Detailed Audit Observations and Recommendations · Web view2014/08/09 · It further...

DETAILED OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Financial and Compliance Audit

1. Unascertained validity and accuracy of Property, Plant and Equipment (PPE) – P908.604 million, depreciation expense – P11.667 million, and accumulated depreciation – P96.580 million

As observed in prior years, the following deficiencies still subsist in CY 2013:

1.1 Unreconciled variance of P690.949 million between the Report on Physical Count of PPE (RPCPPE) and accounting records for the PPE account.

By virtue of Office Order No. 345-12A dated November 5, 2012, the City Inventory Team conducted a periodic inventory of supplies, property and equipment on various dates in CY 2013. The result of the physical count, which was reported in the RPCPPE as of December 31, 2013, showed a PPE balance of P3,128,861,304.76. Comparison of this amount with the PPE recorded in City’s books of accounts of P3,819,810,473.24 disclosed a net variance of P690,949,168.48. This variance remarkably increased by P654,234,994.32 from the 2012 figure of P36,714,174.16. The substantial variance was mainly due to the decrease in the value of Land as of December 31, 2013 by P592,758,534.15 per RPCPPE.

In lieu of the property cards to be maintained by the City General Services Office (CGSO), the said Office developed the Property Management System to facilitate the centralized recording of all properties acquired by the City. The data in the System are the basis in their periodic inventory of PPE. Any discrepancy that arises between the data and result of physical count is timely reconciled by the City Inventory Team.

As of date, the City Inventory Team and the City Accounting Office (CAO) are still undertaking reconciliation of their records, particularly on Land and Building accounts, which partook the biggest chunk of variance amounting to P266,670,564.79 and P223,025,645.02, respectively.

The importance of reconciliation is to ensure that the PPE in the accounting records actually exist and that all PPE in the RPCPPE are recorded in the books of accounts. This is espoused in Section C.3, Chapter V of the Manual on Property Custodianship, quoted as follows:

“After the physical inventory taking, the Inventory Committee shall reconcile the results of the count with the property and accounting records.

27

The inventory listing of the supplies and materials shall be checked against the stockcards maintained by the Accounting and finally against the control accounts. On the other hand, the inventory listing of the equipment shall be checked with the property card maintained by the Property as against the equipment ledger cards maintained by the Accounting and total therefore shall be compared with those in the general ledger.”

Due to the unreconciled balances of the RPCPPE and the accounting records, the existence of assets and the correctness of the recorded PPE account balances as of December 31, 2013 could not be ascertained.

1.2 “Reconciling Items” totaling P589.139 million recognized in the books of accounts as PPE

One of our previous year’s findings was the recording of various PPE as “Reconciling Items” totaling P589,138,913.23, which up to this date, the CAO failed to provide the details/breakdown, contrary to Section 111 of P.D. 1445, which states that:

“The accounts of an agency shall be kept in such detail as is necessary to meet the needs of the agency and at the same time be adequate to furnish the information needed by fiscal or control agencies of the government.”

These reconciling items enumerated in Table 1 contributed to the cause of the non-reconciliation of the RPCPPE and the accounting records.

Table 1

Particulars Acquisition CostAccumulated

Depreciation as of December 31, 2013

General FundLand 207,695,291.59 Not ApplicableLand Improvements 225,143,346.22 0.00 Office Buildings 116,034,657.03 0.00 Market and Slaughterhouse 6,712,410.33 0.00 Other Structures 14,253,501.19 0.00Office Equipment 1,642,988.65 0.00 Watercrafts 1,095,303.03 0.00 Sub-total 572,577,498.04 0.00

Special Education FundOther Structures 849,362.51 0.00 Office Equipment 271,834.99 0.00 IT Equipment and Software 92,240.00 0.00 Other Machineries and Equipment 267,251.60 0.00Other Transportation Equipment 478,000.00 0.00Other Property, Plant & Equipment 14,602,726.09 1,683.00 Sub-total 16,561,415.19 1,683.00

Totals 589,138,913.23 1,683.00

28

The accumulated depreciation amounting to P1,683.00 as of December 31, 2013 for the Other Property, Plant and Equipment was understated since the reconciling items, which were part of the PPE, were not depreciated since 2004 for the reason that their details could not be identified. As a result, the net book value of such account was overstated due to the unapplied amount of depreciation, while the depreciation expense for the period ended December 31, 2013 was, likewise, understated, and consequently, the equity for the period were overstated by the same amount.

1.3 Tangible assets worth P0.679 million small enough to be considered as PPE classified in the accounting records as PPE.

COA Circular No. 2005-002 dated April 14, 2005, provides the list of small tangible assets with corresponding estimated useful life which shall be recorded as inventories upon acquisition and expense upon issuance.

Despite our previous year’s findings, we still noted that several tangible assets totaling P679,306.99, detailed in Table 2, with estimated serviceable life of more than one year but small enough to be considered as PPE, were included in the inventory report and still classified in the books of accounts as PPE instead of the inventory/expense account.

Table 2

PPE Account

To be classified as

Acquisition Cost

Office Supplies

Medical, Dental and Laboratory Supplies

Military and

Police Supplies

Other Supplies

Other Inventory

Items

Hardware and

Construction Supplies

Monobloc Furniture

General Fund

Office Equipment 74,460.00 71,300.00 - - 470.00 - 2,690.00 - Furniture and Fixtures

370,980.00 - - - - - - 370,980.00

IT Equipment and Software

146,304.49 - - - 146,304.49 - - -

Medical, Dental and Laboratory Equipment

4,462.50 - 4,462.50 - - - - -

Military and Police Equipment 3,900.00 - - 3,900.00 - - - -

Other PPE 61,471.00 - 1,600.00 - - 36,260.00 23,611.00 -

Sub-total 661,577.99 71,300.00 6,062.50 3,900.00 146,774.49 36,260.00 26,301.00 370,980.00

Special Education FundIT Equipment and Software 16,309.00 - - - 16,309.00 - - -

Other PPE 1,420.00 - - - - 1,420.00 - - Sub-total 17,729.00 - - - 16,309.00 1,420.00 - -

Grand Total 679,306.99 71,300.00 6,062.50 3,900.00 163,083.49 37,680.00 26,301.00 370,980.00

The non-reclassification to the correct account of the said items understated the expense account and overstated the PPE account by P679,306.99 and the Government Equity account by the amount of the item already issued to end-users.

29

We have recommended that Management:

a. Continuously reconcile the result of the physical count with the property and accounting records;

b. Adjust the books of accounts and the property records, as warranted, after reconciliation;

c. Continuously analyze the reconciling items in the PPE account, and accordingly prepare correcting journal entries to reflect the correct balances of the affected accounts;

d. Reclassify to the proper Inventory account tangible assets with estimated useful life of more than one year but small enough to be considered and recorded as PPE; and

e. Record the items as expense upon issuance of the small tangible items and tender the corresponding Inventory Custodian Slip to the personnel to whom the items are issued for proper monitoring, control and accountability.

Management replied that the CGSO and CAO are continuously making the efforts to reconcile the balances; however, a full reconciliation is not possible pending the determination of the details/breakdown of the selected accounts for documentation purposes.

Management also commented that right after assumption of office of the CGSO Head in 2002, the City Treasurer’s Office had turned over all documents relative to properties of the City. The CGSO in turn had re-issued all Property Accountability Receipt (PAR), the equivalent of Acknowledgement Receipt for Equipment (ARE), to all properties identified and accounted for. The CGSO issued the PARs/AREs to properties physically existing and identifiable during the physical inventory. However, the corresponding PAR/ARE was not issued to properties that have no breakdown or was recorded in lump sum in the accounting records.

Management, likewise, replied that the CGSO is continuously correcting the entries and classifications of tangible assets with estimated serviceable life of more than one year but small enough to be considered as PPE and that the said Office is closely coordinating with the CAO in reclassifying the items.

1.4 Understatement of depreciation on several PPE accounts resulting in incorrect valuation of PPE

Generally Accepted Accounting Principles defines depreciation as an allocation of cost over the estimated useful life of an asset. It is the process of reducing the historical cost of an asset by an annual amount relating to the amount of asset usage.

30

NGAS Manual, Volume III, provides the information in setting-up the Accumulated Depreciation and Depreciation on several PPE accounts, while COA Circular No. 2004-003 dated October 4, 2004 provides uniform guidelines on the computation of depreciation expense for Property, Plant and Equipment. The said Circular provides that computation of depreciation is based on straight-line method. A residual value equivalent to 10 percent of the acquisition cost shall be deducted before effecting the depreciation by dividing over its estimated useful life. Also, any adjustments resulting from changes in the number of useful life of property according to its account classification are supported by the same Circular.

Review of the Schedule of PPE showed that no depreciation was computed on the following structures and other transportation equipment. This understated the Depreciation Expense and Accumulated Depreciation accounts by P1,028,668.34 (Table 3) for CY 2013. Further, we noted that most of the PPE, with useful lives of five to 30 years, completed and purchased prior to the implementation of the New Government Accounting System, are not provided with depreciation. Computation of the depreciation that should have accumulated through the years for the said property items corresponded to P16,094,378.20 (Table 4).

Table 3Per Schedule of PPE Computed

Depreciation per AuditParticulars Acq. Date Est. Life Amount

Marikina Sports Center Library, West Grandstand 31-Dec-2007 30 1,921,759.70 57,652.79

Two-storey Health and Livelihood Center, Libis Bulelak, Barangay Malanday 1-Aug-2006 0 5,383,631.78 242,263.43

Market Mall, E. Jacinto St., Barangay Sta. Elena 1-Aug-2006 30 1,097,086.89 32,912.61 Market Mall, Kapitan Vencion, Barangay Sta. Elena 1-Aug-2006 30 3,344,586.57 100,337.60 Market Mall, P. Dela Paz St., Barangay Sta. Elena 1-Aug-2006 30 19,757,993.67 592,739.81

Multi-Purpose Hall, Pugad-Lawin Champaca, Barangay Parang 9-Dec-2004 10 27,690.00 2,492.10

BMX Bike 26-Apr-2004 10 3,000.00 270.00

Total 1,028,668.34

Table 4

ParticularsAccumulated Depreciation As of December 31, 2013

Hospital and Health Centers 1,776,598.49Markets and Slaughterhouses 5,323,926.77Other Structures 5,159,456.32Medical, Dental and Laboratory Equipment 450,000.00Technical and Scientific Equipment 78,491.25Other Machineries 60,138.00Motor Vehicles 1,558,834.25Other Transportation Equipment 2,610.00Other PPE 1,684,323.12 Total 16,094,378.20

31

Review disclosed that various PPE accounts with useful lives that have already elapsed were not fully depreciated up to this date. Also, the depreciation applied to other PPE accounts with remaining useful lives was inadequate. These inadequate provision and lack of full depreciation understated the expense account and total operating expenses by P10,638,786.58, and overstated operating income by the same amount. On the other hand, the Government Equity account was overstated by P80,485,703.20 and the Accumulated Depreciation account was understated by the same amount. Details of the overstatement and understatement are shown in the following table:

Table 5

Account NamePer Books Per Audit Under/Over Depreciation

Depreciation for CY 2013

Accumulated Depreciation





General Fund Land Improvements 15,357.84 16,637.66 15,357.87 76,789.35 (0.03) (60,151.69)

Office Buildings 4,846,009.21 26,164,234.63 7,504,393.96 33,730,844.22 (2,658,384.75) (7,566,609.59)School Buildings 2,365,748.57 15,969,745.84 4,751,915.64 21,912,320.66 (2,386,167.07) (5,942,574.82)Hospitals and Health Centers 4,088,057.28 20,342,463.68 4,088,057.20 20,653,749.84 0.08 (311,286.16)

Markets and Slaughterhouses 2,349,867.65 2,900,869.49 846,425.80 6,446,751.78 1,503,441.85 (3,545,882.29)

Other Structures 16,361,130.07 52,807,314.41 16,661,208.62 60,821,617.49 (300,078.55) (8,014,303.08)Office Equipment 254,320.93 2,389,439.25 287,218.38 2,835,004.81 (32,897.45) (445,565.56)Furniture and Fixtures 1,601,678.61 9,838,967.81 1,666,702.16 11,027,741.63 (65,023.55) (1,188,773.82)

IT Equipment and Software 6,920,522.58 26,137,033.38 8,549,969.66 27,531,258.84 (1,629,447.08) (1,394,225.46)

Library Books 27,058.32 2,969,106.77 32,358.12 4,026,243.69 (5,299.80) (1,057,136.92)Machineries 65,281.08 1,190,233.56 65,281.13 1,465,825.35 (0.04) (275,591.79)Communication Equipment 660,627.48 3,604,230.94 723,755.31 4,589,305.58 (63,127.83) (985,074.64)

Construction and Heavy Equipment 9,421,776.06 50,109,877.02 12,887,203.41 62,081,970.14 (3,465,427.35) (11,972,093.12)

Disaster Response and Rescue Equipment

- 209,972.22 6,373.68 258,618.60 (6,373.68) (48,646.38)

Medical, Dental and Laboratory Equipment

1,006,221.36 3,960,575.30 357,375.72 1,909,037.16 648,845.64 2,051,538.14

Military and Police Equipment 75,523.45 569,184.31 62,671.16 617,994.44 12,852.29 (48,810.13)

Sports Equipment 189,380.16 470,877.38 189,375.83 479,270.97 4.33 (8,393.59)Technical and Scientific Equipment

189,978.67 1,693,005.89 188,959.72 1,809,242.62 1,018.95 (116,236.73)

Other Machineries and Equipment 212,364.39 2,658,283.53 212,364.99 3,635,093.15 (0.60) (976,809.62)

Motor Vehicles 9,108,681.60 68,398,615.37 9,550,210.26 79,203,189.55 (441,528.66) (10,804,574.18)Watercrafts 151,341.12 766,410.99 151,341.09 780,660.93 0.03 (14,249.94)Other Transportation Equipment

225,978.81 2,570,657.20 212,100.52 3,278,763.61 13,878.29 (708,106.41)

Other Property, Plant and Equipment

10,884,526.71 52,306,903.39 12,323,308.78 62,144,768.99 (1,438,782.07) (9,837,865.60)

Sub-total 71,021,431.95 348,044,640.02 81,333,929.00 411,316,063.39 (10,312,497.05) (63,271,423.37)Account Name Per Books Per Audit Under/Over Depreciation

32







Special Education Fund

School Buildings 24,683,346.16 81,383,663.07 26,948,131.99 102,709,095.27 (2,264,785.83) (21,325,432.20)Office Equipment 115,050.60 1,455,399.81 115,050.60 1,456,662.90 - (1,263.09)Furniture and Fixtures 280,147.22 981,129.49 307,424.20 1,006,485.12 (27,276.98) (25,355.63)

IT Equipment and Software 1,306,129.98 7,592,730.21 1,328,511.83 9,049,874.26 (22,381.84) (1,457,144.05)

Construction and Heavy Equipment - 160,312.50 25,650.00 256,500.00 (25,650.00) (96,187.50)

Technical and Scientific Equipment

4,398,085.44 13,284,931.32 2,391,287.64 7,230,988.16 2,006,797.80 6,053,943.16

Motor Vehicles - 2,279,861.36 - 2,364,300.00 - (84,438.64)Other Property, Plant and Equipment

1,508,265.85 5,975,152.37 1,501,258.53 6,253,554.25 7,007.32 (278,401.88)

Sub-total 32,291,025.25 113,113,180.13 32,617,314.78 130,327,459.96 (326,289.53) (17,214,279.83)Total 103,312,457.20 461,157,820.15 113,951,243.78 541,643,523.35 (10,638,786.58) (80,485,703.20)

The understatements of the Depreciation Expense and Accumulated Depreciation accounts, therefore, aggregated P11,667,454.92 and P96,580,081.40, respectively, which resulted in the incorrect valuation of PPE.

We have recommended that the City Accountant:

a. Provide depreciation on the assets of the City following the guidelines provided under COA Circular No. 2004-003; and

b. Adjust the understatement of Accumulated Depreciation in previous years to be able to present the PPE at its proper valuation.

Management replied that in compliance with the recommendation, depreciation charges on assets were already reflected in the books of accounts. They also commented that while electronically, depreciation is system generated, any PPE therefore which were not provided with depreciation is due to system error. However, they assured that, periodically, they will look into the errors so that the prescribed depreciation for each PPE will be provided.

1.5 Completed projects recorded as Construction-in-Progress not reclassified to proper PPE accounts.

The NGAS Manual defines Construction-in-Progress (CIP) account as the cost or accumulated value of the assets that are still under construction. Hence, projects that are not yet completed at the end of the period are reported in the books of accounts as CIP. As soon as the project is completed, the CIP for agency assets is closed to the appropriate asset account, and for public infrastructures funded from the City’s revenue, the CIP is transferred to the Public Infrastructures account, which is closed to Government Equity at the end of the year.

33

Comparison of the accounting and engineering reports relative to the infrastructure projects implemented by the City disclosed that various CIP accounts totaling P217,655,133.67 as of December 31, 2013, which were reported as 100 percent complete by the City Engineering Office (CEO), were still recorded in the accounting reports as CIP. Based on the report of the CEO, these CIP accounts had been completed between CYs 2009 to 2013. Given this condition, the provision for depreciation on the affected PPE accounts was deferred resulting in the understatement of the Depreciation Expense and Accumulated Depreciation accounts and overstatement of Government Equity.

The table below summarizes the afore-said completed CIP accounts and the year of their reported completion.

Table 6

AccountYear Completed

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total Agency Assets 50,579,174.79 4,406,126.65 5,444,997.28 1,617,476.73 113,378,844.42 175,426,619.87Roads, Highways & Bridges - - 19,532,272.42 3,292,338.08 10,060,853.98 32,885,464.48Other Public Infrastructures - - 421,202.28 1,198,627.98 7,723,219.06 9,343,049.32 Total 50,579,174.79 4,406,126.65 25,398,471.98 6,108,442.79 131,162,917.46 217,655,133.67

Moreover, the project costs of CIP accounts in the accounting records were not the same as the costs reported by the CEO, showing a difference of P41,163,909.22. This indicated a probability that the figures recorded in the books of accounts may not reflect the correct costs of the assets, which may result in the misstatement of the affected PPE accounts and the Registry of Public Infrastructure upon reclassification.

On the other hand, the CEO did not identify the status of some CIP accounts. Disclosure of project status is important for facility of determination if the corresponding projects are still ongoing or are already completed.

We have recommended that:

a. The City Accounting and the City Engineering Offices reconcile their records to determine the status and correct balances of the affected CIP accounts;

b. The City Engineering Office provide the City Accounting Office with copies of the report of completed projects and other necessary documents; and to cause the transfer of these projects from the CIP accounts to the appropriate PPE accounts and Registry of Public Infrastructures; and

c. Based on the adjusted data, the City Accounting Office compute for the required depreciation on the completed projects, and accordingly adjust the balances of the affected accounts.

34

Management commented that the CEO have already provided the City Accounting Office with copies of reports of the completed projects and other necessary documents needed to update reports relative to the infrastructure projects implemented for CYs 2009-2013. Also, they are now in the process of reconciling their records to determine the status and correct balances of the affected CIP accounts.

2. Drugs and Medicines Inventory

2.1 Unsubstantiated balance of Drugs and Medicines Inventory – P4.444 million

Section 124, Volume I of the NGAS Manual provides that: “the local chief executive shall require periodic physical inventory of supplies or property. Physical count of inventory items by type shall be conducted semestrally and reported in the Report of the Physical Count of Inventories (RPCI) ….”

Pursuant to the above provision, the City Inventory Team (CIT) assigned at the City General Services Office (CGSO) conducted a periodic inventory taking of supplies and property and equipment for the semesters ending June and December 2013. We noted, however, that the count was confined to the stock in the warehouse, such as construction materials, office supplies, property and equipment with Property Acknowledgement Receipts, like motor vehicles and heavy equipment.

Drugs and medicines were not counted since, based on interview, these were already transferred to the City Health Office (CHO). On the other hand, while the CHO prepared its report on a monthly basis for the inventory of drugs and medicines, such report was not submitted to the CGSO or CAO for reconciliation and adjustment. This set up is not consistent with Section C.3, Chapter V of the Manual on Property Custodianship which provides that the result of the physical inventory taking shall reconcile with the property and accounting records.

As of December 31, 2013, the accounting records showed a balance of P4,443,804.53 of the Drugs and Medicines Inventory account. This balance is supported with the details in the Supplies Ledger Cards (SLCs) maintained under the e-NGAS. However, the balance is not supported with an inventory report prepared by the CIT to serve as basis for reconciliation of details of drugs and medicines on hand with the SLCs.

35

We had recommended and Management agreed that the:

a. CIT include drugs and medicines in the conduct of physical inventory taking, prepare the corresponding report, and reconcile the data with the CGSO and CAO records; and

b. CHO submit the monthly report on the inventory of drugs and medicines to the CGSO or CAO for reconciliation and adjustment.

2.2 Inappropriate basis in recording issued drugs and medicines

The City Warehouse of the CGSO serves as the centralized stockroom for its supplies, including drugs and medicines, and property items. It is also the site of deliveries and inspections before these assets are issued to the requesting office.

In the case of drugs and medicines, after inspection and tagging of the items at the City Warehouse, these are transferred and stored at the stockroom of the Supply Section, CHO, as this has air-conditioned room facilities and refrigerators suited for storing drugs and medicines. The transfer is documented by a Requisition and Issue Slip (RIS), which serves as reference in the preparation of the Summary of Supplies and Materials Issued (SSMI) submitted to the CAO by the CGSO. On the basis of the SSMI, with the RIS as supporting document, the CAO records the drugs and medicines as issued. By this process, the transferred drugs and medicines to the CHO are already expensed in the accounting records when, actually, there are still available stocks in the CHO Supply Section for distribution to the various end-user sections of the CHO and the City Health Centers upon request.

At the CHO, the issuance of the drugs and medicines are supported with an accomplished RIS prepared by the requesting end-user sections and City Health Centers. The RIS is filed by the Supply Officer and not submitted to the CGSO. The above existing practice in recording the issuances of drugs and medicines was not reflective of the actual utilization of the said supplies. Had the CIT counted the remaining inventory at the CHO for the semester ending June and December 2013, and reported it to the CAO, the correct balance of such inventory could have been reflected in the books of accounts. The non-recording of the ending inventory, therefore, overstated the reported drugs and medicines expenses and correspondingly understated the respective inventory account balances.

We had recommended and Management agreed that the CHO, CGSO and CAO undertake proper coordination for the complete and accurate recording of issuances and ending inventory of drugs and medicines.

36

2.3 Non-moving Drugs and Medicines Inventory sub-accounts

Review of the accounting records disclosed that various sub-accounts of the Drugs and Medicines Inventory account totaling P1,046,243.11 were non-moving for a year to seven years, indicating that there was neither procurement nor issuance of the items. Based on past observation, the regular shelf life of medicines is two years. This condition suggests, therefore, that the corresponding items could already have expired.

Ocular inspection conducted by the City Auditor’s Office on sample non-moving inventories disclosed a negative result, which meant that there were no expired items on hand. The non-existing, non-moving balances of the sub-accounts, therefore, overstated the Drugs and Medicines Inventory account and understated the corresponding expense account.

We have recommended that the City Accounting Office:

a. Analyze the details of the affected accounts and make the appropriate adjustments; and

b. Coordinate with the concerned offices for the appropriate action to be undertaken.

2.4 Subsequent procurement of drugs and medicines undertaken despite adequate available stocks on hand

Verification of reports of the Supply Section, CHO disclosed that as of December 31, 2012, drugs and medicines have an adequate ending stock balances, which would cover the needs for CY 2013. In spite of the availability of stocks, the City procured additional stocks based on the 2013 Project Procurement Management Plan (PPMP) of the CHO. Table 7 shows the stock balances at the beginning of CY 2013, quantity of procured stocks, issuances during the year, and balances at year end.

Table 7

Particulars Unit of Measure

Stock on Hand as of

Dec. 31, 2012

Receipt for

CY 2013Total Total

Issued

Stock on Hand as of

Dec. 31, 2013Amoxicillin Caps. Piece 3012 2500 5512 1997 3515Cefalexin Caps. Box 868 400 1268 452 816Cotrimoxazole Tab. Box 1175 825 2000 1018 982Mefenamic Acid Tab. Box 2164 1100 3264 1594 1670Multivitamins Caps. Box 2550 1500 4050 2345 1705

The preparation of the PPMP, as provided under Section 7 of R.A. 9184, requires a judicious and meticulous planning in accordance with the planned projects and

37

activities of the office. Past data of issuances and utilization as well as the available balances of the items at the time of procurement, among other matters, are important inputs to be considered prior to procurement. These requirements could be addressed with the conduct of inventory taking at periodic intervals and review of past data.

If these planning attributes are not objectively employed and considered, the procured items may be excessive or deficient than what is needed and may not suitably address the requirements for the City health programs and projects. This condition may cause delay or hamper the accomplishment of the project, with impact on the prioritization in the use of City resources to the detriment of the intended beneficiaries.

We have recommended that in planning for the procurement of drugs and medicines, the CHO consider past data on requirements of all end-users including the City Health Centers, and inputs from the Department of Health, so that available funds are more appropriately programmed for the needs of the City for its health programs and projects.

2.5 Unaccounted drugs and medicines and other items from the DOH – P8.679 million

Drugs and medicines, medical supplies, and medical equipment worth P4,384,701.73, P3,001,721.92, and P1,292,744.00, respectively, received from the Center for Health Development/Department of Health (DOH), National Capital Region, were not recorded in the books of accounts due to the absence of a document as basis by the City Accounting Office for such recording. The Supply Officer of the CHO was not able to submit to the CGSO a report or document covering the receipt of such goods, which in turn should have been submitted to the CAO.

The non-recording is not in accordance with the requirements of P.D. 1445 and R.A. 7160, as follows:

“Except as may otherwise be specifically provided by law or competent authority all moneys and property officially received by a public officer in any capacity or upon any occasion must be accounted for as government funds and government property. Government property shall be taken up in the books of the agency concerned at acquisition cost or an appraised value.” (Section 63, P.D. 1445)

“Every officer primarily accountable for government property shall keep a complete record of all properties under his charge and render his accounts thereof semi-annually to the provincial or city general services officer or the

38

municipal mayor or punong barangay, as the case may be.” (Section 375.d, R.A. 7160)

The non-recording also extended to issuances of the goods to end-users. Such lack of recording of the receipt and issuances understated the balances of the affected accounts, Drugs and Medicines Inventory, Medical, Dental and Laboratory Supplies Inventory, and Medical, Dental and Laboratory Equipment and the related expense accounts, with consequential effect to the Government Equity account.

We have recommended that the Supply Officer of the CHO prepare and submit to the CGSO the corresponding report of receipt and issuances of drugs and medicines and all the other items from the DOH to adhere to Section 63, P.D. 1445 and Section 375.d of R.A. 7160. The CGSO, for its part, furnish a copy of the report to the CAO for proper and timely recording in the books of accounts.

3. Formulation and implementation of the program under the 20% Development Fund not in accordance with the provisions of RA 7160

3.1 Projects programmed for implementation under the City’s Local Development Plan (LDP) not initiated by the Local Development Council

Section 106 of R.A. 7160 provides that each local government unit shall have a comprehensive multi-sectoral development plan to be initiated by its development council and approved by its sanggunian. For this purpose, the development council at the provincial, city, municipal, or barangay level, shall assist the corresponding sanggunian in setting the direction of economic and social development, and in coordinating development efforts within its territorial jurisdiction.

Section 107 (b) of the same Act provides the composition of Local Development Councils, as follows:

“The city or municipal development council shall be headed by the mayor and shall be composed of the following members:

1. All punong barangays in the city or municipality;2. The chairman of the committee on appropriations of the

sangguniang panlungsod or sangguniang bayan concerned;3. The congressman or his representative; and4. Representatives of non-governmental organizations operating in

the city or municipality, as the case may be, who shall constitute not less than one-fourth (1/4) of the members of the fully organized council.”

39

The City Mayor constituted through Executive Order No. 003-10 dated July 23, 2010 the composition of the City Development Council (CDC) to include those representations as specified in the above-mentioned provision.

The 20% DF budget for CY 2013 was approved by the CDC Executive Committee under Resolution No. 01 dated January 4, 2013, containing the enumeration of programs and projects that comprise the LDP. The Resolution indicated that the programs and projects formulated under the development plan of the City, and upon the directive of the CDC, the CDC Executive Committee conducted the review and assessment of the Plan. However, there are no available documents that would show that the LDP was initiated by the CDC. In the absence of such document, it would seem that the CDC has not carried out its function to represent the different sectors outlined in R.A. 7160 in the formulation of the projects funded out of the Fund. We also noted that the Plan was not approved by the Sangguniang Panlungsod, which is not in accordance with Section 106 of the same law.

We have recommended that Management comply strictly with Sections 106, 107 (b) and 111.3 (b) of R.A. 7160, and ensure that the City Development Plan is approved by the Sangguniang Panlungsod and that this be operationalized for the execution of envisioned programs/projects/activities for the City’s constituents’ benefits.

Management replied that the CDC passed Resolution No. 01, Series of 2014 on February 4, 2014 approving the 2014 DF Budget and that an Ordinance was enacted by the City Council on February 19, 2014 adopting the CDC Resolution.

3.2 No Annual Investment Program (AIP) formulated for programs with lump-sum appropriation of P27.000 million

The CDC did not convene for the formulation of the AIP. The AIP shall specifically identify the priority programs, projects and activities that are to be funded out of the 20% DF, including the detailed annual allocation for each program, project and activity which should be compliant with the policy and guidelines set forth under DILG-DBM Joint Memorandum Circular No. 2011-1.

Section 3.1.2 of the Local Budget Circular (LBC) No. 70 dated March 14, 2000, issued by DBM states that:

“The AIP shall be prepared by using AIP Form No. 1 and shall be submitted to the Sangguniang for approval.”

Verification revealed that CDC did not prepare the AIP of the City’s Local Development Plan (LDP) for CY 2013, as required under the above-cited LBC. Despite this, however, the City was able to implement the programs in the LDP as manifested in the utilization of funds for identified programs and projects.

40

We further noted that the Kaayusan and Kalikasan programs were allocated with lump-sum appropriations amounting to P21 million and P6 million, respectively, or a total of P27 million, which could not be validated in the absence of the detail/breakdown of projects that should have been included in the AIP. The related information is shown below:

Table 8Program Projects Amount Total

Kaayusan Various Infrastructure Projects P15,000,000.00 P21,000,000.00Bikeways Program 6,000,000.00Kalikasan Improvement of Public Parks 6,000,000.00 6,000,000.00

Total P27,000,000.00

Review disclosed that there were projects implemented during the year, such as road and roadside improvements and development of parks, which could be associated under the Kaayusan and Kalikasan programs, despite the absence of an AIP. While this may be so, the reason for preparing an AIP could not be dispensed with in order to carry out the objective of the 20% DF. Without the AIP, the City is not guided with the specific programs and projects to be undertaken under the Fund.

We have recommended that the City Development Council: (a) prepare the AIP, as required under Section 3.1.2 of Local Budget Circular No. 70 dated March 14, 2000, that specifically identifies priority programs, projects and activities (PPA) including the detailed annual allocation for each PPA which is compliant with the policy and guidelines set forth under DILG-DBM Joint Memorandum Circular No. 2011-1; and (b) submit the AIP to the Sangguniang Panlungsod for proper approval.

3.3 Partially compliant and non-compliant projects and improper utilization

The City’s Local Development Plan (LDP) for CY 2013 approved by the CDC Executive Committee showed the different projects programmed for implementation under the 20% DF’s current year’s budget and continuing appropriations available for reprogramming in the amount of P112,225,630.80 and P25,214,941.54, respectively, or a total appropriation of P137,440,572.34.

Sections 3 and 4 of DILG and DBM Joint Memorandum Circular (JMC) No. 2011-1 dated April 13, 2011 specifically enumerates the different development projects which may be funded out of the 20% DF, categorized namely as social, economic and environmental development, and the expense items that are not related to and/or not connected with the implementation of development projects, programs and activities that shall not be paid out of the said Fund, respectively.

41

Out of the total appropriations of P137,440,572.34, projects programmed for the rehabilitation and repair of City Health Centers in the amount of P12.000 million, or 8.73 percent, were considered compliant with the JMC, while projects programmed for the rehabilitation and repair of other City government structures and facilities in the amount of P86.440 million, or 62.89 percent, were not compliant since these projects do not fall among the priority projects categorized in the JMC (see table below).

Table 9

Full Partial Non-Amount Compliance Compliance Compliance Lump-sum

1. Kalusugan 21,002,600.00 - 12,000,000.00 9,002,600.00 - 2. Kapayapaan 8,051,572.34 - - 8,051,572.34 - 3. Kaayusan 45,000,000.00 12,000,000.00 12,000,000.00 21,000,000.00 4. Kabuhayan 37,386,400.00 - - 37,386,400.00 - 5. Kalikasan 26,000,000.00 - - 20,000,000.00 6,000,000.00

137,440,572.34 12,000,000.00 12,000,000.00 86,440,572.34 27,000,000.00 100.00% 8.73% 8.73% 62.89% 19.65%

DILG-DBM JMC No. 2011-1Local Development Plan

Program/Projects

TotalIn Percentage

Further review disclosed that under the GF Proper, there were projects which maybe categorized under the JMC, such as rehabilitation/improvement of roads. Conversely, there were also projects programmed in the 20% DF which may be classified in the GF-Proper.

3.4 Projects implemented by the City not in accordance with Section 5 of DILG-DBM JMC No. 2011-1

The table below contains the projects implemented by the City out of the 20% Development Fund.

Table 10Not Compliant

Particulars Amount Compliant Total Jan-June July-DecTraining Expenses 1,616,488.00 - 1,616,488.00 261,810.00 1,354,678.00 Office Supplies Expenses 248,772.75 - 248,772.75 216,944.00 31,828.75 Other Supplies Expenses 1,426,365.00 - 1,426,365.00 453,350.00 973,015.00 Advertising Expenses 725,120.42 - 725,120.42 70,400.00 654,720.42 Printing and Binding Expenses 10,535,181.92 - 10,535,181.92 2,440,084.05 8,095,097.87

Environment/Sanitary Services 13,463,900.00 - 13,463,900.00

- 13,463,900.00 Repair and Maintenance -

Land Improvements 1,335,660.93 - 1,335,660.93 289,744.09 1,045,916.84 Office Buildings 2,462,180.41 - 2,462,180.41 107,232.00 2,354,948.41 Hospitals and Health Centers 23,158.00 - 23,158.00 19,478.00 3,680.00 Other Structures 1,733,747.86 - 1,733,747.86 27,702.80 1,706,045.06 Motor Vehicles 34,443.60 - 34,443.60 34,443.60 - Other Public Structures 4,290,303.66 - 4,290,303.66 1,049,309.15 3,240,994.51

Other MOOE 1,597,877.26 - 1,597,877.26 876,657.75 721,219.51

42

Not Compliant Particulars Amount Compliant Total Jan-June July-Dec

Office Supplies Inventory 1,119,374.00 - 1,119,374.00 433,888.00 685,486.00 Other Supplies Inventory 34,753.00 - 34,753.00 144.00 34,609.00 Construction Materials Inventory 16,978,603.78 9,574,320.74 7,404,283.04 284,859.25 7,119,423.79 Other Structures 678,398.30 - 678,398.30 - 678,398.30 IT Equipment and Software 85,600.00 - 85,600.00 - 85,600.00

Other Machineries and Equipment 30,000.00 - 30,000.00

- 30,000.00

Motor Vehicles 11,136,237.00 - 11,136,237.00 10,276,000.00 860,237.00 Other Property, Plant and Equipment

2,068,825.00 - 2,068,825.00 220,425.00 1,848,400.00

Construction in Program -Agency Assets 8,344,924.64 6,651,453.08 1,693,471.56 - 1,693,471.56 Roads, Highways & Bridges 5,715,932.51 5,715,932.51 - - - Parks, Plazas & Monuments 2,407,020.00 - 2,407,020.00 1,034,769.30 1,372,250.70 Waterways, Aqueducts, Seawalls, River Walls and Others

830,661.45 249,870.00 580,791.45 - 580,791.45

Other Public Infrastructures 233,882.90 86,400.00 147,482.90 - 147,482.90 Total 89,157,412.39 22,277,976.33 66,879,436.06 18,097,240.99 48,782,195.07 In Percentage of:

Compliant & Not-Compliant 100.00% 24.99% 75.01%Not Compliant 100.00% 27.06% 72.94%

In effect and as shown in Table 10, the projects implemented for CY 2013 in the total amount of P66,879,436.06, or 75.01 percent, utilizing the 20% DF, were not in accordance with the afore-cited JMC. In subsequent audit of transactions for the second semester of CY 2013, the same issues continued to subsist despite the recommendations contained in the interim audit report. The non-compliant projects implemented from July to December 2013 amounted to P48,782,195.07, or 72.94 percent of the total non-compliance. This high percentage of non-compliance does not adhere to Section 5.0 of the JMC which states that:

“It is the responsibility of every Provincial Governor, City and Municipal Mayor and Punong Barangay to ensure that the 20% of the IRA is optimally utilized to help achieve desirable socio-economic development and environmental outcomes…. Further, all concerned local chief executives are hereby reminded that utilizing such fund, whether willfully or through negligence, for any purpose beyond those expressly prescribed by law or public policy shall be subject to the sanctions provided under the Local Government Code and under such other applicable laws.” (Emphasis ours)

Moreover, despite our prior year’s audit recommendation, projects were not realigned to the proper fund/program charges.

The improper utilization of the 20% DF resulted in the non-achievement of the purpose/objective for which the said Fund was established to the disadvantage of the intended beneficiaries.

43


a. Allocate the 20% DF for development projects that shall contribute to the attainment of desirable socio-economic development and environmental management outcomes and shall partake the nature of investment or capital expenditures;

b. Utilize the Fund to finance priority development projects and programs, as embodied in the duly approved Local Development Plan that directly support the Philippine Development Plan, the Medium-Term Public Investment Program and the Annual Investment Program; and

c. Effect the necessary adjusting entries for the amount totaling P66,879,436.06 and P38,727,524.33, which pertains to the projects funded under the 20% DF for CYs 2013 and 2012, respectively, that did not comply with the requirements for projects under the Fund.

During the exit conference, Management informed that in its CY 2014 Development Plan, projects are already in conformity with the JMC.

4. Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF)/Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP)

4.1 Non-conformity of the utilization of PDAF/DAP funds to the intended purpose

Trust Funds shall consist of private and public monies which have officially come into the possession of the local government or of a local government official as trustee, agent or administrator, or which have been received as a guaranty for the fulfillment of some obligation. A trust fund shall only be used for the specific purpose for which it was created or for which it came into the possession of the local government units. (Section 309 (b) of RA 7160)

Prior to the Supreme Court Decision declaring the PDAF as unconstitutional, the Department of Budget and Management issued National Budget Circular No. 547 dated January 18, 2013 which prescribed the guidelines on the release of funds chargeable against the PDAF for FY 2013. The PDAF shall be used to fund priority development programs and projects identified by the Members of Congress from the PDAF project menu in accordance with the said Circular. Fund releases, as a rule, are covered by Special Allotment Release Orders (SAROs) which indicate the intended purpose of the PDAF.

Review showed that utilization of the fund covered by three SAROs did not conform to the intended purpose. In our analysis and as enumerated in Table 11, total utilization amounted to P3,035,537.89, but expenses totalling P933,955.89, such as but not limited to, printing of various tarpaulin for various activities,

44

procurement of polo/t-shirts as assistance to various organizations, office supplies, spare parts and mass cards, were not compliant to the purposes stated in the SAROs.

Table 11

SARO No. PurposeAvailable Balance

Total Utilization

Expenses Not

Compliant BMB-G-13-T000000133

1. Financial assistance to indigent and displaced families, families in crisis situations, community organizations, Civic and community Activities, etc., includes but not limited to the following: 3,575,000.00 2,656,307.89 867,475.89

a. Financial assistance;b. Burial assistance;c. Medical assistance;d. Balik

probinsya/transportation assistance;

e. Educational assistance; andf. Other anti-poverty

assistance programs

2. Assistance to the City Government of Marikina for the purchase of one (1) unit Patrol/Multi-purpose Vehicle for deployment to the Office of the City Mayor

3. Assistance to the City Government of Marikina for the purchase of one (1) unit Patrol Motorcycle for deployment to the Office of the City Mayor.

BMB-G-12-T000002805

Implementation of social services to indigent and displaced families, families in crisis situation 309,499.21 280,820.00 65,320.00

BMB-G-11-T000004531

Assistance to Indigents and displaced families, families in crisis situations 1,190,544.92 98,410.00 1,160.00 Total 5,075,044.13 3,035,537.89 933,955.89

Further verification disclosed that a release out of the DAP of the government, covered by SARO No. G-12-00423 in the amount of P6,000,000.00 was recorded in the books of accounts as PDAF. Our review of the documents on this release showed the following purposes:

a. Support and financial assistance to indigents and displaced families, families in crisis situations, community organizations, civic and community activities, etc. (includes financial assistance, burial assistance, balik-probinsiya/transportation assistance).

45

b. Sports Development Program, which includes (1) support for medals, trophies and uniforms for local sports/youth events and (2) assistance for local and exercise events like Basketball Liga, Marathon, Biking, Chess and other Board Games, Darts, Badminton, Walkathon, Traditional Sports and Game community aerobics and other recognized sports.

However, expenses charged to this release disclosed that the funds were instead used to procure items which were not supportive of the stated purpose of the release. Among others, the procured items and services totalling P1,052,394.00 were spare parts, office and other supplies, various appliances for gift giving, health benefit package for employees of national office and other supplies for various activities.

Such utilization of the PDAF/DAP funds on items and activities which were not related or aligned to the purposes of their release defeated its objectives to the detriment of the intended beneficiaries.


a. Cause the return or refund from the General Fund to the Trust Fund the amount of P933,955.89 on PDAF and P1,052,394.00 on DAP, which were used to procure items and services not aligned with the purpose of the respective releases of the funds; and

b. Pursuant to the Supreme Court Decision promulgated on November 11, 2013: (1) include the P933,955.89 PDAF funds as part of the balance to be reverted to the National Treasury; while (2) the DAP funds remain as Trust Fund to be utilized for the purpose it was intended.

Management agreed to comply with the recommendations and requested the grant of sufficient time to raise the required wherewithal to fully comply with the recommendations.

4.2 Unexpended PDAF not reverted to the National Treasury – P20.449 million.

The balances of the unexpended PDAF are as follows:

Table 12

Fund/Status and Details/SARO No.

Balanceas of

31-Dec-2012Receipt

in CY 2013 UtilizationUnpaid

Obligation

Unexpended Bal. As of

31-Dec-2013 GENERAL FUND-

No SARODecember 13, 2012 1,000,000.00 - - 1,000,000.00 March 27, 2013 1,000,000.00 - - 1,000,000.00 March 27, 2013 1,000,000.00 - - 1,000,000.00 Total- General Fund 1,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 - - 3,000,000.00

46

Fund/Status and Details/SARO No.

Balanceas of

31-Dec-2012Receipt

in CY 2013 UtilizationUnpaid

Obligation

Unexpended Bal. As of

31-Dec-2013 No utilization for CY 2013

08-04520 2,189,430.85 - - 2,189,430.85 02-0392 2,000,000.00 - - 2,000,000.00 BMB-G-11-02211 1,000,000.00 - - 1,000,000.00 09-04046 707,313.42 - - 707,313.42 BMB-G-11-T000004259 600,000.00 - - 600,000.00 BMB-G-13-T000002290 500,000.00 - - 500,000.00 04-044 294,250.00 - - 294,250.00 04-0658 200,000.00 - - 200,000.00 06-07493 80,000.00 - - 80,000.00 BMB-G-11-T000001948 52,284.43 - - 52,284.43 08-07034 34,857.50 - - 34,857.50 G-11-01026 17,960.00 - - 17,960.00 ROCS 09-01847 14,370.33 - - 14,370.33 05-01477 12,603.99 - - 12,603.99 07-07935 7,007.00 - - 7,007.00 08-01928 5,053.25 - - 5,053.25 ROCS-06-03669 3,685.44 - - 3,685.44 G-09-08022 188.90 - - 188.90 G-10-0401 180.00 - - 180.00 Total 7,219,185.11 500,000.00 - - 7,719,185.11

With Utilization for CY 2013G-10-08272 1,428,430.00 80,000.00 - 1,348,430.00 BMB-G-12-T000000106 1,895,000.00 682,500.00 - 1,212,500.00 BMB-G-11-T000004531 1,190,544.92 98,410.00 - 1,092,134.92 BMB-G-13-T000000133 3,575,000.00 2,656,307.89 - 918,692.11 ROCS-09-04971 532,927.36 191,126.19 - 341,801.17 G-10-09678 309,200.88 20,000.00 - 289,200.88 BMB-G-12-T000000683 3,200,000.00 2,983,808.00 - 216,192.00 03-0663 178,543.00 28,500.00 - 150,043.00 BMB-G-11-02085 500,000.00 367,980.00 - 132,020.00 08-4389 6,756.81 2,000.00 - 4,756.81 08-6340 1,000,000.00 996,940.00 - 3,060.00 08-01505 3,337.55 3,000.00 - 337.55 G -10-09332 2,500,000.00 520,000.00 - 1,980,000.00 ROCS-08-07752 107,670.97 39,495.00 - 68,175.47 BMB-G-12-T000002805 309,499.21 280,820.00 - 28,679.21 Total 13,161,910.70 3,575,000.00 8,950,887.08 - 7,786,023.12

No SARO/No data availableCong. Rafael Mariano 1,000,000.00 - - - 1,000,000.00 Robert Barbers 100,000.00 - - - 100,000.00 Loreta ann Rosales 87,554.36 - - - 87,554.36 No data available 35,775.60 - - - 35,775.60 Total 1,223,329.96 - - - 1,223,329.96

Unpaid obligation BMB-G-12-T000002969 1,487,500.00 - 767,500.00 720,000.00 Total- Trust Fund 23,091,925.77 4,075,000.00 8,950,887.08 767,500.00 17,448,538.19 GRAND TOTAL 24,091,925.77 6,075,000.00 8,950,887.08 767,500.00 20,448,538.19

47

Details of these balances are as follows:

a. The Bank Reconciliation Statement as of November 31, 2013 for Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) account no. 0435-021897-030 under the GF showed PDAF as a reconciling item in the total amount of P3,000,000.00. Verification on the Statement of Accounts issued by DBP disclosed credit entries for PDAF in the amount of P1,000,000.00 on December 13, 2012 and two P1,000,000.00 on March 27, 2013. Management informed that despite its request for the copies of SAROs with the Department of Budget and Management, no SAROs were forwarded to the City, hence, the funds remained as reconciling items in the General Fund (GF). These were unrecorded in the books as of December 31, 2013.

b. The unexpended balance of PDAF received by the City pertaining to various projects amounted to P17,448.538.19 as of December 31, 2013, exclusive of interests earned from the bank. This amount, together with the balances of other funds recorded in the Trust Fund (TF), such as but not limited to, transfer of funds made by government agencies and from private individuals and entities for specific purpose, suppliers/contractors guarantee deposits and collections received or amounts withheld in trust for the account of government agencies, was deposited in bank accounts maintained by the City for TFs. The Accounting Office recorded each TF in separate subsidiary ledgers. Review disclosed the following status and details of the unexpended balances of PDAF:

1. PDAF covered by 19 SAROs with a corresponding total of P7,719,185.11 reported zero utilization in CY 2013;

2. Fifteen PDAF releases registered utilizations totaling P8,950,887.08 in CY 2013, leaving an unexpended balance at year end of P7,786,023.12;

3. There were no available data or covering SAROs for four PDAF with a total amount of P1,223,329.96; and

4. One PDAF has an unpaid obligation of P767,500.00 as of December 31, 2013 for the delivery of three units multi-cabs. The transaction was covered by Purchase Order No. 1310-3232 dated October 7, 2013. The reported unexpended balance of P17,448,538.19 as of December 31, 2013 for the TF was net of the unpaid commitments of P767,500.00 and the earned interest income.

The Supreme Court, in an En Banc Decision promulgated on November 19, 2013, declared the PDAF articles as unconstitutional. The Court also decided that the temporary injunction dated September 10, 2013 that it had issued on the matter was declared permanent. As a result, the Court ruled: “the disbursement/release of the remaining PDAF funds allocated for the year 2013, as well as for all previous years, which are, at the time this Decision is promulgated, not covered by Notice of

48

Cash Allocations (NCAs) but only by Special Allotment Release Orders (SAROs), whether obligated or not, are hereby ENJOINED. The remaining PDAF funds covered by this permanent injunction shall not be disbursed/released but instead reverted to the unappropriated surplus of the general fund.”

We had recommended and Management agreed to remit the unexpended balances of PDAF to the National Treasury, together with the earned interests that accrue to the principal amount that is currently maintained in the bank.

Management has already remitted the unexpended balance of the PDAF to the Bureau of the Treasury as evidenced by Official Receipt No. 4704861 dated May 26, 2014 in the amount of P18,885,690.08.

5. Accumulated interest income totaling P27.264 million earned from Trust Fund deposits in various bank accounts

Section 311 of Republic Act No. 7160 provides that:

“Local treasurers shall maintain depository accounts in the name of their respective local government units with banks, preferably government-owned, located in or nearest to their respective areas of jurisdiction. Earnings of each depository accounts shall accrue exclusively thereto.” (Emphasis ours)

As of December 31, 2013, the total interest income earned from bank deposits for trust funds totaled P27,263,777.41 taken up in the books of accounts under the Due to LGUs account. These interests have accumulated over the years covering monies deposited in two banks under four Local Currency, Current Accounts (LCCA), and in one Time Deposit (TD) account. Trust Fund monies received are deposited in any of the existing bank accounts. The details of these bank deposits and the corresponding interests earned are as follows:

Table 13

Bank Classification/Account No. For the Account of Balance as of

Dec 31, 2013

Interest Earned for CY 2013

Accumulated Interest as of Dec 31, 2013

LCCA:PVB 01001-000162-7 Various accounts 87,638,674.89 365,333.91LBP 2722-1013-00 World Health Organization 723,254.57 568.61LBP 2722-1018-82 Food Safety II 40,822.56 20.90LBP 2722-1015-30 Healthy Tourists Parks 36,185.49 18.54

88,438,937.51 365,941.96 17,148,174.01PVB TD: 1015-90042-3 58,713,929.74 1,136,473.63 10,115,603.40

Total 27,263,777.41

49

The interests earned were recorded in the books in lump sum amounts based on the bank book/bank statements, but were not recorded in the subsidiary ledgers reflecting the breakdown of the respective interests earned for each Trust Fund sub-account.

We also noted that the utilization of the trust fund monies were limited only to the principal amounts received, excluding any interests earned therefrom. Trust Fund balances of existing or on-going projects remain deposited in the designated bank accounts, thus, continuously earning interest income that accumulated in the books of accounts.

The largest deposits are under LCCA No. 01001-000162-7 and the Time Deposit, sources of which were trust funds from the National Government, like the Priority Development Assistance Fund that was recently decided upon by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional.

Moneys that accrue as trust funds in the custody of the City are to be utilized in the implementation of the particular programs and projects identified to be funded for the benefit mainly of the City constituents. As there are other priority projects implemented or lined up to be implemented by all sectors of the government that needs the infusion of funds, the available interest income earned from the deposits of the Trust Fund sourced from the National Government, just like the PDAF, may need to be returned to the government, rather than left stagnating in the bank.

We have recommended that the City Accountant:

a. Pro-rate the total interests earned based on the respective principal deposits per trust fund source per bank account. This follows with all future interests earned from trust fund bank accounts unless a pronouncement is made by a competent authority on the appropriate action to be taken; and

b. Record in the respective subsidiary ledgers the pro-rated interests corresponding to each trust fund.

6. Undisposed donations with specific purpose

Local Government Units are not prohibited to receive from and donate to other LGUs, organizations, constituents or others, for legitimate purposes. One particular instance in which this activity is done pertains to disaster-related donations.

50

Section 21 of Republic Act No. 10121 provides that upon the recommendation of the LDRRMO and approval of the sangguniang concerned, the Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council (LDRRMC) may transfer the said fund to support disaster risk reduction work of other LDRRMCs which are declared under state of calamity. Further to this, Section 4.1.4 of COA Circular 2012-002 dated September 12, 2012, explicitly enumerated the sources and allocation of the LDRRM Fund. Among the stipulated sources are funds received from other LGUs and other sources.

As regards the receipt of monies from other government agencies or private entities, Section 309 (b) of Republic Act No. 7160 required that it shall be maintained in the Trust Fund books to account for such receipt only to be used for the specific purpose for which it was created or for which it came into the possession of the LGU.

The Trust Fund-Other Payables account as of December 31, 2013 included donations received as early as 2005 to the current year from different sources for various specific purposes in the total amount of P1,571,294.83. The summary is shown below.

Table 14Year of Receipt

Nature 2005 2006 2007 2009 2012 2013 Total

Disaster related 0.00 42,730.00 0.00 52,240.1

7 694,799.66 541,375.00 1,331,144.83 Scholarship 0.00 0.00 110,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 110,000.00 Other purposes 105,000.00 0.00 25,150.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 130,150.00

Total 105,000.00 42,730.00 135,150.00 52,240.1

7 694,799.66 541,375.00 1,571,294.83

Verification disclosed that these donations were not utilized and have remained undisposed until this time, thus, the very intention of the donor in extending assistance was not satisfied. We also noted that the donations for disaster-related activities totaling P1,331,144.83, as indicated in the above table were not reclassified/recorded as Trust Liability- DRRM pursuant to Section 5.1.12 of COA Circular No. 2012-002.

Management explained that the projects/activities for which the noted donations pertained to were carried out and accomplished, with funds sourced from the General Fund of the City. Except for the disaster-related activities, the purposes of the other donations are regular projects/activities of the City, which are included as items in the budget.

We are cognizant that the City has continuously worked on the projects/activities into which the received donations were related. We have also noted that indeed the projects/activities were accomplished with enough budgets from the General Fund. However, the fact remains that the financial help that came from the various donors have remained undisposed for years and were not infused into the intended purposes. Had Management utilized the amounts, the corresponding figures from the general budget could have been made available to other vital undertakings of the City for the benefit of its constituents.

51

We have recommended the following:

a. Donations received that were intended for disaster activities caused by typhoons Maring, Habagat and Yolanda may be utilized for post disaster-related projects subject to the requirements of Section 6.5 of the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council (NDRRMC), Department of Budget and Management (DBM) and Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) Joint Memorandum Circular (JMC) No. 2013-1 dated March 25, 2013, which states that: “The unexpended balances of the LDRRMF may be released and utilized for new expenditure items upon submission of a revised AIP as approved by the local sangguniang and Local Chief Executive (LCE) upon recommendation of the LDRRMC in accordance with the approved LDRRMP;”

b. Donations received for projects/activities that are ongoing or regularly held may be utilized on the same or related undertakings subject to the approval of the Sanggunian;

c. Devise a mechanism on the utilization and disposition of donations intended for specific purpose that are received from all sources; and

d. Reclassify the disaster-related donated amounts totaling P1,331,144.83, as well as all succeeding donations, to Trust Liability –DRRM under the Trust Fund.

Management replied that in compliance with the recommendation, the City Accounting Office has already reclassified the account, Other Payables, to the Trust Liability-DRRM under JEV No. 2014-03-000279 dated March 7, 2014 in the amount of P1,331,144.83, and that they will coordinate with the LDRRMC for inclusion in the revised AIP of the said amount for the approval of the Sanggunian.

7. Representation and Transportation Allowance (RATA)

7.1 Unauthorized claim of RATA by Officers-in-Charge (OIC)

Section 9.1.1 of Local Budget Circular (LBC) No. 103 dated May 15, 2013 issued by the Department of Budget and Management provides that "An OIC of a position, authorized in an LGU staffing pattern and entitled to RATA, may be authorized to collect the RATA for the position on reimbursable basis, if stipulated in the office order designating him/her as such.”

Verification of disbursements disclosed that officials in an acting capacity were paid RATA for CY 2013. While the LBC allowed an OIC of a position for the entitlement of RATA, in the Office Order issued to the respective officials, payments for RATA for the designated position was not stipulated. Further, upon inquiry with the Personnel Office, no records would show that a revised Office

52

Order was issued to the concerned officials specifying the granting of RATA. Table 17 shows the details.

Table 15Designation Office Order Total RA TA Period Covered

Acting Assist Chief of the BPLO

No. 040-10 dated July 27, 2010 129,600.00 64,800.00 64,800.00 Jan to Dec 2013

Acting Assistant City Accountant

No. 0078-09 dated March 5, 2009 129,600.00 64,800.00 64,800.00 Jan to Dec 2013

Acting Chief of Parks and Recreation Office

No. 0044-07 dated Feb. 28, 2007 108,000.00 54,000.00 54,000.00 Jan to Sept 2013

Total 367,200.00 183,600.00 183,600.00

In the case of the Acting Chief of Parks and Recreations Office, aside from RATA, he was issued a service vehicle duly acknowledged by him on January 9, 2013. Item 8.2.1 of Local Budget Circular No. 103 dated May 15, 2013 does not allow claim for transportation allowance when the official is issued a service vehicle.


a. Consider the issuance of a revised Office Order for the concerned officials with the provision that they are authorized to collect RATA, with ratification pertaining to the previous claims, except for Mr. Maderal who is assigned a government vehicle hence, not authorized to claim TA; and

b. Require the refund of the paid TA of the Acting Chief of Parks and Recreation Office in the total amount of P54,000.00.

In response to our recommendation, the City Accounting Office requested for the issuance of a revised Office Order with the provision to collect RATA for the Acting Assistant City Accountant.

7.2 Unauthorized claim of Transportation Allowance

Item 8.2.1 of Local Budget Circular No. 103 dated May 15, 2013 issued by the Department of Budget and Management provides that those who are assigned or who use government motor transportation shall no longer be entitled to the TA, but only to the commutable RA for the month. This is supported by the Supreme Court in its Decision in Aida Domingo versus the Commission on Audit (G.R. No. 112371 October 7, 1998), which states that:

"The transportation allowance … shall not be granted to officials who are assigned a government vehicle or use government motor transportation, except as may be approved by the President of the Philippines. …”

Verification of disbursements for CY 2013 disclosed officials who have been issued with government-owned motor vehicles for official use, as documented in the Property Acknowledgment Receipts, were still paid TA. Table 18 shows the details of the payment.

53

Table 16Position/Office Total Allowable Not Allowable Reason

Amount Period With Vehicle IssuedCity Mayor/Mayor’s Office 114,000.00 - 114,000.00 Jan to Dec 2013 since July 2, 2010City Vice Mayor/Vice-Mayor’s Office 90,000.00 - 90,000.00 Jan to Dec 2013 since July 2, 2010City Councilor/City Council’s Office 42,000.00 37,500.00 4,500.00 July 8 to 31, 2013 since July 8, 2013City Councilor/City Council’s Office 6,000.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 July 15 to 31 2013 since July 15, 2013City Councilor/City Council’s Office 6,000.00 1,500.00 4,500.00 July 9 to 31, 2013 since July 9 2013City Councilor/City Council’s Office 6,000.00 1,500.00 4,500.00 July 9 to 31, 2013 since July 9, 2013CGDH III/City Planning Office 72,000.00 31,500.00 40,500.00 Jun 7 to Dec 2013 since June 7, 2013CGDH III/City Transportation Management Development Office 72,000.00 - 72,000.00 Jan to Dec 2013 since Oct 21, 2002CGDH III/Business Permits and Licensing Office 72,000.00 16,500.00 55,500.00 Mar 26 to Dec 2013 since March 26, 2013CGDH III/City Assessor’s Office 72,000.00 16,500.00 55,500.00 March 26 to Dec 2013 since March 26, 2013CGDH III/City Personnel Office 72,000.00 - 72,000.00 Jan to Dec 2013 since July 8, 2010CGDH III/City Environment Management Office 72,000.00 - 72,000.00 Jan to Dec 2013 since Oct 30, 2009City Accountant/Accounting Office 72,000.00 - 72,000.00 Jan to Dec 2013 since July 6, 2010CGDH III/City Health Office 72,000.00 - 72,000.00 Jan to Dec 2013 since Nov. 5, 2009CGDH II/Parks Development Office 66,600.00 - 66,600.00 Jan to Dec 2013 since July 6, 2010CGADH III/City Treasurer’s Office 66,600.00 14,850.00 51,750.00 March 26 to Dec 2013 since March 26, 2013CCADH III/City Council Office 72,000.00 66,000.00 6,000.00 December 2013 since Dec. 3, 2013CGADH III/Center for Excellence 64,800.00 - 64,800.00 Jan to Dec 2013 since July 21, 2010CGADH III/City Budget Office 64,800.00 58,050.00 6,750.00 Nov 28 to Dec 2013 since Nov. 28, 2013CGDH III/Marikina Sports Park 72,000.00 - 72,000.00 Jan to Dec 2013 since July 7, 2010ABC President/City Council Office 3,483.72 - 3,483.72 Dec 1-18, 2013 since June 2011ABC President/City Council Office 2,516.02 - 2,516.02 Dec 19-31, 2013 since 2008Former CB Officer 66,000.00 - 66,000.00 Jan to Nov 2013 since July 5, 2010Former City Treasurer 48,000.00 - 48,000.00 Jan to Aug 2013 since Jan. 28, 2010

Total 1,366,799.74 246,900.00 1,119,899.74

The following section of the DBM-LBC Circular, likewise, provides the responsibility of the Local Chief Executives for the proper implementation of the afore-cited Section.

“15.0 Responsibilities of Local Chief Executives

Local Chief Executives shall be held responsible for the proper implementation of this Circular. They shall be held liable for any grant of RATA not in accordance with the provisions of this Circular, without prejudice, however, to the refund of any undue payments received by the officials and employees concerned.”

The non-compliance by the City to the express provision of the regulation caused the inappropriate disbursement of funds totaling P1,119,899.74 for CY 2013, to the prejudice of the City.

54


a. Stop the granting/payment of Transportation Allowances to officials who are issued government vehicles pursuant to Item 8.2.1 of the DBM Local Budget Circular No. 103; and

b. Require the refund by the concerned officials of the Transportation Allowances received for CY 2013 in the total amount of P1,119,899.74.

Some officials commented that the service vehicle is used by the designated liaison officer in transacting official business with other government agencies such as the GSIS, Pag-IBIG, DBM and PhilHealth.

8. Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Marikina (PLMar)

8.1 Appointees to executive positions not qualified pursuant to Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular (CSC MC) No. 27, s. 2001 (amending and clarifying Section 12 of Rule XIII of CSC MC No. 15, s. 1999)

The PLMar originally engaged the services of a Vice President (VP) for Academic Affairs and a VP for Administrative Affairs covered by contracts of employment with specific terms that ended on May 31, 2013 and May 15, 2013, respectively. Prior to the expiration of the two contracts, the PLMar Board of Trustees held that, in the exigency of the service, both incumbent VPs would continue their services in the university in hold-over capacities until the selection of qualified appointees. Consequently, the President of PLMar issued Office Orders No. 24 and 25 both dated July 19, 2013, designating the two VPs in Officers-in-Charge-Vice President (OIC-VP) capacities for Academic Affairs and for Administrative Affairs. Both directly report to the University President and were responsible for the University’s over-all academic development program.

In our evaluation of the appointments of the two OIC-VPs, we noted that these were not in accordance with Section 12.a of the CSC MC No. 27, s. 2001, which provides that, “(a) No person who has reached the compulsory retirement age of 65 years can be appointed in the government, subject only to the exception provided under sub-section (b) hereof.” Section 12.b further states that, “A person who has already reached the compulsory retirement age of 65 can still be appointed to a coterminous/primarily confidential position in the government.”

Both appointees were already more than the retirement age of 65 years at the time of their current appointments, therefore, the exceptions mentioned in the issuance did not apply because they were no longer qualified for such positions. The appointments were neither co-terminus nor the positions held were primarily confidential in nature, but rather permanent positions based on the plantilla of PLMar. In the case of OIC-VP for Administrative Affairs, we further noted that

55

she was already 65 years old when she was hired under contractual status as VP for Administrative Affairs.

8.2 Designation as OIC-VP not compliant with CSC MC No. 5, s. 1985

Further review disclosed that the respective contracts of employment of the appointees embodied the following duties and responsibilities:

a. As OIC-VP for Academic Affairs -

Work closely with the deans, graduate program coordinators and directors of the different colleges of the University to facilitate the university-wide curriculum development program;

Implement, exercise, and preserve the University’s mission and vision for academic excellence;

Recommend academic policies to the President; Attend conferences and seminars, and whenever designated, represent the

President in external affairs and meetings concerning academic affairs and development programs; and

Perform other duties that may be assigned by the President.

b. As OIC-VP for Administrative Affairs -

Implement administrative orders and policies, and initiate the development of plans for strategic change;

Exercise general supervision and control of offices in the administrative department;

Recommend administrative policies, pertaining to business administration of the different offices and departments;

Review all types of correspondence pertaining to administrative matters; Attend conferences and seminars and, whenever designated, represent the

president in external affairs and meetings concerning administrative affairs and development; and

Perform other duties that may be assigned by the president.

Aside from being over their retirement age, both officers were hired under contracts of employment; hence, they were both considered contractual employees. The duties and responsibilities assigned to them confirmed that they both exercised control or supervision over teaching and non-teaching personnel of PLMar, who were holders of plantilla positions or whose positions in the service were permanent. This set up is contrary to Item No. 6 of CSC MC No. 5, s. 1985, which rules that:

“Contractual employees and consultants …. In no case should they be designated Officers-in-Charge or Executive Directors or the like

56

wherein they exercise control or supervision over regular personnel in the hiring agency. ….”

The appointees actually performed the duties and responsibilities called for by the positions. The OIC-VP for Academic Affairs exercised control over teaching and non-teaching personnel. Among other functions performed, she issued various memoranda governing the conduct of the affairs of the various colleges of PLMar, as well as the designations of professors and other personnel to certain committees or undertakings. She held meetings with the Deans and other officials of the academe, and issued guidelines indicating the order by which activities were to be accomplished.

On the other hand, the OIC-VP for Administrative Affairs performed various tasks, such as, among others, acted as member of the hiring committee, partook in the decision-making over audit committee concerns, called meetings, ordered specific assignments to the different colleges and offices, decided on matters or issues brought before her office, and issued memoranda containing specific instructions for compliance of employees.

The acts performed indicated that the appointed OIC-VPs have discretion over school operational matters, and exercised supervision and control over teaching and non-teaching personnel of PLMar, thus, contradicted Item No. 6 of CSC MC No. 5, s. 1985.

We have recommended that the PLMar Board of Trustees ensure compliance to the CSC requirements in all future Contracts of Employment to be issued.

The PLMar President replied that the above-mentioned audit observations will be discussed in their next Board meeting.

Inquiry from Management disclosed that the PLMar Board has appointed new vice-presidents who are qualified in the executive position effective June 2014 in compliance with Section 12.a of the CSC MC No. 27, s. 2001.

9. 5% MMDA Contribution

9.1 Appropriated amount for the five percent MMDA contribution was less by P17.364 million

Section 10 of R.A. 7924, otherwise known as An Act Creating the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority, states that:

“Five percent (5%) of the total annual gross revenue of the preceding year, net of the internal revenue allotment, of each local government

57

unit mentioned in Section 2 hereof, shall accrue and become payable monthly to the MMDA by each city or municipality. …”

Review of the City Budget for CY 2012 showed that the above provision was not strictly complied with, hence, the amount appropriated for the 5% statutory contribution to MMDA was short by P17,364,400.38, computed as follows:

Table 17Total Operating Income for CY 2012 1,520,865,353.00Add: Discount on Real Property Tax 169,358,194.55 Total Gross Revenue for CY 2012 1,690,223,547.55Less: IRA realized for CY 2012 518,291,220 Total Gross Revenue Net of IRA for CY 2011 1,171,932,327.55 Section 10 of R.A. 7924 5%5% Subsidy to MMDA for CY 2012: Per Audit 58,596,616.38 Per Annual Budget 41,232,216.00 Short in Appropriation 17,364,400.38

Although the five percent contribution to MMDA was already deducted by the DBM from the Internal Revenue Allotment of the City, the corresponding appropriation should be correctly applied to reflect the true budget and for the accurate allocation of the City’s resources.


a. Re-compute the appropriation of the statutory contribution to MMDA for Budget Year 2014 to ensure full compliance with R.A. 7924; and

b. Reconcile the total payments by the City with the books of accounts of MMDA. Any unpaid balance should be appropriated and correspondingly remitted to MMDA.

Management remarked that the five percent contribution to MMDA appropriated for Budget Year 2014 is P43,000,000.00.

10. Annual Procurement Plan (APP)

10.1 Non-compliant APP

The City’s APP for CY 2013 was prepared by the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) Secretariat, reviewed by the BAC Chairman, and approved by the City Mayor, with an amount of P186,730,139.90. The APP was based from the consolidated Project Procurement Management Plan (PPMP) from each Department of the City.

58

a. Inconsistent item categories and amounts per APP as against the consolidated PPMPs

Analysis showed inconsistencies in categorizing items and amounts carried forward from the PPMP to the APP. These inconsistencies are summarized in Table 20.

Table 18

Project/Particulars Per APP Per Audit DifferenceOver/(Under)

Office Supplies 13,052,451.83 16,789,236.93 (3,736,785.10)Janitorial Supplies 4,892,964.00 3,085,667.88 1,807,296.12 Office Equipment 0.00 919,354.60 (919,354.60)Other Maintenance and Other Operating

Expenses (OMOOE) 0.00 15,717,013.25 (15,717,013.25)Property, Plant and Equipment (PPE) 0.00 21,258,739.72 (21,258,739.72)Medicines and Drugs & Medical Supplies 14,745,170.00 14,515,113.00 230,057.00 Services 30,800,000.00 25,360,170.00 5,439,830.00 Other Supplies/Foods 8,444,968.00 0.00 8,444,968.00 Accountable Forms 2,162,435.00 0.00 2,162,435.00 Capital Outlay 8,529,968.00 0.00 8,529,968.00 Public Works 104,102,183.07 104,102,183.07 0.00 Total 186,730,139.90 201,747,478.45 (15,017,338.55)

The total APP and the audited amount based from the PPMPs supporting the APP differed by P15,017,338.55. The difference was caused by various reasons noted in our review, as follows:

There were expense categories included in the APP which were not found in the consolidated PPMPs and vice versa. As shown in Table 18, the requirement for other supplies/foods, accountable forms and capital outlay were included in the APP, but these were not categorized as such in the PPMPs of the Departments. On the other hand, there were expense categories (like office equipment, PPE and OMOOE) that were included in the PPMPs which were not grouped as such in the APP.

There were items improperly categorized in the PPMPs, thus, were consolidated as such in the APP. For instance, the requirement for the improvement of the Multi-purpose Recovery Facility and the exhibit area were categorized in the PPMP of the City Environment Management Office as IT equipment and software. In the APP, this was included as an item for Public Works.

There were inaccurate footings of totals indicated in the consolidated PPMPs, as against the audited amounts (Table 19).

59

Table 19

DepartmentPer

ConsolidatedAPP

Per Audit DifferenceOver (Under)

MCDC and other offices 55,106,118.20 55,111,618.20 (5,500.00)PIO and other offices 18,854,874.00 18,854,874.00 0.00 VMO and other offices 11,745,560.48 11,746,360.48 (800.00)Accounting and other offices 5,799,985.00 2,922,824.50 2,877,160.50 MISCC and other offices 4,230,710.45 6,089,211.45 (1,858,501.00)Treasury and other offices 2,887,646.75 2,920,406.75 (32,760.00)Total 98,624,894.88 97,645,295.38 979,599.50

b. APP not completely accomplished

Section 6, Article I of R.A. 9184 prescribed the standardization of the procurement process and the forms. It states, “(t)o systematize the procurement process, avoid confusion and ensure transparency, the procurement process, including the forms to be used, shall be standardized insofar as practicable.” It further provides that, “for this purpose, the GPPB shall pursue the development of generic procurement manuals and standard bidding forms, the use of which once issued shall be mandatory upon all Procuring Entities.”

The City’s APP was prepared using the prescribed GPPB form and contained the consolidated requirements from each Department of the City. However, review disclosed that the APP summary did not indicate the complete information required to be indicated in the prescribed form. This was also true in the case of the APP form prescribed per category that supported the APP summary. The undisclosed information was as follows:

1. APP summary

PAP code PMO/end-user Schedule of the procurement activities to be undertaken (from pre-

procurement conference to acceptance/turnover) Brief description of the related program/project

2. APP supporting schedule

monthly quantity requirement per item of procurement PS-DBM itemized price catalogue

It is emphasized under Section 7, Article II of R.A. No. 9184 that all procurement should be meticulously and judiciously planned by the Procuring Entity. Following such guideline, government agencies are encouraged to prepare an APP

60

for their operational requirements in order to properly organize and schedule the procurement activities and to completely consider the needs and obtain the most reasonable price for the City. Non-compliance with the governing guidelines defeats the intent and objective of the regulation to the disadvantage of the City.

We have recommended that:

a. The BAC Secretariat, who is responsible for the preparation of the APP pursuant to Section 7.3.4 of R.A. 9184, strictly comply with the requirement under Section 7 of the same law; and

b. All concerned Departments undertake proper review and coordination in all levels of the preparation of the APP in order to prevent the occurrence of errors.

Management replied that the 2014 APP will be prepared in compliance with Section 7 of RA 9184. It also informed that:

a. The BAC will call a procurement officers meeting to appraise them with the use of the prescribed form and the appropriate entries to be made on the relevant forms.

b. The BAC is now consolidating anew all PPMPs to include all the expense categories under MOOE, Capital Outlay, Public Works and Services.

11. Gender and Development (GAD)

11.1 GAD Plan and Budget

To promote women empowerment and pursue equal opportunities for women and men, equal access to resources and development outcome, and elimination of any forms of discrimination and inequality, the City needs to develop plans, programs and mechanisms to realize these endeavors. To achieve this, the City must provide funds to be utilized for such purpose.

Section 36.a of the Magna Carta for Women, or R.A. No. 9710, authorizes government agencies and local government units to allocate at least five percent of the agency’s or the local government unit’s total budget appropriations, which reads as follows:

“… The cost of implementing GAD programs shall be the agency’s or the local government unit’s GAD budget which shall be at least five percent (5%) of the agency’s or the local government unit’s total budget appropriations.”

61

Despite our previous year’s findings on the audit of GAD, we still noted that the amount appropriated for CY 2013 was short by P53,859,706.11 (Table 22).

Table 20Particulars Amount

Total Appropriations per Annual Budget for CY 2013 1,626,822,558.17Section 36.a of RA 9710 5%Appropriations- Per Audit 81,341,127.91 Per Budget 27,481,421.80Difference 53,859,706.11

As a result of under-budgeting, the funds originally budgeted maybe inadequate to address various gender issues; hence, the City’s pursuit to gender equality and women empowerment could not be fully attained.

We have recommended that the City Budget Office appropriate the correct amount to ensure that the budget for the GAD is adequate to address various gender issues.

11.2 No GAD Code

The third paragraph after Section 36(a) of R.A. No. 9710 encourages LGUs to develop and pass a GAD Code, herein quoted as follows:

“…

Local government units are also encouraged to develop and pass a GAD Code based on the gender issues and concerns in their respective localities based on consultation with their women constituents and the women’s empowerment and gender equality agenda of the government. The GAD Code shall also serve as basis for identifying programs, activities, and projects on GAD.”

To help LGU in the preparation of the GAD Code, the Philippine Commission on Women (PCW), Department of the Interior and Local Government, Department of Budget and Management and National Economic and Development Authority issued Joint Memorandum Circular (JMC) No. 2013-01 for the Guidelines on the Localization of the Magna Carta of Women.

Item 5.E. of the JMC states that:

“1) All LGUs shall formulate and pass their GAD Codes or ordinances to support the LGU’s efforts in promoting, protecting and fulfilling women’s human rights, women’s economic empowerment and gender-responsive governance towards the attainment of gender equality and women’s empowerment.

62

2) The LGU GFPS shall assist the Local Sangguniang in the formulation of a GAD Code or ordinance.….”

Interviews conducted disclosed that to date, the City Council has yet to formulate the policies that express adherence to GAD concepts relevant to the City’s efforts towards the attainment of gender equality and women’s empowerment and pass the GAD Code. Without the GAD Code, some gender issues were not addressed due to lack of support and commitment of some City personnel as shown in the table below. Hence, the City, particularly the GAD Management Team (The City’s GAD Focal Point System), may not be able to sustain its effort in promoting, protecting and fulfilling women’s human rights, women’s economic empowerment and gender-responsive government towards the attainment of gender equality and women’s empowerment. Also, commitment/ participation of officers and employees and other concerned personnel may not be established due to the absence of enabling ordinance or GAD Code to encourage their participation/commitment.

Table 21Gender Issues GAD Activity Performance

Indicator Target Actual Result

Variance/Remarks

GAD main-streaming

Continuing gender and legal education

Attendance to Gender Sensitivity Training of PNP-Marikina, PCP Commanders

Two batches of GST for PNP-Marikina, PCP Commanders

Not Conducted

Difficulty of coordinating GAD initiatives with PNP

Conduct of training and attendance of target personnel

Training series for selected LGU officers/employee on “Advanced Gender Concepts” & “Planning using Gender analysis”

Not Conducted

Sensitizing the institution was in slow process due to personnel’s lack of interest in GAD

Prevention of Violence Against Women and Their Children (VAWC)

Continuing Capacity Building and other Support Services for Barangay VAW Desk Officers (BVDOs) and Barangay Peace and Order Workers

Legal Education Gender and Legal Education for Barangays

Not Conducted

Barangay Officials disinterested in attending GAD related trainings while most BPOWs heads acted positively compared to

63

Gender Issues GAD Activity Performance

Indicator Target Actual Result

Variance/Remarks

(BPOWs) BVDOs, even with the latter’s attendance to GAD related trainings

Establishment, Operation, and Maintenance of VAW Referral Network System

Establish an operation Referral System for VAWC

Established operational Referral Network System for VAWC victims-survivors

Meeting with identified members, discussions of possible service protocols, and agreement for MOA signing of members to formalize network

Experienced difficulty in establishing commitment of members, especially from line agencies in Marikina

We have recommended that GAD Code should be formulated and be passed pursuant to the afore-cited provisions of the law and rule.

B. Performance Evaluation

1. Special Education Fund (SEF) Utilization

Section 272 of R.A. No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code, states that “(t)he proceeds … accruing to the Special Education Fund (SEF) shall be automatically released to the local school boards: … the proceeds shall be allocated for the operation and maintenance of public schools, construction and repair of school buildings, facilities and equipment, educational research, purchase of books and periodicals, and sports development as determined and approved by the Local School Board.” (Underscoring ours)

Under the Code, the annual school board budget is prepared annually by the division superintendent, city superintendent or district supervisor, as the case may be, and approved by the Local School Board. The budget, under Section 100 (b) of the Code, shall be supported by programs, projects, and activities of the school board. The Code further states under Section 100 (c) that the budget shall give priority to the following:

a. Construction, repair, and maintenance of school buildings and other facilities of public elementary and secondary schools;

64

b. Establishment and maintenance of extension classes when necessary; andc. Sports activities at the division, districts, municipal, and barangay levels.

The budget/appropriation pertaining to the SEF for three successive years covering CYs 2011 to 2013 is summarized in Table 22, and the significant information and observations noted as a result of our analysis and review are discussed thereafter.

Table 22 Budget/Appropriation Average

Particulars 2011 2012 2013 Total Amount % Personal Services

Salaries and Wages and other personnel services-Casual Teachers and Other Non-teaching personnel

42,094,938.92 46,956,771.72 51,655,462.00

Research and Evaluation Allowances 52,619,283.99 54,104,746.57 57,870,000.00

Longevity Pay 2,823,000.00 2,823,000.00 3,075,600.00 Hazard Pay 441,000.00 465,000.00 510,000.00 Total 97,978,222.91 104,349,518.29 113,111,062.00 315,438,803.20 105,146,267.73 70.90%

MOOE 51,983,061.08 37,791,842.43 37,665,882.53 127,440,786.04 42,480,262.0

1 28.65%Capital Outlay

Other PPE 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 666,666.6

7 0.45% School Buildings 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Totals 151,961,283.99 142,141,360.72 150,776,944.53 444,879,589.24 148,293,196.41 100%

a. SEF budget not fully compliant with the prioritization set under RA 7160

The total budget/appropriation for the three-year period amounted to P444,879,589.24, broken down into Personal Services, Miscellaneous and Other Operating Expenses and Capital Outlay.

Personal Services (PS)

The budget for PS consistently shared the biggest chunk with an average of P105,146,267.73, equivalent to 70.90 percent of the P148,293,196.41 average total budget for the three-year period. A substantial portion of the budget was spent on Research and Evaluation Allowances (REA). For CY 2013, the budget for PS was P113,111,062.00, of which REA’s allocation was P57,870,000.00, or 51.16% of the total PS.

Miscellaneous and Other Operating Expenses (MOOE)

The average allocation for MOOE covering the three years amounted to P42,480,262.01, or 28.65 percent of the total budget for three years. Analysis showed a declining trend of allocation from P51,983,061.08 in CY 2011 to

65

P37,791,842.43 in CY 2012, and down to P37,665,882.53 in CY 2013, as shown in the table.

Capital Outlay – Other Property, Plant and Equipment

This item was allocated with a total of P2,000,000.00 in the CY 2011 budget, which is equivalent to 1.32 percent of the total budget for that year. We noted that in the succeeding two budget years, this item was no longer included in the budget allocation.

Capital Outlay – School Buildings

For three straight years covered by the analysis, there was no allocation for construction and repairs of school buildings, thus, were not among the priorities in the SEF budget during those years. Review of records disclosed that there were reported additions totaling P386,261,564.53 to the School Buildings account in CY 2011, funded from various sources and completed in 2011.

Capital Outlay – Continuing Appropriation

At the beginning of CY 2013, the continuing appropriation for Capital Outlay had a balance of P2,415,667.64. This was the source of funding in the procurement of chairs, tables and window blinds totaling P893,414.69, and IT equipment amounting to P128,600.00 during said year.

The above information about the budget does not support the concerns that were gathered during the interview with officials from selected six elementary and six secondary schools within the jurisdiction of the City. The following are the results of the interview:

Budget needs for Capital Outlay

1. Additional school buildings and rooms, especially with the implementation of the K to 12 program that requires an additional 2 years in high school

2. Lot for the construction of additional buildings (Marikina Heights High School)

3. Completion of the 3-storey building at Kalumpang National High School which was delayed due to insufficient funding from the Priority Development Assistance Fund. The construction started two years ago, with the first and second floors already completed, but the third floor is still undergoing construction up to present

4. Space/Rooms to house students, laboratory equipment, computers and other educational properties and paraphernalia

66

5. Enough comfort rooms and service areas

6. Computer units for students under the Information and Communication Technology program, which is part of the Department of Education’s (DepEd) implementation of the Strengthened Technical-Vocational Education Program and Technology and Livelihood Education Curriculum for the Junior High School starting SY 2012-2013. Due to limited funds that resulted in the deficient number of available computer units and computer rooms, all secondary schools visited were not ready for the effective implementation of this program.

7. LCD TV or large LCD monitor with speakers and USB port for each classroom. Teachers who were interviewed explained that the LCD TV or monitor was more advantageous than putting up one computer room that could only house six LCD computer monitors and one mother server for the e-learning program (media presentation and reading assessment) that could only be utilized by six or so students at a time. If funds were limited, they suggested prioritizing the grades five and six levels, until all levels will be accommodated.

The interviewees further stated that using such type of equipment will result in a more realistic presentation, especially in the Science subject that is noted to be more interesting to students. Also, it requires less time for the teachers to prepare their lessons since some of the data are available online.

8. Equipment and facilities for the Home Economics, Agri-Fishery Arts and Industrial Arts in some schools, which were selected to implement the K to 12 program so that the goal of the DepEd to produce skilled and qualified individuals who are equipped with the appropriate knowledge in technology for new endeavors may be attained

9. Blackboards in the newly completed school building (Nangka Elementary School)

Budget needs for the Operation and Maintenance of School Buildings and Facilities

1. Upgrading of the electrical power lines of Marikina and Sta. Elena High Schools, two of the biggest schools with huge electrical loads;

2. Rehabilitation of the dome to eradicate/minimize the noise from the outside surroundings of Marikina High School;

3. Treatment of the Rodriguez building at Kalumpang Elementary School that is infested by termites, and repair of its dilapidated ceiling and roof gutters; and

67

4. Unpaid telephone bills of the Marikina Heights High School in the amount of P7,000.00 due to unavailability of funds. This resulted in the disconnection of the telephone line.

While the above identified concerns are confronting the school authorities, we noted that these were not considered in the preparation of the budget. The Annual School Board budget for CYs 2011 to 2013 did not contain the prioritized projects set out under R.A. 7160. The issues raised, which were unaddressed, were setbacks that could hinder the successful realization of the purpose of the SEF as envisioned under the law.

We have recommended that the School Division Superintendent and the Local School Board:

a. formulate the budget for SEF following the priorities set under Sections 272 and 100(c) of R.A. 7160 with due consideration of the related concerns and issues reported by the school officials; and

b. encourage the school officials to formally report their issues and concerns for the proper consideration and deliberation of the Local School Board.

b. Utilization of the SEF budget not in accordance with RA 7160 and the DECS-DBM-DILG Joint Circular No. 01

Further to the provisions of R.A. 7160 relating to SEF, DECS-DBM-DILG Joint Circular No. 01 dated April 14, 1998 was issued for more detailed guidelines in carrying out its objectives of the fund. Section 4 thereof provides that, the Local School Board shall give priority to the following expenses:

“Operation and Maintenance of public schools, including organization of extension, non-formal, remedial and summer classes as well as payment of existing allowances of teachers granted by local government units chargeable against the SEF as of December 1997, provided that any additional allowances that may be granted to teachers by LGU shall be charged to the general fund of the LGUs subject to existing budgeting rules and regulations. …”

The obligated amounts pertaining to the SEF for three successive years covering CYs 2011 to 2013 is summarized in the Table 23.

68

Table 23

ParticularsObligation Average

2011 2012 2013 Total Amount %

Personal Services (PS) Salaries and Wages and other personnel services-Casual Teachers & Other Non-teaching personnel

42,034,896.65 45,534,921.18 41,865,401.87

Research and Evaluation Allowances 52,619,283.99 54,011,017.15 57,034,549.24 Longevity Pay 2,823,000.00 2,795,538.37 2,546,909.35 Hazard Pay 441,000.00 465,000.00 510,000.00

Total Personal Services 97,918,180.64 102,806,476.70 101,956,860.46 302,681,517.80 100,893,839.27 73.83%MOOE 44,020,229.25 30,114,835.06 31,129,959.53 105,265,023.84 35,088,341.28 25.68%Capital Outlay

Other PPE 1,999,500.00 0.00 0.00 1,999,500.00 666,500.00 0.49%School Buildings 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%

Totals 143,937,909.89 132,921,311.76 133,086,819.99 409,946,041.64 136,648,680.55 100.00%

Allowances under Personal Services (PS)

The average PS of P100,893,839.27 is 73.83 percent of the P136,648,680.55 average total obligations for the three-year period 2011 to 2013. For CY 2013, the total obligation amounted to P101,956,860.46 of which, P97,655,510.20 were recorded as expenses for the following:

Table 24

ParticularsAmount

Obligated

Salaries and Wages- Casual and other related personnel benefits: Casual non-teaching personnel 25,494,419.06 Casual teaching personnel 5,649.432.55 Financial Assistance to public school teachers 8,710,900.00 Sub-total 39,854,751.61

Paid to School Administrators, Teachers and Non-Teaching DepEd Personnel and Casual Teachers: Other Bonuses and Allowances (Code 719) 54,361,332.59 Longevity Pay (Code 722) 2,929,376.00 Hazard Pay 510,050.00

Sub-total 57,800,758.59 Grand Total 97,655,510.20

Additional allowances are authorized to be granted pursuant to Section 458 (a.1.xi) of R.A. 7160 which provides that, “when the finances of the city government allow, provide for additional allowances and other benefits to …, public elementary and high school teachers, … stationed in or assigned to the city;” This provision was supported by the issuance of DECS-DBM-DILG Joint Circular No. 01, which specifically mentioned the allowances to be granted with the cut-off date of December 1997. Any additional allowances that may be

69

granted after the cut-off date shall be charged against the General Fund of the City.

Table 26 shows that in CY 2013, other bonuses and allowances totalling P54,361,332.59 were paid and charged against the SEF. These were granted after the cut-off of December 1997 as provided in the afore-mentioned Joint Circular, thus, not allowed.

Financial Assistance charged to SEF and recorded under Salaries and Wages-Casual account

Further verification also disclosed that in CY 2013, the SEF was utilized in the grant/payment of financial assistance totaling P8,710,900.00 (Table 27) to public school teachers, contrary to Section 4 of the same Joint Circular, which is not allowed. Moreover, the grant was inappropriately recorded in the books of accounts as “Salaries and Wages-Casual”.

Table 25Date Particulars Reference Amount

Dec. 26, 2013Payment of Salaries and Wages thru Bank – Mkna. Public School Teachers - Financial Assistance CY 2013

JEV-2013-12-000871/RD-077-2013/OBr No. 0042013-12-000320 1,925,000.00

Dec. 27, 2013

To transfer of fund from PVB SEF Fund to LBP General Fund for payment of Financial Assistance CY 2013 of Mkna. Public School Teachers

JEV-2013-12-000839 Ck#006117OBr No. 0042013-12-000319DV No. 200-1312-000235

6,446,000.00

Dec. 27, 2013Liquidation of Cash Advance- Financial Assistance CY 2013 of Marikina Public School Teachers

JEV-2013-12-000850OBr No. 0042013-12-000321 339,900.00

Total 8,710,900.00

Inappropriate funding and payment of Research and Evaluation Allowances (REA) from SEF

On February 17, 2010, the City Council issued Ordinance No. 021 which authorized the grant of monthly REA of P2,000.00 to all public elementary and secondary school teachers and other DepEd officials assigned in the City. Subsequently on December 4, 2013, the City Council issued Ordinance No. 35, which expanded the covered officials and increased the amounts of the allowance, with information presented in Table 26.

70

Table 26

PositionOrdinance No.

021(From)

35(To)

Superintendent P2,000.00 P9,000.00Assistant Superintendent 2,000.00 7,500.00Division/District Supervisors 2,000.00 6,000.00Div. Coordinators 0.00 6,000.00Principal/School Heads/OIC 2,000.00 6,000.00Dept./Unit Heads 0.00 6,000.00Teachers 2,000.00 2,000.00Non-Teaching Personnel 0.00 2,000.00

As presented in the above table, the non-teaching personnel were authorized to be granted with the allowance. Under Section 458 (a.1.xi) of RA 7160, non-teaching personnel are not entitled to additional allowances.

In both Ordinances, the City Council allowed the charging of the allowances to SEF, which is not in accordance with DECS-DBM-DILG Joint Circular No. 01 dated April 14, 1998.

Moreover, in the audit of the paid payrolls for the monthly REA, we noted that the amounts paid for the period January to October 2013 exceeded the rates authorized under City Ordinance No. 21 series of 2010 by a total of P17,218,276.46.

Lack of Legal Basis for Longevity Pay and Hazard Pay charged against SEF

The amount charged against the SEF for longevity pay and hazard pay totaled P2,929,376.00 and P510,050.00, respectively, in CY 2013. Management was not able to present the legal basis for the charging thereof to the said fund.

We have recommended that the Local School Board and concerned City Officials:

a. Refrain from utilizing the SEF for purposes other than those enumerated in Sections 272 and 100.c of R.A 7160 and Section 4 of DECS, DBM and DILG Joint Circular No. 01;

b. Stop the inappropriate charging of allowances and other benefits against the SEF. Seek authority from the City Council for the payment of salaries and wages, REA, longevity pay, hazard pay, and other personnel related benefits to be charged against the General Fund, subject to the availability of funds for the purpose and the ceiling limitation on Personal Services;

c. Submit authority for charging longevity pay, hazard pay and financial assistance against the SEF; and

71

d. Cause the restoration of the amounts inappropriately charged against the SEF from the General Fund.

Management commented that:

a. The allocation of the SEF budget drastically changed when an ordinance granting 50% discount on real estate taxes was enacted in 2009 due to the ravages brought by Typhoon Ondoy.

b. For the inappropriate utilization of the SEF budget:

The research and evaluation allowance was authorized under City Ordinance No. 35;

Salaries and wages and other personnel services such as clerks, guards, librarians and drivers are included in the operational and maintenance of school and that their presence is indispensable in the daily operations;

The grant of financial assistance was authorized by the City School Board under Resolution No. 4 dated December 18, 2013.

By way of a rejoinder, the contention that the authority for the grant of the allowance emanates from the City Ordinance does not hold since the Ordinance is not absolute and not superior over what the law provides.

In addition, financial assistance is not among the allowable charges against the SEF, pursuant to Section 272 and 100.c of the same law and Section 4 of the DECS, DBM and DILG Joint Circular No. 01. It is not enough that the grant of assistance or allowance is covered by School Board Resolutions or City Ordinances for that matter. Such resolutions or ordinances must still be harmonized with the law, government rules and regulations.

If the Local School Board will not be able to present a legal basis for the grant of longevity and hazard pays, the same will be disallowed in audit.

72

C. Major Accomplishments versus Targets

The City’s most notable accomplishments for CY 2013 totaled P161,505,601.00. These are composed mainly of construction/improvements of roads and acquisition of disaster preparedness and rescue equipment broken down as follows:

Projects/Activities Accomplished Targets Budget

Amount per Accomplishment

Report

Roads, Highways and Bridges Road Concreting

Eden St. New Market Subd., Sto. Niño3/4/2013-5/23/13 3,250,000.00 3,361,939.00

Desseret St. New Market Subd., Sto. Niño

3/4/2013-5/20/13 3,200,000.00 3,079,890.00

Manti St. New Market Subd., Sto. Niño3/4/2013-5/25/13 3,900,000.00 3,704,915.00

Concreting of Alley at Princess Caroline HOA

8/30/2013-9/30/2013 251,561.67 251,562.00

Road and Roadside Improvement

Jasmin St., San Isidro, Con. Uno2/18/2013-7/2/2013 7,318,314.90 7,529,627.00

Rosal St., San Isidro, Con. Uno2/28/2013-

5/25/13 1,531,028.69 1,525,659.00

Camia St., San Isidro, Con. Uno2/28/2013-

5/25/13 1,711,898.96 1,719,236.00

Santan St., San Isidro, Con. Uno2/28/2013-

5/28/13 1,991,815.88 1,987,362.00 Freedom Park Road, Sta. Elena 4,500,000.00

Victory Hills Subd., Pricess St., Brgy. Fortune 389,684.26

Sub-total 28,044,304.36 23,160,190.00 Roadside/Sidewalk Improvement Roadside Improvement Austin St., Jesus dela Peña 1,999,940.00 Riverside Drive-Austin to St. Mary 1,362,840.00

St. Anne St., Provident Village, Tañong3/4/2013-7/22/2013 2,400,000.00 2,366,454.00

1st Ave., Goodrich Villa., Concepcion Uno

2/28/13-5/31/2013 1,416,131.96 1,416,132.00

Sidewalk Improvement Mansanas St., Marikina Heights 1,756,711.43 Mansinitas St., Marikina Heights 877,282.12 Senegal St., Greenheights Subd., 2/28/13- 1,196,293.80 5,544,568.00

73



Report

Nangka 8/15/2013

Rome St., Greenland Phase3/4/13-

6/11/2013 2,864,001.21 3,799,482.00

St. Paul/St. Lazarus/St. Michael, Tierra Vista

3/4/2013-5/7/2013 1,746,932.68 2,073,663.00

Buenmar St., Greenland Phase I, Nanka2/28/13-

8/15/2013 5,975,000.00 5,363,037.00 St. Claire II Subd., Concepcion Uno 1,060,312.45

Tantiana St., Simeona Vill., Concepcion Uno

3/4/2013-5/21/2013 2,757,815.22 2,227,471.00

Givenchy St., Simeona Vill., Concepcion Uno

3/4/2013-5/21/2013 2,843,136.11 2,834,648.00

Drainage Outfall-Katipunan to Concepcion Creek, Con. Uno 16,000,000.00

Milky Way, Fortune 754,585.32 Uranus, Fortune 423,303.96 Sub-total 45,434,286.26 25,625,455.00 Structures

Construction of Trade Center Building @ Sta. Elena (Tambakay Lim) 16,000,000.00

Construction of Multipurpose Hall @ Ruby St., Malanday

7/15/2013-11/29/13 1,262,658.62 1,269,956.00

Sub-total 17,262,658.62 1,269,956.00 Purchase of tools and equipment for disaster preparedness One unit Dredging Machine 12/2013 45,000,000.00 45,000,000.00

One unit Crawler Type Excavation Backhoe 12/2013 10,700,000.00 10,700,000.00

One unit Wheeler Dump Truck 7/2013 7,200,000.00 7,200,000.00 Aerial Basket 7/2013 12,000,000.00 12,000,000.00 Generator Set 7/2013 3,800,000.00 3,800,000.00 200 units Handheld Radio 6/2013 1,600,000.00 1,600,000.00 Test Messaging Alert System 6/2013 10,000,000.00 10,000,000.00

One unit Medical Oxygen Refilling Machine 12/2013 550,000.00 550,000.00

One lot Basic Fire Rescue Equipment 7/2013 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 One set branded Hydraulic Shoring set 6/2013 2,600,000.00 2,600,000.00 One unit brand new Tender Truck 6/2013 12,500,000.00 12,500,000.00

Two units Ambulance w/ complete accessories 7/2013 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00

Medicines and Medical Supplies 12/2013 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 Sub-total 111,450,000.00 111,450,000.00

74



Report

Total 202,191,249.24 161,505,601.00

D. Status of Suspensions, Disallowances and Charges

The 2009 Rules and Regulations on the Settlement of Accounts in its Chapter IV, Section 17, Period to Appeal, provides that:

“17.1 Any person aggrieved by a disallowance or charge may within six (6) months from receipt of the notice, appeal in writing as prescribed in these Rules. A disallowance or charge not appealed within the period prescribed shall become final and executory.

…”

As reported in the Statement of Audit Suspensions, Disallowances and Charges (SASDC) for the period ending December 2013, the total disallowances of P826,527.91 pertains to payment for overtime services rendered by officials whose equivalent rank is higher than a chief of division. The corresponding Notices of Disallowances were received on various dates in September 2013 by the persons liable.

Pursuant to the cited Rules and Regulations, the persons liable filed their Appeal dated February 18, 2014 on February 25, 2014 to the Office of the Director, Local Government Sector, National Capital Region, Commission on Audit, on February 25, 2014.

75

Detailed Audit Observations and Recommendations · Web view2014/08/09 · It further...

Documents

Transcript of Detailed Audit Observations and Recommendations · Web view2014/08/09 · It further...