Seven “Thou Shall Nots”
By JUAN L. MERCADO, juanlmercado@gmail.com
May
29, 2011
The 20% Local
Development Fund (LDF) is the “most abused” budget item today,
Interior and Local Government Secretary Jesse Robredo told local
officials at a Cebu conference.
LDF’s are spent by 79
provinces. The Supreme Court, however, reversed itself on Dinagat
Island’s status. So, make that 80.
This trust fund is
also vital for 122 cities. That excludes 16 towns where the Court
flipped, then flopped, on their cityhood ambitions. A reconsideration
motion is pending. Add to that roster 1,512 towns.
Six out of every 10
local governments flunk “full disclosure” criteria on tax spending.
This fractures the General Appropriations Act of 2011 and Local
Government Code. Both require “full disclosure to ensure transparency
and accountability”, adds Robredo.
This Magsaysay
awardee’s candor causes some to fume. “Does DILG control all LGUs?”,
snapped Dumanjug Mayor Nelson Garcia. He is League of Municipalities’
national vice-president. “The League will challenge DILG circular memo
2010-138 before the Supreme Court.
Robredo’s December 7
memo lists seven “Thou Shall Nots” in disbursing LDF. Bohol Gov. Edgar
Chato, thus, flags a mayors’ manifesto that bucks curbs on their
spending.
What is the LDF? How
did this trust fund come about? And what is it’s track record? “Thou
shall not ration justice”, Justice Learned Hand once cautioned: Does
Memo 2010-138 deny local officials equity?
Recall the 1972 UN
Environment Conference in
Stockholm.
Delegates from 113 countries, including the
Philippines,
adopted an Action Plan that proposed a “20-20 Pact”.
Governments agreed to
earmark 20% of resources for the poorest. Such fund would address
needs of the most deprived, namely: nutrition, health care, medicine,
potable water, sanitation, primary schooling, etc.
Human development
relieves grinding poverty, the
Stockholm
consensus stressed. Curbing disease and death rates makes human
development possible. Unmet human needs usher more Filipino
pre-school children to premature graves than it does in Egypt, Kenya
or Tanzania, Asian Development Bank noted.
Sen. Aquilino Pimental
wove that 20% vital safety net concept into the Local Government Code.
Viewpoint noted (PDI/Oct 23, 2007) that politicians converted LDF into
their mini-pork barrels, as successive COA audits found.
Davao Oriental
Sanggunian officials ladled P669,892 as “financial assistance” – for
themselves. Dapitan doled P1 million for an “executive band.”
San Carlos
City
allocated P110,000 for a Boy Scouts jamboree in Angeles.
Northern Samar purchased seven brand-new vehicles, Cebu City Mayor Tomas’
Osmeña’s barangay leaders bought themselves high-powered motorcycles
and handguns.
Plunder of the LDF
does not stem from ignorance. Ruling after ruling underscores It’s
“preferential option for the poorest”.
Could LDF supplement
salaries of national high school teachers?, Mountain Province and
Ifugao officials asked. Could it patch funding deficits in other
projects? No way Jose, said DILG Opinion No. 5 on 10 August 1999.
That policy remains in
force today. But is it honored more in the breach than in practice?
Match some of Roberdo’s “Thou Shalt Nots” with specific cases.
Underwriting
“salaries, wages or overtime pay” is verboten, the memo says. In
contrast, COA’s annual report on local governments, has an unvarying
gripe: “Regular expenses, such as salaries, wages, facilities
maintenance, travel, celebration of festivities, etc are charged to
LDF.”
In 2008, for example,
102 LGUs failed to implement development projects,” COA reported. The
same sordid pattern persisted into the next year. It continues today.
Thou shall not
underwrite “administrative expenses such as cash gifts, bonuses, food
allowances, medical assistance, uniforms, supplies, meetings,
communication, water and light, petroleum products, and the like,”
Robredo’s memo tells LGUs.
Fifth class town
Aloguinsan in Cebu splurged P540,000 for a live concert and a
dance-breakout, COA said. Borbon town granted P24,000 to each
department head. Jagna, Bohol, fittered away P1.85 million in LDF
resources for heavy equipment.
Cotabato City
appropriated P55 million under it’s LDF for three development
projects. It spent P44.3 million – most of which went for creating
jobs, not meeting basic human needs.
“Evaluation conducted
by the Audit Team Leader disclosed that majority of programs,
implemented by city government under the 20% (Fund) consist of
augmentation of manpower requirements,” COA said. Some 480 workers
were “assigned/detailed” at the 27 offices of the city. That chewed up
P16.3 million.
Junkets or Lakbay
Arals are out, Robredo says. “Travelling expenses, whether domestic of
foreign” may not billed to the LDF. Neither may officials dip into the
Fund for “registration fees in training, seminars, conferences or
conventions.”
Minglanilla officials
(Cebu) burned P5.6 million from LDF for two trips to join
Palawan’s Kabunhawan festival. Lapu-Lapu city’s Association of Barangay Councils
“misused" P550,000 for Christmas party and gifts over two years and
P776,500 for honorarium of 30 barangay captains.
A new Performance
Challenge Fund will provide half a billion pesos to 344 LGUs that
provide counterparts from LDFs for essential projects. These range
from rural health units, water and sanitation to post harvest
facilities.
Local officials
stubbornly insist on having their LDF pork barrels “These are all
honest men.” the old adage says. . “But why can I not find my bag?”