No 'sacred pigs' in pork hunt, says group

ABS-CBN News

Posted at Jul 03 2014 11:39 AM | Updated as of Jul 03 2014 07:39 PM

MANILA - A coalition dedicated to removing the entire pork barrel system in government is calling on the Commission on Audit to reveal its findings on the use of funds under the Disbursement Allocation Program (DAP).

In a statement, the Scrap Pork Network urged COA Commissioner Grace Pulido-Tan to make public the audit findings on DAP "that she promised to conduct when DAP first came to light."

"This report should be presented to the Filipino people since it is our money that was misspent. We note that the Ombudsman has started a probe into the culpability of Budget Secretary Butch Abad and any administration officials in the disbursement of DAP," the group said.

The network reiterated its call "that there should be no sacred pigs in these probes into wrongdoings."

The group noted that President Aquino went out of his way to defend the very characteristics of DAP that the Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional.

"That he is accountable for DAP is without question. We cannot scream for justice where the plunder of Tanda, Sexy and Pogi is concerned and shrug off DAP. The President defended DAP. He approved an illegal act. He must be held accountable. On the face of the SC findings, he is liable for prosecution," it added.

The Supreme Court earlier said government officials behind the constitutionally infirm Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) may be held liable for the release and utilization of public funds under the stimulus package. [

In its 92-page decision, dated July 1, penned by Associate Justice Lucas Bersamin, and officially released on Wednesday, the high court said "authors, proponents, and implementors" of the DAP may be charged before the proper tribunals, and may only escape liability once able to show good faith in the program's implementation.

While invoking the doctrine of operative fact which sustains the effects of a law or executive act later declared void, the high court said this only applies to programs and projects that had already been completed, as well as their beneficiaries, not on the public officials.