‘Illegally Disbursed’ COA orders Capitol to recover P540 M

CEBU, Philippines - The Commission on Audit has directed the Cebu provincial government to recover more than P500 million that was ‘illegally’ disbursed as payment for infrastructure projects made from 2008 to 2011.

This after the COA found out that the Capitol had funded at least 58 infrastructure projects totaling P540 million without authority from the Provincial Board.

The commission said that these projects were implemented despite the absence of PB resolution authorizing their transactions in violation of the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines, and Government Procurement Reform Act.

Apart from this, the Joint Memorandum Circular of  the Department of Interior and Local Government, National Economic and Development Authority, Department of Budget and Management and Department of Finance provided that it is the PB that approves the Provincial Development and Physical Framework Plan (PDPFP), Provincial Development Investment Program (PDIP) and the Annual Investment Program (AIP), the COA said.

The projects, however, could not be traced to the respective Annual Procurement Plans, it said.

“The same results were reached when the tracing of the infrastructure projects was expanded to the corresponding annual/supplemental budget, function, AIP and PPA of the respective budget year of the local government… No other documents that described the projects in sufficient details were attached to these annual budgets,” COA’s report stated, saying that these documents contained only generic descriptions of the projects.

COA said that nothing in the minutes of the PB sessions that approved the annual budgets of  2008 to 2011 that indicates that these projects were deliberated upon.

“In as much as the subject contracts could not be traced to any budgetary document to which they supposedly pertain, then the appropriations therefore and the resulting disbursements by reason of the appropriations were illegal and must be disallowed with the officials responsible for the payments to be held liable for the disallowances,” COA said.

COA recommended that the Capitol, under the present administration, should ensure that the disallowances be settled by those liable.

In reply to COA’s observation, Provincial Legal Officer Orvi Ortega said the administration of Gov. Hilario Davide III is ‘strictly’ observing the law that requires prior PB authorization of contracts for infrastructure projects.

“As to the contracts entered into by the previous administration without the required authorization from the SP, the present administration of Gov. Davide III has refused payment for collections made by the contractors concerned,” Ortega said in a statement.

Board Member Grecilda Sanchez, who heads the PB committee on budget and appropriations, disclosed that more than P300 million are still being claimed by some contractors from the Capitol.

“For those who were unpaid, disallowed gyod which also means nga as budget committee chairman, there will be no appropriations intended for the payment of  the other balances,” she said.

She said that the province will collect the amount from those liable and  inform the previous administration about the disallowances.

When  asked about who were those liable, Sanchez says: “Ang signatory ang liable mobayad. Stating the fact nga wa siya’y authority from the PB, and who authorized the payment who signed the contract, chances are the person who held liable for that is the head of the previous administration, which was then headed by former Gov. Gwen Garcia,” now the third district’s congressional representative.

Sanchez however said that the respondents of the letter will be given 90 days to answer.

But Garcia’s lawyer Lito Astillero questioned COA’s basis, saying that the previous administration had followed the legal process.

Astillero said there was an appropriation ordinance from the PB which covered the projects implemented during Garcia’s time.

He contested the COA’s report that appropriation ordinance is not enough, citing the Local Government Code.

Section 305-A of the Code stated “no money shall be paid out of the local treasury except in pursuance of an appropriations ordinance or law.” On the other hand, Section 306-B also provides that “Appropriation” refers to an authorization made by ordinance, directing the payment of goods and services from local government funds under specified conditions or for specific purposes.”

“This means if you have appropriation act passed by the PB, it also contained the directive of the payment of the goods and services,” Astillero explained.

“Another point is that wa man gane mo-question ang mga PB ato  because they know the local government code. It is also very suspicious, why only now? They are referring to the transaction made in 2008-2011. Among gibuhat are all in the provisions,” he said.

He lamented why COA ‘revived’ the same issue which was already raised before.

“We filed a declaratory relief about this issue before. We filed it before the Regional Trial Court. That case went up to Supreme Court and the SC upheld our stand,” he added.

Sanchez said the province will ask any intervening agency to help them evaluate those projects.

“Even though there is recommendation from COA, it doesn’t mean nga di ta mobayad hangtod-hangtod. We will find an intervening agency such as court nga motabang sa probinsya unsaon, kay syempre dalan gud na so gigamit na gyod na. But for now, there is a recommendation from COA,” she added. —/LPM (FREEMAN)