First posted at 5:24 pm here: Breaking News: Commission on Audit Chair Grace Pulido-Tan said five minutes ago that she estimated that about six billion pesos would be disallowed by the COA of the fund releases made to Napoles NGOs. She made this statement at today’s oral arguments in the Supreme Court on the legal challenges to the constitutionality of the PDAF/ pork barrel. The COA chair was referring to the fund releases made by the DBM and implementing agencies with the concurrence of lawmakers covered by the 2012 COA Special Audit Report.
The COA Chair made the revelation in answer to Supreme Court Justice Lucas Bersamin’s query on what would happen to the funds released to the Napoles NGOs that did not go to thru the procedures prescribed by the procurement law. The COA chair answered that such expenditures would be disallowed by the COA. Justice Bersamin then asked whether there would be criminal liability, and the COA chair said that the disallowances are without prejudice to any criminal cases that would be filed. When asked as to the amount of the disallowances, the COA Chair said she has yet to formalize her computation but said that she estimated that based on the transactions that did not follow the procurement law as stated in the 2012 COA Special Audit Report, there would be “thousands and thousands of disallowances and about six billion pesos…”
The procurement law requires that a public bidding be conducted in the award of government contracts to contractors, suppliers, and service-providers. When a public expenditure is disallowed, the public officials responsible for the approval of the award and allotment would be asked to pay the amount from out of their own pocket without prejudice to administrative and criminal liability.
The COA Chair was asked by the Supreme Court to be present at today’s oral arguments as an amicus curiae, which literally means a friend of the court, and refers to a resource person invited by the Court to provide information and expert opinion.
This morning, during a break at the APEC conference in Bali, the President said in a press briefing that he would not give up the PDAF and the Disbursement Accelerated Program.
The DBM secretary now says that the DAP funds were released to the senators, who then chose the projects.
This makes the DAP unconstitutional because: it is a form of juggling of funds appropriated by Congress to the executive branch –– that is, from the departments under the executive branch, it is recreated as savings then released to the senators under the DAP.
Choose your weapon well: You can say: The senators were responsible, the DAP funds released to them were under their control, the President transferred funds from the executive branch to the senators.
This however makes the DAP unconstitutional; the President violated the Constitution, the funds were juggled, it was technical malversation and later, plunder.
Or… You can say: The DAP funds went to the President’s implementing agencies, no juggling occured, it is constitutional, except that, those funds landed in Napoles NGOs, also plunder.
(choose your theory of the case, choose your lawyers — “i don’t know to your lawyer.” — translation of: ewan ko sa abugado mo).
Here’s the news peg: “When contacted by the Inquirer, Budget Secretary Florencio Abad said his department did release the allotments of the senators, but stressed: “We never choose the projects nor the implementing agency.”
(Last week, Malacaňang said that the P1.1 billion in DAP funds were not released to the senators but went to implementing agencies for projects that were in line with the objectives of the PNoy administration and therefore approved by the President. This Sunday, after it was “uncovered” that at least P370 million of the DAP funds went to Napoles NGOs, Malacaňang is now taking the senators to task: It was the senators! They did it! “Senators sought DAP transfer–Palace” )
Now it has come to this…
It landed in the Napoles NGOs because of the SAROs issued by the DBM under the DAP approved by Malacaňang.
According to DAR Secretary Gil de los Reyes (DBM Secretary Butch Abad is pointing to his agency as the body which should do the explaining), here’s how the DAP funds landed in the Napoles NGOs:
(The SARO is the Special Allotment Release Order. It is issued by the DBM to government agencies to authorize them to “obligate” government funds, or to be able to use government funds thru vouchers and checks.)
1.The SAROs, on instructions of the senators to the DBM, were originally issued to the DAR.
2.However, the senators then asked DBM to transfer the funds from DAR to the NLDC or the National Livelihood Development Corp.
3.The NLDC is a GOCC (government-owned and controlled corporation) controlled by Napoles. The projects of the NLDC are managed and administered by Napoles NGOs. Yes, it’s a GOCC; yes, it’s controlled by Napoles: it’s an NOCC or an NOCGOCC (Napoles-owned- and-controlled GOCC – keep up with the acronyms, sweetie).
4.After the senators asked the DBM to transfer funds from the DAR to the NLDC, the DBM issued “negative” SAROs to the DAR withdrawing the funds out of the DAR.
5.After the funds have been constructively taken out of the DAR thru the “negative” SAROs, the DBM then issued a SARO to the NLDC. The NLDC, an NOCGOCC or a Napoles-owned- and-controlled GOCC, then received the SARO issued to them by the DBM, presented the SARO to the accounting offices and staff and got the vouchers and checks; then gave them to the Napoles NGOs (the Napoles NGOs then encashed the checks; these are then hauled off as bags of cash, and plopped on the Napoles bed and bath.)
How can the DBM be issuing SAROs to the NLDC? It is a GOCC, silly. The Commission on Audit as early as 1996 issued a circular creating procedures for a simplified fund release to government agencies including GOCCs.
The DBM under the DAP approved by PNoy, issued SAROs to Napoles? Yes, sir/ ma’am, that’s what the documentary and testimonial evidence show.
