Marcoleta: LGUs liable for irregular PDAF projects
This is in reply to the news item titled “COA: P200-M pork projects questionable” (Front Page, 9/15/14). As one of the lawmakers mentioned in the article, I think it was most unfair to parrot the COA (Commission on Audit) report without getting our side before it saw print.
The allegation that I used dubious organizations and implemented my PDAF (Priority Development Assistance Fund) projects without bidding is false. The procedure for the funding of a project follows a strict menu instituted by the Department of Budget and Management. The lawmakers’ participation is nothing more than the formality of signing “prepared” documents.
While I cannot speak for my colleagues, lawmakers do not meddle with the affairs of local government units (LGUs) not only because it is beyond their mandate but more so because, by law, they are autonomous units. And based on COA Circular No. 2007-001, only the LGUs, nongovernment organizations (NGOs) and people’s organizations (POs) are the entities required to strictly comply with the availment, release and use of funds. Given the indispensability of this administrative, hierarchical requisite for public bidding, the ineluctable conclusion is that the LGU officials are the ones solely and personally responsible—and therefore liable for any irregular project implementation.
It also bears stressing that in issuing the circular, the COA affirmed the policy of the state to “encourage non-governmental, community based, or sectoral organizations that promote the welfare of the nation,” even citing that “in line with this constitutional provision, Section 34 of Republic Act No. 7160 (the Local Government Code), institutionalized the partnership of these organizations and the local government units.” Thus, the clear intent of the law is to provide an enabling environment for LGUs and NGOs/POs to forge cooperative working arrangements in pursuit of autonomy and decentralization—an environment where the role of the members of Congress is neither required nor specifically delineated.
The NGO referred to in the Inquirer’s report is duly accredited by no less than the Office of the Secretary of Agriculture! If they are dubious NGOs, then the Department of Agriculture is dubious, and so are the COA resident auditors who checked on their accomplishment reports before payment was approved!
In Leonisa E. Suarez vs Commission on Audit (GR No. 131077, Aug. 7, 1998), the Supreme Court held that Section 29.2 of the Manual of Certificate of Settlement and Balances requires a clear showing of bad faith, malice or gross negligence before a public officer may be held liable for acts done by him/her. The same principle is reiterated in Book I, Chapter 9, Section 38 of the 1987 Administrative Code. A public officer is presumed to have acted in the regular performance of his/her duty and he/she cannot be held liable, unless contrary evidence is presented to overcome the presumption. Unlike courts, unilateral COA findings must be treated with a grain of salt. In turn, the COA should be mindful in issuing such special report on its website.
Both the Inquirer reporter and the COA know very well that while the latter’s report is contestable, the damage it may cause is irreparable when irresponsibly bloated.
Not only that. In this case, the reporter unnecessarily tied my religious affiliation to attract attention. (Surprisingly, the others—one is identified with the Jesus Is Lord, one with the 4th Watch, one is a Muslim and most are Catholics—were not so labeled).
—RODANTE D. MARCOLETA,
I stand by my story which is essentially based on a report issued by the COA. It is true that the COA findings are contestable, but former representative Marcoleta should understand that it is not for me to resolve those contestable issues. He also would like to pass the responsibility of vetting the legitimacy of the NGOs he endorsed to the DA.
Clearly, I cannot answer for both agencies.
—GIL C. CABACUNGAN,
reporter, Inquirer
