COA tight-lipped on Makati ‘seniors mess’
THIS IS in reference to “More ‘ghost’ seniors found” (Front Page, 8/27/15).
A clarification from the Commission on Audit (COA) and the National Statistics Office (NSO) for the 30-percent variance in the two agencies’ reports on the number of Makati senior citizens in 2010, appears to be of paramount importance.
Where did the NSO go “wide off the mark” for the COA not to use the former’s survey results for validation purposes and as benchmark? The NSO stats were deemed official when Proclamation No. 312 was signed by President Aquino himself on March 30, 2012.
While the COA, in its annual audit report on Makati City, dated Feb. 26, 2010, acknowledged 50,558 senior citizens were eligible to receive benefits; in May 2010, the NSO announced the start of the 13th and 2010 edition of our nation’s Population and Household Count (CPH). The task was daunting. An “army” of 87,725 highly trained personnel (including 68,146 public school teachers) were mobilized nationwide to conduct a 30-day, face-to-face survey for data collection. A 30-day pilot census was even done in late 2009 in four areas nationwide, including Barangay Magallanes, Makati City, to test for accuracy; (PHL-NSO CPH-2010-v01). And P767,000 was budgeted for “meals, 2010 Census of Population” (Invitation to Bid, April 8, 2010, Makati City website). The CPH was public knowledge as are the survey results: 36,752 senior citizens (May 10, 2010) against COA’s 50,558 (Dec. 31, 2009)—the latter in COA notes on financial statements but no identification and relevance to specific expense items.
Moreover, Makati, in its website, recognized the NSO’s 529,039 household population for all 33 barangays, but not the NSO-validated senior citizens. That’s puzzling! A perusal of subsequent COA audit reports until 2013 necessitates that the agency revisit its Feb. 26, 2010, report on the seniors amid the NSO’s very telling survey counts; the lapse is possibly the root cause for the “seniors mess.” The COA could have nipped the controversy in the bud and saved our nation from unnecessary humiliation.
And the figures have further ballooned in 2015 by a high 38 percent, contradictory to established trends (CPH 2000, 2007, 2010).
The COA of late appears to have been transformed into a tightlipped agency, a “bystander” in the Senate subcommittee blue ribbon hearings! A spirited and convincing demeanor, witnessed early on, has waned and is gone. Has the moment come for the COA to be energetic one more time and intervene on an issue that is turning to be repulsive with the election fever? Otherwise we will all suffer from this ignominy as a nation of “ghosts” and “phantoms.” We don’t want that!
—MANUEL Q. BONDAD, Barangay Palanan, Makati City
