PDAF at the Supreme Court (Day 2)

by Camille Diola 10/10/2013 6:09:50 AM

Comment ()

3rd & 7 37yd

Solgen: When the President vetoes line item Y, it results in no appropriation for item Y thus the President cannot spend the money.

by Supreme Court PIO via twitter 10/10/2013 9:31:48 AM
J. De Castro now interpellates the Solgen. #PDAFOrals

by Supreme Court PIO via twitter 10/10/2013 9:48:18 AM
J. De Castro asks solgen the need to list implementing agencies already included in the GAA; Solgen cites Philconsa and practicality.

by Supreme Court PIO via twitter 10/10/2013 9:50:08 AM
De Castro: wouldn't this facilitate the juggling of funds among these projects? also the PDAF has ballooned and doubled?

by Supreme Court PIO via twitter 10/10/2013 9:52:21 AM
Solgen: I cannot explain why the list got longer but it has become a bit more detailed to constrain the juggling of funds. #PDAFOrals

by Supreme Court PIO via twitter 10/10/2013 9:53:05 AM
De Castro asks if the Constitution isn't violated by the lack of itemization of the list in the GAA. Solgen replies that Philconsa allows it

by Supreme Court PIO via twitter 10/10/2013 9:55:45 AM
De Castro points out that the GAA formulation discourages savings. There are no savings to speak of because there are no items.

by Supreme Court PIO via twitter 10/10/2013 9:59:52 AM
Justice Leonen interpellates Solgen. #PDAFOrals

by Supreme Court PIO via twitter 10/10/2013 10:02:47 AM
Leonen: there is "no purpose" if the purpose is "everything" (referring to Malampaya)? Solgen: but there is a purpose. #PDAFOrals

by Supreme Court PIO via twitter 10/10/2013 10:04:34 AM
Leonen: In the budget preparation itself, the president already proposed the PDAF? Solgen: yes.
#PDAFOrals

by Supreme Court PIO via twitter 10/10/2013 10:06:55 AM
Leonen: it took almost 19 yrs for congress to make it a line item?
Solgen: yes.
Leonen: and almost all availed?
Solgen: yes. #PDAFOrals

by Supreme Court PIO via twitter 10/10/2013 10:07:33 AM
Leonen points out to Solgen that judiciary is hemorrhaging; the PDAF is P14B, which is close to the judiciary's budget which is P18B.

by Supreme Court PIO via twitter 10/10/2013 10:10:24 AM
Leonen: is it your position that the Court not rule,lift the TRO,allow the expenditures? Solgen:only in relation to the scholarships.

by Supreme Court PIO via twitter 10/10/2013 10:13:05 AM
Leonen: is this a case capable of repetition evading review? Can you guarantee that there will never be an instance of PDAF ever? #PDAFOrals

by Supreme Court PIO via twitter 10/10/2013 10:13:46 AM
Solgen says that he is not invoking the political question doctrine but that the political branches are correcting. #PDAFOrals

by Supreme Court PIO via twitter 10/10/2013 10:18:08 AM
Leonen:can you assure us that none of the scholars are "ghosts",as found by the CoA; Solgen:I cannot do that but we can impose safeguards.

by Supreme Court PIO via twitter 10/10/2013 10:21:44 AM
Solgen:I cannot give you the figures to convince you that none of them are ghosts but that is why we ask you out of humanitarian concerns.

by Supreme Court PIO via twitter 10/10/2013 10:23:42 AM
Leonen asks Solgen if, due to interest on the part of members of congress, the safeguards were not followed; Solgen agrees. #PDAFOrals

by Supreme Court PIO via twitter 10/10/2013 10:26:33 AM
Leonen: the PDAF is allocated not on the basis of size or population but because of request of a congressman or senator, not the office.

by Supreme Court PIO via twitter 10/10/2013 10:30:49 AM
Leonen: the allocation of PDAF is to the members of congress themselves, not to their offices. #PDAFOrals

by Supreme Court PIO via twitter 10/10/2013 10:31:58 AM
Leonen asks why a congressman can also spend for an item in an LGU, and if this is not in violation of local autonomy. #PDAFOrals

by Supreme Court PIO via twitter 10/10/2013 10:34:16 AM
Leonen:when a member of congress interferes with the manner by which the public funds is spent, doesn't this violate separation of powers?

by Supreme Court PIO via twitter 10/10/2013 10:37:19 AM
Leonen:members of congress are prohibited from intervening in any matter where he may be called upon to act by reason of his office.

by Supreme Court PIO via twitter 10/10/2013 10:39:16 AM
Leonen: given the prohibition against intervention, wouldn't this include recommending projects? Solgen: but philconsa allows this.

by Supreme Court PIO via twitter 10/10/2013 10:40:01 AM
Leonen: but this prohibition wasn't discussed in Philconsa or LAMP? Solgen: No.

by Supreme Court PIO via twitter 10/10/2013 10:40:27 AM
J. Del Castillo interpellating Solgen on alternative sources of funding for scholars; "you are making me feel guilty." #PDAFOrals

by Supreme Court PIO via twitter 10/10/2013 10:41:03 AM
SAJ Carpio:PCSO and PSF can be tapped for indigent patients and augment scholarship programs? Solgen:Yes. Carpio: so it can be done.

by Supreme Court PIO via twitter 10/10/2013 10:42:27 AM
Carpio: this is not a problem (scholarships and patients) without a solution because there are solutions--PCSO, PSF. There are funds.

by Supreme Court PIO via twitter 10/10/2013 10:43:12 AM
J. Bersamin interpellating Chair Pulido-Tan on the priority list--If there is no priority list, would this not result in a disallowance?

by Supreme Court PIO via twitter 10/10/2013 10:45:35 AM
Bersamin asks TAn if she remembers a disbursement made without a priority list; Chair Tan says she does not remember any such. #PDAFOrals

by Supreme Court PIO via twitter 10/10/2013 10:47:33 AM
SAJ Carpio gives instructions on the submission of memoranda by Oct 17, non-extendible. the Court intends to resolve by November.

by Supreme Court PIO via twitter 10/10/2013 10:48:20 AM
SAJ Carpio adjourns the session. #PDAFOrals

by Supreme Court PIO via twitter 10/10/2013 10:48:47 AM