Further to my article the other week on the “Transparency at Work” section of the Naga City Government’s “Hall of Fame” website (www.naga.gov.ph), I’ve discovered it’s actually “transparency at worst.” Why? It’s a farcical façade to shut out vital information, that is, the Commission on Audit reports for Naga. In fact, if you search for “Commission on Audit” in the “Naga City Search” function, you only get one result on a 2004 ordinance mentioning the agency.
But the latest audit on Naga—for the year ended December 31, 2007—posted at the COA website at www. coa.gov.ph/Audit/AAR.htm is quite revealing. Below are its findings (in bold print) to which I’ve added some comments:
I – Financial and Compliance Audit
Both Report on the Physical Count of Inventories and Report on the Physical Count of Property, Plant and Equipment as of December 31, 2007 were not submitted due to the non-completion of the physical inventorytaking of all the city properties, contrary to Section 124 of Volume I of the Manual on New Government Accounting System (NGAS ), hence, validity and correctness of the Inventories and Property, Plant and Equipment accounts valued at P3,135,099.19 and P819,272,920.36, respectively could not be ascertained. Comment: The city’s assets are of hocus-pocus valuation, which then puts to question its balance sheet.
Bank Reconciliation Statements as of December 31, 2007 of several bank depository accounts of the City under the General Fund and Trust Fund were not prepared and submitted by the City Accountant contrary to Section 3.2 of COA Circular No. 96-11. As such, accuracy of the balances of those bank accounts is not assured. Comment: We’re not sure of the city’s cash flow like unrecorded disbursements or who may be pocketing money.
Long existing reconciling items reflected in the Bank Reconciliation Statements (BRS ) as of December 31, 2007 of several bank depository accounts of the City remained unadjusted, contrary to Section 3.3 of COA Circular No. 96-11, thus, Cash in Bank account balances were rendered inaccurate and unreliable. Comment: No internal controls and people might be making money somewhere. The Accounting Office did not transfer the accumulated amount of P37,158,901.22 from General Fund (GF) to Special Education Fund (SEF ), which pertains to the 1% share of the SEF in the Real Property Tax, contrary to Art. 363 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 7160. The deficiency resulted in the overstatement and at the same time understatement of the cash position of the GF and SEF , respectively as of December 31, 2007 by the same amount. Comment: That’s Php37 million insidiously squeezed from our schools, teachers, and students to their detriment.
Compliance with Laws, Rules and Regulations
Cash advances amounting to P1,896,885.55 were granted without first settling or a proper accounting thereof was made of the previous cash advance, while cash advances totaling P8,168,269.61 were not liquidated within the prescribed period, contrary to Sections 4.1.2 and 5.1 of COA Circular No. 97-002, respectively. These defects created doubts on the validity and regularity of the grant and liquidation thereof. Comment: A blank check for City Hall people and no one seems to be getting fired or jailed.
Guidelines and policies set by the management on the amount and term of loan granted to the recipients of the LGU’s Proyektong Pangkabuhayan Program were not strictly implemented resulting to inequitable and arbitrary extension of loans. Comment: Outstanding loans receivable amounted to P38,167,105.58 as of December 31, 2007. Money’s overflowing in trapo style; later to become bad debts charged to us taxpayers.
Procurements of goods worth P50,000 and below falling under the condition set in Negotiated Procurement were undertaken using the shopping method contrary to Section 52 of RA 9184, and Sections 53 and 54 of Resolution No. 04-2006 amending the Implementing Rules and Regulations-A (IRR -A) of Republic Act No. 9184. Comment: Easy money for favored suppliers or supporters. A breeding ground for pricing cartels and fixers.
Inadequate amount was appropriated for the cost of implementing the Gender and Development (GAD ) Plan for 2007 and no GAD Accomplishment Report for 2007 was prepared, thus, not in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 30 of the GAA Act, FY 2007 Vol. 103, No. 1 and the guidelines set under Joint Circular No. 2004- 1 issued by the DBM, NEDA and NCRF W. These deficiencies resulted to inadequate implementation, monitoring and evaluation of GAD related activities of the LGU. Comment: Sadly, how we neglect our women. No wonder we have street children or watch-your-carboys.
II – Value for Money Audit
The City could have saved the entire amount of P6,133,049.52 representing interest expense had it self-financed the buy out of the PRE MIU MED II loan balance to the Department of Finance instead of securing a loan from the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) in the amount of P21,822,634.80. Comment: Who made money in the deal?
The City was not able to provide adequate measures to protect the grants to NGOs/POs for CY 2007 amounting to P11,775,944.47 contrary to the provisions provided by COA Circular No. 96-003 dated February 27, 1996. Thus, there is less assurance that the projects undertaken by the NGOs/POs are supportive of the programs or thrusts of the LGU. Likewise, value delivered to the beneficiaries was not ensured. Comment: A Php12 million reason--and counting for 2008 to 2010— why the Naga City People’s Council looks more like a “Puppets’ Conspiracy.” The NCPC lost no time attacking Fr. Wilmer Tria for his recent lecture at the Ateneo supposedly “brought about by hang over of the street parties” (sic) of Mayor Robredo. And yet, it seems to have only displayed deafening silence or indifferent ignorance about this matter and the entire COA report.
The 20% Local Development Fund (LDF ) could have been appropriated and utilized for programs and projects that partake the nature of investment and capital expenditures that would directly generate jobs and livelihood opportunities for the constituents of the city, rather than for other expenses appropriately chargeable against Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses (MOOE ), had the City Government adhered strictly to the general policies and guidelines on the appropriation and utilization of the 20% LDF . Comment: Funds were diverted to “ornamental plants and Christmas decors and for Festival and Special Events, such as sound system rental, financial assistance and sandos/ assorted T-shirts and other various supplies,” and “water bills, spare parts of various service vehicles of the city, fuel and oil consumption, internet and travel expenses/honoraria,” among others. This is brazen stealing from the poor and the needy, which cries to heaven for vengeance!
Then on the “Status of Implementation of Prior Year’s Recommendations,” the report stated: “A review of management’s actions on our previous year’s audit recommendations disclosed that out of eight audit recommendations, three were implemented and five were partially implemented…” Comment: Is that “good governance”?
In the end, City Hall’s “Transparency at Work” is all for show, and there goes public accountability. A “Hall of Shame.” Transparency at its worst.