This is a continuation of the questions raised on the Supreme Court decision on the Disbursement Acceleration Program or DAP taken up in this space last Sunday.
I have been peppered with questions on the Supreme Court (SC) decision on the Disbursement Acceleration Program or DAP (Araullo vs Aquino, July 1, 2014). Here are some of them.
How long will the trial of the pork barrel plunder cases last? Answer: The Supreme Court directed trial courts “to terminate the regular trial within 180 days, or the trial by judicial affidavits within 60 days, reckoned from the date trial begins, minus the excluded delays or postponements specified in Rule 119 of the Rules of Court and the Speedy Trial Act of 1998.”
Araullo vs Aquino (July 1, 2014, penned by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin) declared unconstitutional four “acts and practices under the Disbursement Acceleration Program, National Budget Circular No. 541 and related issuances.” It did not declare the DAP unconstitutional, only the “acts and practices under” it, unlike Belgica vs Ochoa (Nov. 13, 2013) which plainly declared the Priority Development Assistance Fund unconstitutional. The four are worded in deep legalese and need to be explained for lay readers.
As required by the Constitution, the justices composing the First and Fifth Divisions of the Sandiganbayan (SBN) “personally” determined the existence of “probable cause” in the plunder and graft cases arising out of the pork barrel scam.
