Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales on Tuesday announced that her office is currently investigating President Benigno Aquino III and Budget Secretary Florencio Abad for the implementation of the Disbursement Acceleration Program. Responding to a query by Bayan Muna party-list Rep. Carlos Isagani Zarate during the Office of the Ombudsman’s budget briefing, Morales said there has been a most proper investigation being conducted on the supposed liability of Aquino and Abad for the creation and implementation of the DAP. She said the probe is being conducted simultaneously with the investigation on pending DAP-related complaints involving top officials of the executive branch. Morales said that an investigation report on the cases have been submitted and these are currently under evaluation by her office.
“The status of [the cases] are pending fact-finding investigation. In fact, the investigation report [written by] the Field Investigation Office is under evaluation by the Ombudsman,” Carpio Morales said.
She also said they will decide this month whether further investigation will be conducted on the plunder complaints against Abad.
“It should be resolved anytime this month. That is with respect to the investigation report [written] by the fact-finding investigators,” she said.
However, the Ombudsman said she cannot release the investigation report on the complaint involving Aquino and Abad though it will be used to determine if there is basis to start a preliminary investigation.
“We don’t release the investigation report. We either approve or disapprove it. If we approve it and we recommend the conduct of a preliminary investigation, then so be it. Now, if we don’t agree with the recommendation to initiate a preliminary investigation, this means the case is deemed closed and terminated,” she said.
Carpio Morales said her office needs “ample time” to review the jurisprudence and law involved in the complaint concerning the DAP controversy because she wants to ensure whatever action she will take is in accordance with the law, as well as the facts and evidence of the case.
Immune from suit
Meanwhile, Malacañang said that while the Ombudsman can look into the matter, President Aquino cannot be sued while in office.
“We wish to point out the Constitutional principle that an incumbent President of the Philippines is immune from suit,” Communications Secretary Herminio Coloma Jr. said in a statement. Still, Coloma said the Office of the Ombudsman “is empowered by law to conduct” its probe on Aquino and Budget Secretary Florencio Abad over the DAP. On the other hand, Abad deferred comment on the Ombudsman's investigation. "It is prudent to read the transcript of the hearing before making any statement," he said.
SC ruling on DAP
The Supreme Court in 2014 voted unanimously to strike down as unconstitutional specific acts under the DAP, which has been described by Malacañang as an economic stimulus initiative. The DAP became controversial after Sen. Jinggoy Estrada revealed that several senators received P50 million to P100 million after the conviction of Chief Justice Renato Corona by the Senate impeachment court. Estrada's revelation came after he was implicated in the multi-billion pork barrel fund scam. The senator is currently detained on graft and plunder charges. Last month, a group led by Atty. Greco Belgica asked the SC to order Morales to investigate Abad and Aquino over their roles in the implementation of both the pork barrel system and the DAP.
DAP authors, implementors 'liable' In their concurring opinions to the Supreme court's February 3 ruling, declaring as unconstitutional three acts and practices under the DAP, Associate Justices Antonio Carpio and Arturo Brion said that Aquino and Abad should be held liable for approving and implementing the controversial program.
“Since the President and the DBM Secretary approved and issued NBC 541, they are considered the authors of the unconstitutional act,” said Carpio in his dissenting opinion. “As a consequence, neither the President nor the DBM Secretary can invoke the equitable doctrine of operative fact although they may raise other defenses,” he added.
Carpio further said that as authors of the unconstitutional act, “they have to answer for such act.” Brion, meanwhile, said that authors, proponents, and implementors of the DAP cannot “seek cover behind” the operative fact doctrine at all. He clarified that only those who “relied in good faith” on the DAP can be protected by the doctrine.
“Authors, proponents, and implementors... did not rely on the unconstitutional act... They were, in fact, the parties responsible for establishing and implementing the DAP's unconstitutional terms,” Brion said. Morales attended Tuesday's budget hearing to defend the Office of the Ombudsman's proposed P1.775 billion budget for 2016. Morales reported to the members of the House of Representatives' Committee on Appropriations that her office's workload as of last June was 8,116 criminal and administrative cases and they were able to solve 2,940 cases. —ALG/RSJ/KBK, GMA News
No comments:
Post a Comment