SP disapproves Samar’s Annual Investment Plan for CY 2011 due to procedural lapses

By EMY C. BONIFACIO, Samar News.com
July 31, 2011

CATBALOGAN CITY  –  The majority bloc of the Sangguninag Panlalawigan in the province of Samar remains firm in its stand to safeguard people’s money by carefully scrutinizing the budget items of the Annual Budget of the province for CY 2011 which was submitted to the Office of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan for review and by ensuring that the budget preparatory phase and procedures are strictly complied with in consonance with the provisions of the Local Government Code of 1991.

In a regular session held at the Provincial Capitol Building last July 28, 2011, the Body unanimously passed a resolution calling for the disapproval of the Annual Investment Plan (AIP) of the Province of Samar for CY 2011.

The decision came after the adverse findings and recommendations on the AIP by the Joint Committee on Laws and Legal Matters and Finance and Appropriations were presented by Hon. Eunice Babalcon to the plenary.

Babalcon, who chairs the Committee on Laws and Legal Matters, explains that based on a series of deliberations on the AIP at the committee level, the said document suffers from legal infirmity for three specific valid reasons.

First, the Provincial Development Council Meetings held on several occasions were not duly constituted for it lacked the required quorum, says the report. The PDC that is supposed to be convened by the Governor is composed of 24 municipalities and 2 cities and 2 legislative districts and other government organizations and NGOs/POs in the province, which are supposed to be accredited by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan.

Secondly, neither of the records of the proceedings of the said PDC meetings revealed that the AIP of Samar for CY 2011 was thoroughly deliberated upon nor approved by the majority of the entire membership of the Provincial Development Council. On the approval date of the said AIP, there were only ten (10) out of the twenty (26) mayors who were in attendance. However, it was learned that six of these mayor-attendees are mere representatives and has no legal personality to become signatories of the AIP. The failure to constitute a quorum affects the legitimacy or validity in constituting the PDC and approving the AIP.

Third, the question on the proper accreditation of the members of the Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) and People’s Organizations (POs) was also raised. Babalcon said that both Committees have requested from the PDC Secretariat for a complete List of Accredited NGOs and POs in Samar as well as its corresponding accreditation documents, but nothing has been heard of the said list as of this date.

“So, how can we say that it was legitimately convened when the membership and quorum are questionable? Allegedly, an already prepared AIP is presented during the PDC meetings and attendees were just made to affix their signatures for conformity. So, we feel that it did not really emanate from the Local Government Units and are not reflective of the priority programs desired by their respective constituents. These are the items submitted to the Province for possible funding for the current year. Most often, favored municipalities get more projects and bigger fund allocations. We want that there should be participation. Without the rightful members present, apparently this factor is lacking”, Babalcon elaborates.

Likewise, she mentioned that NGO/PO representatives are not duly accredited, so the legitimacy of their affixed signatures is dubious. The Committee Chair on Laws and Legal Matters suspects that for purposes of filling-up the PDC membership, they would just invite NGOs/POs representatives whose legal personality as members are not clear and those who would willingly concur with what has been prepared.

“We’re talking here of the Annual Investment Plan alone which is a vital requirement in the approval of the Annual Budget. We have to ensure that the AIP is in order because these are the specific projects which will be funded by the 20% development fund. So, we suggested that the same AIP be returned to the LCE for them to reconvene the Provincial Development Council and see to it that it will be participated by the supposed to be legitimate members of the Council. These are the reasons that the AIP fell short of the three grounds that we discovered”, adds Hon. Noel Sermense, Chairman of the Committee on Finance and Appropriations.

Meanwhile, Hon. Charlito Coñejos said they would monitor the PDC’s compliance with the procedures. “The AIP has been amended for three times by the Secretariat. For several times, they made changes on the AIP despite a questionable quorum. If this has been agreed upon by the PDC during a meeting, the amendments should be made there. I feel the propriety of returning this AIP to the LCE and ensure that the Mayors, not just representatives, are physically present so that the priorities are properly and effectively identified. We would like to prevent wastage of funds and ghost projects thru proper accounting to be able to check at the end of the year what has been accomplished. Accredited NGOs and POs should likewise be invited as members” was Coñejos concurrence to the Committee findings.

Initial findings on the entries/items in the AIP include double funding, unspecific details of the programs, entries on social services are blank and not specified with no expected outputs. The AIP appears to be a mere list of projects with no specific details as to the amounts and exact locations of project implementation. A few of the items in the AIP were deleted because records would show that the same projects have already been funded by the LGUs.

“It is the desire of the governor”, was the ready answer of the PDC Secretariat when made to explain on these observations during the Committee hearings, says Hon. Babalcon.

In effect, the Annual Budget for CY 2011 cannot be included yet in the agenda, not until the AIP will be resolved. The AIP is basic. It has to be resubmitted to the SP and will be again referred to the committees if the requirements are already complied. We will not approve/disapprove the budget. Inasmuch as it is still pending, the budget cannot be treated yet.

“If we approve the 2011 budget, it would mean that our 2010 Annual Budget is already moot and academic. They already have placed zero balance in the 2011 budget which means that they already assumed that the 2010 budget are already spent. The approval of the 2011 budget would mean an admission that we lost in this legal battle. If we win and there are no more funds, they will be held liable” explains Hon. Jasper Sumagang on the issue.

Presently, the Province of Samar is operating on a 2010 budget that continues to be legally challenged in court.

It may be recalled that on August 26, 2010, the Annual Budget for CY 2010 was allegedly railroaded by passing the Appropriation Ordinance despite a non-quorum with only five (5) out of the thirteen (13) legitimate members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan affixing their signatures. The same ordinance was approved by Gov. Sharee Ann T. Delos Santos at 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon of the same day. A Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) has been issued by the Courts in response to the petition made by the majority bloc. However, the same TRO was overturned by another TRO that made the budget controversy more complicated.

Whether or not, the province is operating on a valid and legal 2010 Annual Budget is yet to be determined by the courts.