FORMER President Benigno Aquino III has asked the Office of the Ombudsman to dismiss the graft and other charges filed against him by various groups over the implementation of the Disbursement Acceleration Program, parts of which had been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
He filed a 28-page counter-affidavit citing the alleged failure of the complainants to present evidence that would warrant his prosecution and indictment.
The complainants are Bayan Muna, Alliance of Concerned Teachers, Confederation for Unity, Recognition and Advancement of Government Employees, Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption, Juana Change Movement, Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas, Gabriela party-list and Kalipunan ng Damayang Mahihirap.
Aquino said these groups could not just anchor their complaint on the Supreme Court’s affirma tion that the DAP was unconstitutional.
He said the complainants also failed to meet the elements of technical malversation, usurpation and graft and corruption.
He said the high court only made clarifications on the “constitutional boundaries” on budgetary powers, and that it was meant as a reference for future budgetary actions.
There was no element of punishment on those who implemented the DAP, he said, adding the resolution “was a pronouncement that clarified in general terms constitutional rules and principles involving the budget. It cannot be construed as amounting to a specific finding of criminal liability.
“The Supreme Court merely set out—for future reference—the metes and bounds of the President’s exercise of power to augment, nothing more.”
The high tribunal’s decision did not cite the culpability of the authors, proponents and implementing DAP, Aquino said.
“Complainants’ allegation… that I ‘diverted appropriations’ is based on a complete lack of understanding of the difference between ‘appropriations’ and ‘savings.’”
Aquino said he was not the “accountable officer” in the actual control of the DAP funds.
He said he never bypassed the powers of Congress for using the savings of all government agencies to augment some deficient items in the budget, and that the president could exercise budgetary flexibility.
He maintained his innocence, saying he was not culpable for technical malversation under Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code, and that the savings from different government agencies were no longer technically funds “appropriated by law or ordinance” once these had been declared to be savings.