 8,389,954,000.00 Local Government Units 6,499,100,000.00 Department of Public Works and Highways, Department of Tourism 5,000,000,000.00 Government-Owned and -Controlled Corporation, Department of Public Works and Highways, Local Government Units 4,459,881,000.00 Commission on Higher Education 4,284,400,000.00 Department of Education 4,070,722,000.00 Department of Agriculture 3,968,590,000.00 Government Service nsurance System, Department of Education 3,461,685,000.00 Philippine National Police 2,976,261,000.00 Department of Finance, Bureau of Customs 2,799,611,000.00 Department of Science and Technology 2,325,000,000.00 Government-Owned and -Controlled Corporations 1,880,000,000.00 Light Rail Transit Authority 1,867,512,000.00 Office of the President 1,819,000,000.00 Philippine Health nsurance Corporation 1,496,103,000.00 National Government 1,332,768,000.00 Department of Agrarian Reform 1,292,953,000.00 National Electrification Administration 1,264,000,000.00 Technical Education and Skills Development Authority 1,100,000,000.00 Department of Tourism 975,260,000.00 Department of the nterior and Local Government 822,003,000.00 Department of Finance, Bureau of nternal Revenue 758,385,000.00 Province of Quezon 750,000,000.00 Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process, Department of National Defense-Armed Forces of the Philippines, Department of Public Works and Highways, Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao 656,700,000.00 Philippine Postal Corporation 644,000,000.00 Department of Budget and Management, National Statistics Office 605,077,000.00 Department of Labor and Employment, Technical Education and Skills Development Authority 500,000,000.00 National rrigation Administration 450,000,000.00 Department of Public Works and Highways, Metropolitan Manila Development Authority 449,974,000.00 Philippine Heart Center 357,000,000.00 Presidential Communication Operations Office, People's Television Network, nc. 342,537,000.00 Department of National Defense, Philippine Air Force, Armed Forces of the Philippines 307,500,000.00 Department of Health 294,000,000.00 Philippine Children's Medical Center 280,000,000.00 Department of Education, Engineering Research and Development for Technology-Department of Science and Technology 270,000,000.00 Laguna Lake Development Authority 270,000,000.00 House of Representatives 250,000,000.00 Philippine Security Group 248,327,000.00 Metropolitan Manila Development Authority 230,000,000.00 Department of Tourism, National Parks Development Committee 207,000,000.00 National Economic and Development Authority 206,896,000.00 Bureau of Customs 192,640,000.00 Department of Transportation and Communications, Philippine Coast Guard 148,844,000.00 Commission on Audit 143,700,000.00 Department of Agriculture, National Food Authority 121,000,000.00 Lung Center of the Philippines 105,000,000.00 Philippine nstitute for Development Studies 100,000,000.00 Department of Social Welfare and Development 95,246,000.00 Credit nformation Corporation 75,000,000.00 Department of National Defense, Armed Forces of the Philippines 60,000,000.00 Department of Labor and Employment 57,720,000.00 National Archives of the Philippines 50,000,000.00 Department of Tourism, Corregidor Foundation 46,713,000.00 Department of National Defense, Philippine Air Force 29,800,000.00 Other Executive Offices-Film Development Council of the Philippines 20,000,000.00 Department of Justice 11,200,000.00 Development Academy of the Philippines 5,000,000.00 Department of Agrarian Reform, Department of Public Works and Highways - Department of Health, Department of Public Works and Highways - Department of Tourism, Municipality of Maragondon, Cavite - Department of Transportation and Communications, Light Rail Transit Authority - Department of Transportation and Communications, Metro Rail Transit - National Government thru Department of Finance - National Government thru Department of Public Works and Highways - National Historical Commission of the Philippines - National Statistics Office - Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas 30,000,000,000.00 Trade and nvestment Development Corporation of the Philippines (now known as Philippine Export-mport Credit Agency [PhilEXM]) 570,000,000.00 Home Guaranty Corporation 400,000,000.00 Grand TotaI P 144,378,303,000.00 Source: Department of Budget and Management