MANILA: The Palace is asking the Supreme Court to reconsider its July 1 decision declaring certain acts under the controversial Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) illegal.
In a 52-page Motion for Reconsideration (MR) filed yesterday, the executive department insisted that the economic stimulus programme designed to accelerate public spending did not violate the Constitution.
“The President and his alter egos, in implementing a decidedly successful programme, deserve to be afforded the traditional constitutional presumptions that apply to most other forms of public actions, especially the presumption of good faith,” read the appeal filed by Solicitor General Francis Jardeleza.
At Malacañang, Presidential Communications Operations Office Secretary Herminio Coloma Jr said the filing of the MR is an affirmation of the government’s “respect for the rule of law and its compliance with judicial processes.”
In justifying good faith behind DAP, the Palace urged the high court to consider institutional competence and value of bureaucratic practices in understanding the constitutional role of the executive in managing the economy, the authority of Congress to define savings, the shared role of the political departments in preparing the budget and the limited role of the SC on these matters.
It also argued that the high court erred in applying the doctrine of operative fact, which recognizes the validity of an assailed law or action prior to the determination of its unconstitutionality.
“Regardless of the nullification of certain acts and practices under the DAP and/or National Budget Circular No 541, the operative fact doctrine does not operate to impute bad faith to authors, proponents and implementers who continue to enjoy the presumption of innocence and regularity in the performance of official functions and duties,” it stressed.
The Palace is insisting DAP was not done in bad faith.
The government has dismissed the notion that the budget department engaged in a policy of accumulating savings so that President Aquino may have funds for his use at will.
The Philippine Star
