The end does not justify the means  

It is going to be my first trip outside the country very soon but before that, I need to get a certified copy of my COVID-19 vaccination record.

I had two choices: to apply for a vaccination certificate online via VAXCertPH of the Department of Health, which would give me a digital certificate, or to apply for a physical card, and that would be the “yellow card” of the Bureau of Quarantine and the DOH, the application for which can likewise be done online.

I applied for both.

Unlike VAXCertPH which is free of charge and is now being accepted in most, if not all, countries as a requirement prior to entry, I had to pay in advance P300 for the BOC International Certificate of Vaccination or yellow card, plus P70 for the service fee. But to be fair, I was able to schedule an appointment with a BOC center inside a mall for the following day. There was still no action on my VAXCertPH submission.

The following day, I checked my VAXCertPH, still no action on my application.  I still pushed through with my yellow card application since I paid for it already. And I was able to get my card an hour before my scheduled appointment because to my surprise, there were only maybe two people waiting at the center when I arrived.

Still no action on my VAXCertPH.

A few days after, I checked on the status of my VAXCertPH application and it was already closed and said that there was already an action sent via my email.

Nothing on my email.

I am impressed by the speed at which I was able to secure my ICV but at the same time, I could not help but notice how expensive it is to get the yellow card.

Maybe for leisure and business travellers, they would not mind paying an additional P370 cost for their travel. But P370 is still P370, which is a significant amount of money especially for overseas Filipino workers. And it is expensive, compared to securing other government certificates. The NBI clearance fee for instance is only P130.

The BOQ is the government agency tasked to issue copies of ICV as an official proof of COVID-19 immunization because BOQ-issued ICVs are accredited and recognized by the World Health Organization. To deliver this service, the BOQ contracted the services of PisoPay – a Philippine-based financial technology startup focusing on remittance and money transfer transactions.

However, the agreement between BOQ and PisoPay was questioned due to alleged overpricing. Over 30 members of the House of Representatives passed a resolution last year to investigate the contract. Among the signatories are Reps. Sharon Garin, Jesus Suntay, Estrelita Suaning and Francesco Benitez.

During the first hearing on Sept. 23, 2021, PBA party-list Rep. Jericho Nograles questioned the basis of BOQ’s decision to contract the services of PisoPay for failure of PisoPay to undergo the required bidding process as specified by RA 9184 or the Government Procurement Reform Act, especially on the need for competitive bidding, and because of PisoPay’s net financial contracting which makes it incapable of entering contracts with the government.

The BOQ legal office however argued that the agency’s contract with PisoPay is not covered by RA 9184 since there are no entailed costs for the government.

Nograles countered that if PisoPay’s contract with BOQ is beyond the scope of RA 9184, then the partnership is considered as a public-private partnership, which still requires a competitive selection process by the PPP governing board.

In terms of legal qualifications, it was also revealed that PisoPay’s business purposes are not aligned with its MOA with BOQ. Under its articles of incorporation, PisoPay’s primary purpose is to facilitate sending of remittances from OFWs while its secondary purpose is to borrow or raise money for not more than 19 lenders to meet the financial requirements of its business.

For the financial aspect, it was also discovered that PisoPay is technically insolvent since the company has more debts than assets. Its net financial capacity to contract (NFCC) is negative, thus, rendering unqualified to do business with the government.

For the technical requirements under RA 9184, it is said that PisoPay has no prior experience in engaging government offices to offer their services.

PisoPay president Ariel Surca admitted during the hearing that PisoPay’s net financial capacity to contract with the government was insufficient but noted that while the primary and secondary purposes of PisoPay are for remittance and lending, the business has expanded especially with the license given by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas for the company to collect online payments and to engage in financial transactions.

Worried about PisoPay’s continued transactions with the government, Nograles argued that PisoPay should voluntarily terminate its existing contracts with government agencies such as MARINA, LTFRB and NBI.

He also said that PisoPay should return the service fees it had collected so far. Assuming that half of the 650,000 of the OFWs who returned to the Philippines last 2020 and who are scheduled to return working abroad within that year have already applied for an ICV, PisoPay needs to reimburse around P22.8 million.

While PisoPay aims to address a public need, it should not be allowed to do so unless it meets the legal requirements and qualifications to do so.

It has been reported that PisoPay and two other companies are eyeing to secure a government contract for the financial payment system needs of a certain government agency. The question remains – assuming that PisoPay participates in a bidding process, how can it be qualified given its financial and technical limitations?

For comments, e-mail at [email protected].