Commission on Audit report

19 August 2013

The COA report, released last August 16, containing findings from the special audit they conducted on the PDAF and the “Various Infrastructures including Local Projects” for CY 2007-2009, made  me grit my teeth, but somehow, did not shock me.

Why? Because first of all, the findings were really not that unexpected despite its being the “first official audit/report of its kind”, as far as I can remember, and I look at the report as the first official substantiation of a long accepted perception by “outsiders” of how the pork barrel was handled – or rather manhandled - during the previous administration.

The audit which aimed to determine the “propriety of releases of PDAF and VILP by the DBM…[as well as] the efficient utilization of funds and effective implementation of funds by the IAs [or Implementing Agencies]” was conducted pursuant to COA Office Order No. 2010-309 dated May 13, 2010…” and it took a team of 19 auditors more than 3 years to complete after covering  3 national government agencies, 4 GOCCs, 9 city governments and their barangays as well as 5 provincial governments (https:// docs.google.com/file/d/ 0B4I1yKpJVx9qSDFlaVNXNEljVW8/preview).

The report showed that the IAs failed grossly in terms of the 4 audit areas the audit team focused on, namely: the allocation and transfer of funds and monitoring of releases; the implementation of livelihood and other projects; the implementation of infrastructure projects; and financial assistance and other charges by the LGUs.

To my mind, the COA report has clearly demonstrated how the PDAF and the funds for VILP were stolen through the connivance of government officials with brokers, who, with the combined use of dubious NGOs/suppliers, falsification, forgery and bribery claimed payment for ghost projects as well as non-existent acquisitions.  To just tag the involved government personnel as negligent, inefficient or ineffective is erroneous, because the report has also clearly shown the wanton disregard, by those who are guilty, of requirements and for which I am convinced that the “stupidity” displayed by those involved was purposely done to facilitate the crime of stealing.

How else should one view it if the government agency in charge fails to keep an organized account of fund releases it is responsible for; or allowed the release of funds in excess of what is duly allocated by law; or released funds for use in an area outside one’s legislative district; or released funds even if there were no endorsements from the agencies to which the funds are released (in violation of its own rules); or released funds even if there were no assessments of the Agencies’ capabilities to implement the projects; or released funds to NGOs essentially at the behest of the sponsoring legislators even in the absence of an ordinance earmarking an amount specifically contracted (in violation of Government Procurement and Policy Board Resolution No. 12-2007).

Furthermore, funds were released even when NGOs were not selected through competitive bidding and/or were of dubious existence; or funds were released even if projects were found to be grossly deficient in many ways, or even done at all;  (http://www.coa.gov.ph/COA_News/press_releases/2013/ PR2013-Y03_GT_08162013.pdf).

As mentioned earlier, the report can cause people to grit their teeth, but it should be remembered that what is shown by the said special audit report is what was done by the previous administration, and which is not necessarily true with the current administration under President Noynoy.

I say this because of the various measures initiated by the President in line with his anti-corruption advocacy. Among them are the strict adherence to the maximum PDAF/VILP allocation of legislators, thereby eliminating the cases of excessive releases; DBM being more strict with the menu of projects that can be funded by congressional allocations; government agencies that can accept PDAF are now better specified; the percentage of livelihood projects, where a lot of leakages occur, have been progressively reduced from 20 percent (of allocations for soft projects) in 2010 down to just 9 percent early this year.

Objectively looking at the situation, considering the corruption anomalies and scandals associated with the pork barrel that has happened in the past, and counterweighing them with the corrective actions being introduced by the current administration that’s gaining momentum to improve the PDAF/VILP system, I still am not inclined to agree with the move to scrap it.

Why? Because as previously stated in my earlier articles, I believe that “…in spite of the controversies identified with it, I recognize it still as a mechanism that can assure the regular delivery of the assistance that government resources can give to the various LGUs in a broad, relatively direct and equitable manner.” I also see the PDAF in particular as a mechanism that can cause the provision a regular basis (that is annually) of assistance directly to LGUs in terms of “education, health, livelihood, social services, financial assistance to address specific pro-poor programs, peace and order, historical, cultural and arts, as well as small infrastructure projects like irrigation, rural electrification, water supply, housing and forest management”, which actually is its mandate. “It is just a matter of improving the system and installing the proper controls so that the public funds go 100% to the intended beneficiary.”

Perhaps this is also the perspective that the President and other credible personalities (e.g. Cardinal Tagle, COA Chairperson Grace Pulido-Tan) see, that’s why they do not automatically subscribe to removing it.

But having said this, I also believe that the five recommendations of the COA, as stated in their special audit report should be implemented, particularly with respect to the last one which recommends “…the immediate investigation of all persons involved and the filing of appropriate administrative and criminal charges…”; and if I may add, regardless of how high they are placed in the government’s hierarchy.

Comments/reactions will be appreciated and can be sent through this writer’s email (sl3.mekaniko @gmail.com) or through this writer’s blog (http://mekaniko-sl3.blogspot.com).