The President and his budget secretary are liable for orchestrating the Disbursement Acceleration

Program (DAP).

Debate Necessity Point

Why is it necessary for us to held the President and the budget secretary liable for orchestrating the
DAP. For this we hae 3 points.

It is necessary for :

Accountability and Transparency

Constitutional Checks and Balances

Preventing Misuse of Public Funds

1. Accountability and Transparency

the President and his budget secretary liable for orchestrating the Disbursement Acceleration
Program (DAP) is essential for ensuring accountability and transparency in government operations. The
DAP involved the allocation of substantial public funds, and those in charge of managing these funds
must be held responsible for their actions. By doing so, it sets a precedent that leaders are answerable
for their decisions, fostering a culture of responsibility within the government.

Constitutional Provisions on Accountability and Transparency:

The 1987 Philippine Constitution contains several provisions emphasizing accountability and
transparency in government operations. For instance, Article II, Section 27 of the Constitution states that
"public office is a public trust," emphasizing the fiduciary duty of public officials to serve the best
interests of the people. Article XI establishes provisions for public accountability and anti-corruption
measures, including impeachment proceedings for high-ranking officials.

The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019)

This law, also known as the Anti-Graft Law, is a crucial piece of legislation in the Philippines that
addresses corruption and promotes accountability. It defines corrupt practices and imposes penalties on
public officials found guilty of graft and corrupt practices. The law underscores the importance of holding
public officials accountable for their actions.
Supreme Court Decisions on Accountability and Transparency

Philippine jurisprudence includes significant Supreme Court decisions that highlight the importance of
accountability and transparency in government. In the case of "Estrada v. Desierto" (G.R. No. 146710,
March 2, 2001), the Supreme Court held that the President is not immune from suit for acts that are not
part of their official functions, reinforcing the principle of accountability. This ruling sets a precedent that
leaders are subject to legal consequences for their actions outside their official duties.

2. Constitutional Checks and Balances

In many democratic systems, the executive branch is responsible for managing the budget. However,
this power is not absolute and must be exercised within the boundaries of the law and the constitution.
When the President and his budget secretary orchestrate a program like DAP, which is alleged to have
bypassed the regular budgeting process and may have violated constitutional principles, it is vital to
establish their liability. This reinforces the principle of checks and balances, ensuring that no branch of
government operates without accountability.

Doctrine of Checks and Balances

The principle of checks and balances is enshrined in the Philippine Constitution and plays a
pivotal role in the country's democratic system. It ensures that each branch of government operates as a
check on the others to prevent the abuse of power. When one branch oversteps its boundaries or
violates constitutional principles, it is the role of the other branches, including the judiciary, to hold it
accountable.

Judicial Review and the Role of the Supreme Court

The Philippine Supreme Court has the authority to exercise judicial review over the actions of
both the executive and legislative branches. In cases where there are allegations of constitutional
violations or excesses, concerned parties can file petitions before the Supreme Court to seek clarification
or remedies. The judiciary's role in interpreting the constitution and ensuring that government actions
adhere to constitutional principles is a crucial aspect of checks and balances.

Transparency and Accountability in Budgeting

Transparency and accountability are integral to the budgeting process in the Philippines. The
Constitution requires that the budget be presented with utmost transparency. Any program or action
that bypasses the regular budgeting process, such as the DAP, may raise concerns about transparency
and accountability.

Landmark Supreme Court Decision on the DAP:

 the case of "Abad v. Senate" (G.R. No. 209287, July 1, 2014), the Philippine Supreme Court ruled on
the constitutionality of certain acts and practices under the DAP. The decision emphasized that the
President has the power to reallocate savings, but such reallocations must meet specific criteria and not
violate the principle of separation of powers. This ruling highlighted the importance of adhering to
constitutional principles, even in budget management.

The liability of the President and his budget secretary for orchestrating the DAP in the Philippines
aligns with the constitutional framework of checks and balances. It underscores the importance of
holding accountable those in the executive branch when their actions are alleged to have bypassed the
regular budgeting process or violated constitutional principles. These legal and jurisprudential provisions
support the notion that no branch of government should operate without accountability, and the
judiciary plays a crucial role in upholding this principle.

3. Preventing Misuse of Public Funds

Holding the President and his budget secretary liable for their involvement in the DAP helps prevent
the misuse of public funds for political or personal gain. If leaders are not held accountable for such
actions, it creates a dangerous precedent where leaders can circumvent established procedures for their
own benefit. Imposing liability acts as a deterrent, discouraging future administrations from engaging in
similar practices.

Constitutional Mandate for Fiscal Responsibility

Philippine Constitution places a significant emphasis on fiscal responsibility and accountability.

Article II, Section 27 of the Constitution states that "public office is a public trust," emphasizing the
responsibility of public officials to use public funds for the common good. Article VI outlines the powers
and duties of Congress in appropriating public funds, with the aim of ensuring that funds are allocated
transparently and in accordance with the law.

Anti-Graft and Corruption Laws

The Philippines has comprehensive anti-graft and corruption laws, including the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019) and the Revised Penal Code, which penalize corrupt
practices by public officials. These laws are crucial in preventing the misuse of public funds and holding
those involved accountable.

Transparency and Accountability in Public Spending

The Philippines has established mechanisms for transparency and accountability in public
spending, including the requirement for public officials to submit Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and
Net Worth (SALN). These mechanisms aim to deter corruption and misuse of public funds by allowing
scrutiny of public officials' financial interests and holdings.
Supreme Court Decisions on Fiscal Responsibility

The Philippine Supreme Court has issued decisions that reinforce the principles of fiscal
responsibility and accountability. In the case of "Belgica v. Executive Secretary" (G.R. No. 208566,
November 19, 2013), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of provisions in the General
Appropriations Act that prevent lump-sum discretionary funds, which can be prone to misuse.

Preventing Dangerous Precedents

Holding the President and the budget secretary liable for actions related to the DAP sends a
clear message that misuse of public funds for political or personal gain will not be tolerated. This
precedent acts as a deterrent, discouraging future administrations from engaging in similar practices that
circumvent established procedures and undermine fiscal responsibility.

In conclusion, the argument for holding the President and his budget secretary liable for their
involvement in the DAP in the Philippines is supported by constitutional provisions, anti-corruption laws,
transparency mechanisms, and Supreme Court decisions that emphasize fiscal responsibility and
accountability in the use of public funds. This accountability is essential in preventing the misuse of
public funds and upholding the principles of good governance and integrity in public service.

By not making the President and the budget secretary liable, Don’t you think it beats the purpose of the
doctrine of checks and balances which is very necessary for our legal system?

Judicial review is very necessary

Intent is imaginary, it can not be proven, How do you prove intent as a presumption of good faith.