{"id":40770,"date":"2015-02-03T14:32:01","date_gmt":"2015-02-03T06:32:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/?p=40770"},"modified":"2015-02-03T22:38:55","modified_gmt":"2015-02-03T14:38:55","slug":"sc-rules-with-finality-on-dap-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/2015\/02\/03\/sc-rules-with-finality-on-dap-case\/","title":{"rendered":"SC rules with finality on DAP case"},"content":{"rendered":"<figure id=\"attachment_24173\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-24173\" style=\"width: 1200px\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\"><a href=\"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/08\/1200px-Supreme_Court_of_the_Philippines.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-24173\" src=\"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/08\/1200px-Supreme_Court_of_the_Philippines.jpg\" alt=\"The Supreme Court of the Philippines building in Manila, Philippines. Photo by Mike Gonzalez \/ Wikimedia Commons.\" width=\"1200\" height=\"900\" srcset=\"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/08\/1200px-Supreme_Court_of_the_Philippines.jpg 1200w, https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/08\/1200px-Supreme_Court_of_the_Philippines-300x225.jpg 300w, https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/08\/1200px-Supreme_Court_of_the_Philippines-1024x768.jpg 1024w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px\" \/><\/a><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-24173\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">The Supreme Court of the Philippines building in Manila, Philippines. Photo by Mike Gonzalez \/ Wikimedia Commons.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p>MANILA &#8212; The Supreme Court (SC) en banc on Tuesday ruled with finality on the case of the controversial Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP).<\/p>\n<p>In the ruling, the SC partially granted the motion for reconsideration (MR) filed by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) by deleting a portion of its July 1, 2014 decision declaring as \u201cunconstitutional\u201d the disbursement of the DAP fund which was not included in the General Appropriations Act (GAA).<\/p>\n<p>According to the SC, three portions of DAP are \u201cunconstitutional\u201d because of the violation under Section 25-5 of Article VI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, as well as the \u201cprinciple of separation of powers.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The SC particularly declared as \u201cunconstitutional\u201d the following:<\/p>\n<p>&#8212; portion of the DAP fund, the source of which is not from \u201clegitimate savings\u201d;<\/p>\n<p>&#8212; \u201ccross-border transfer\u201d of savings or the fund was transferred to another branch of government; and<\/p>\n<p>&#8212; use of \u201cunprogrammed fund\u201d without a certification from the National Treasurer stating that the \u201crevenue collection\u201d exceeded the \u201crevenue target.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>MANILA &#8212; The Supreme Court (SC) en banc on Tuesday ruled with finality on the case of the controversial Disbursement &hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":44,"featured_media":24173,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1482,95,483],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-40770","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-breaking","category-news-ph","category-politics","mauthors-philippines-news-agency"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40770","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/44"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=40770"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40770\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/24173"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=40770"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=40770"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=40770"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}