Budget Secretary Florencio Abad (left) and his deputy, Undersecretary Mario Relampagos. INQUIRER FILE PHOTOS
The Office of the Ombudsman has cleared the way for the investigation of Budget Secretary Florencio Abad and his deputy, Undersecretary Mario Relampagos, in connection with the alleged irregular release of P393.7 million in Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) funds from 2011 to 2012.
In a statement issued on Wednesday, the Ombudsman said Abad and Relampagos, who is already facing a string of graft, malversation and bribery cases in the Sandiganbayan in connection with the P10-billion pork barrel scam, would undergo a preliminary investigation for technical malversation and administrative charges.
Technical malversation 鈥渋s committed by a public officer who disburses public funds or property for a purpose different from which they were originally appropriated by law or ordinance,鈥� the Ombudsman said, citing Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code.
Abad denied wrongdoing, adding he welcomed the investigation.
鈥淭echnical malversation does not suggest that the individuals in question committed acts of graft and corruption,鈥� he said in a statement.
鈥楪ood faith鈥�
Abad said he and Relampagos 鈥渁cted in good faith and with regularity in the performance of their official duties鈥� and their action helped accelerate public spending and boosted the economy.
The Ombudsman refused to provide a copy of the resolution of its Field Investigation Office (FIO) to the media.
Instead, the Ombudsman issued a press release about its approval of the FIO鈥檚 recommendation to place Abad and Relampagos under investigation.
The statement did not say if President Aquino had been cleared of complicity in the implementation of the DAP, an economic stimulus program that the Supreme Court had declared unconstitutional.
鈥楾echnically absolved鈥�
But a senior official in the Office of the Ombudsman said the President had been 鈥渢echnically absolved鈥� from charges relating to the contentious cross-border transfer of some P31.9 billion in unobligated appropriations without congressional approval from 2011 to 2012.
鈥淭he FIO investigators believed that the President should not be held liable for the DAP disbursements,鈥� said the source, who asked not to be named for lack of authority to talk to the media.
The Ombudsman said a special panel of government lawyers had been formed to investigate Abad and Relampagos.
It also asked the Commission on Audit (COA) to conduct a special audit of all DAP-financed projects that the executive department had approved.
鈥淭he special panel of field investigators disclosed that Secretary Abad and Relampagos authorized the DAP sourced from pooled savings as 鈥榓 plan to boost disbursements鈥� and 鈥榯o jumpstart the implementation鈥� of the government鈥檚 expenditure program,鈥� the Ombudsman said.
鈥淎s authorized, the DAP projects were identified based on their 鈥榤ultiplier impact on the economy and infrastructure benefit, beneficial effect on the poor and translation into disbursements,鈥欌�� it added.
Irregularities found
According to the antigraft body, documents gathered by the FIO 鈥渘oted irregularities鈥� in the release of P250 million in DAP funds to the House of Representatives and P143.7 million to the COA.
The House used the funds for the 鈥渃onstruction of its legislative library and archive building/congressional e-library,鈥� the Ombudsman said.
But the FIO said the project was not 鈥渁mong those approved by the President.鈥�
The COA used its DAP allocation to bankroll the improvement in its 鈥淚T (information technology) infrastructure program and hiring of additional litigation experts,鈥� as shown in the special allotment release orders (Saros).
鈥淎bad prepared and signed all memoranda and issuances concerning [the] DAP implementation while Relampagos signed the corresponding Saros to [the] COA and [the House],鈥� the Ombudsman said.
Remaining issues
Abad said the investigation would 鈥渆nable the parties to present their views on all remaining issues involving [the] DAP.鈥�
鈥淸W]e likewise trust that the Ombudsman will conduct the investigation with the soundest judgment,鈥� he said.
Abad said the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) would cooperate with the Ombudsman in the investigation.
鈥淲e look forward as well to the inquiry鈥檚 swift and fair conclusion,鈥� he said.
Abad said the investigation involved the application of excess or unused public funds to existing priority government projects and programs that required additional funding.
鈥淭he investigation seeks to determine whether these uses of public funds constitute technical malversation, where public funds are used for a public purpose that differed鈥攊n a very technical sense鈥攆rom the original plan,鈥� he said.
Abad insisted that the declaration of the public funds that were used through the DAP, 鈥渢o augment deficient items of appropriations, were authorized under the General Appropriations Act and other laws.鈥�
Not unconstitutional
He also reiterated that the Supreme Court did not declare the DAP unconstitutional.
鈥淸T]he final Supreme Court ruling stresses that the doctrine of operative fact holds sway over the implementation of [the] DAP. In other words, the program鈥檚 authors, sponsors and implementers must be presumed to have acted in good faith and with regularity in the performance of their official duties,鈥� Abad said.
鈥淚t is also worth noting that [the] DAP is not a novel program. Its implementation only followed precedents set by previous Presidents and their respective budget secretaries,鈥� he added.
Abad defended the DAP, saying its 鈥減ositive impact鈥� on the economy must not be overlooked.
鈥淭he Supreme Court itself observed that [the] DAP was instrumental in accelerating public spending, and in such a manner that allowed the country to achieve significant economic progress,鈥� he said.
Communication Secretary Herminio Coloma Jr. said the Ombudsman investigation would provide 鈥渁n opportunity to clarify the legal issues in the implementation of [the] DAP.鈥�
Coloma said the Supreme Court, on the government鈥檚 appeal, 鈥渦pheld the principle of operative fact.鈥�
鈥淲e affirm our position that the government acted in the public interest,鈥� he said.
Not linked to pork scam
Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. said the DAP should not be associated with the pork barrel controversy.
Belmonte said the pork barrel scam was about public money going into private pockets instead of to government projects.
鈥淸The] DAP is a different thing from the [Priority Development Assistance Fund] issue, [which] involved [public funds ending] up in private hands. You give them to (Janet) Napoles, who doesn鈥檛 do the job or does only part of it and yet money is expended. In the case of [the] DAP, there is no such implication,鈥� Belmonte said.
He said Abad鈥檚 goal in introducing the DAP was to 鈥渦se money appropriated for a certain purpose [that] in his mind or in his judgment was no longer as important as before or had been accomplished or to the point these [were] now savings and realigning them to other public use, which [did] not end up in anybody鈥檚 pocket.鈥�
Belmonte said the DAP spending had resulted in infrastructure and other projects.
Abad, he said, only wanted to use idle funds for the public good.
鈥淎s far as [the] DAP is concerned,it is really more of the infringement on the powers of Congress and in fact the Supreme Court said this. If Congress was part of the decision-making, there was nothing wrong with it,鈥� Belmonte said.
He said Abad might have decided to do it on his own, but he did it in 鈥済ood faith.鈥濃��With reports from Jerry E. Esplanada and wires
听
RELATED STORIES
Ombudsman to probe Abad over DAP
Palace welcomes probe of Abad over DAP