There was this headline in a national paper recently expressing fears that congressmen would try to interfere in the implementation of DepEd's 5-billion-peso school building program this year. This developed after the Senate-House conference committee on the country's expenditure program inserted this provision in the appropriation bill: "Provided that upon concurrence of the Representative of the district concerned, local government units (LGUs) with construction capability may be allowed to undertake the construction of school buildings within their locality."
The fears are understandable, after all elections are only 16 months away. For a congressman running for reelection the temptation to lord it over education officials would be too much. It is possible that for political reasons the choice of beneficiary schools would be slanted towards the congressman's bailiwick even if these are not in need of such structures.
The responsibility of identifying beneficiary schools belongs of course to the education officials in the area. Every school division or district maintains updated statistical data indicating which schools in which municipality or barangay are urgently in need of additional classrooms. The decision therefore which school should receive a new building comes from these officials. Disturb this decision through political pressure and you come up with wasted resources - wasted because areas which don't need it get it, while those in need are neglected.
During our years with the education department, however, political interference on this program was minimal - at least in this region. What most congressmen wanted was to be informed in advance where the classrooms were to be built. Some would request realignments of the projects based usually on justifiable grounds such as corrected needs, absence of acquired site, unstable social conditions, and others. After verification of the reason given, the realignments were effected, subject to consultation with the LGU head concerned. Normally, there was no problem here - if the legislator and the mayor were in good terms. If not, conflicts would arise.
For example, in one municipality in Metro Cebu a congressman funded the construction of a two-classroom structure. This was done without the knowledge of the mayor who happened to be a non-supporter of the legislator. You know what happened? The mayor padlocked the classrooms and for more than a year the whole thing was unoccupied. This, despite the fact that some classes were being held on half-day sessions for want of rooms.
To go back to the provision mandated by the conference committee with regard to the district Representative's concurrence that a project be implemented by an LGU, there is something significant here. And it is this: Cost reduction. Assuming that an LGU has construction capability - and almost all cities and provinces have - and assuming too that transparency is observed, savings can be realized amounting to more than 30 percent of the total cost.
We say this based on our experience as schools superintendent in Cebu during the early 1980s (when Eddie Gullas was governor). At that time 50 percent of the SBP allotment was released to each provincial government for the latter to implement. Tapping the personnel resources of DECS, DILG and the provincial engineering office, Governor Gullas came up with a centralized strategy on the planning, supplying and monitoring aspects of the program. In materials procurement savings were realized because this was done in bulk covering a cluster of ten or more buildings. In delivering these materials to the field savings were also generated because government trucks were used. Then in the actual construction (using the labor of barangay carpenters and "pajenantes") savings were again generated because labor cost was much less than that of construction companies.
At that time, the COA approved cost per classroom was P75,000 but the Cebu government built such classroom at a cost of only from P40,000 to P45,000, generating a saving of from P30,000 to P40,000 from each unit. And what happened to the funds saved? These were used in constructing more school buildings.
On the whole, the Senate-House committee resolution may prove beneficial to the 2009 school building program of the government - assuming probity of implementation.
* * *
Email: edioko_uv@yahoo.com