Misuse of public funds

BEHIND THE SCENES
Alfred P. Dizon

Issues have been raised on the lack of transparency and accountability in the way Congress and other government agencies or offices utilize public funds

This issue was brought out following the squabble of Senators Juan Ponce Enrile and Alan Peter Cayetano on how Senate funds are spent. This has also brought to light the need for enactment of the Freedom of Information Bill so a vigilant media and constituents could monitor how funds are being used by those in government.

Cayetano had accused Enrile of giving more than a million pesos as “Christmas gifts” each to favored members of the Senate while giving more than P200 thousand -- a “pittance” to a few.

Following this, auditors expressed concern that they were being accused by Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago of not doing their job when senators themselves had barred the itemized audit of their operational funds.

Santiago had raised a howl over the unequal distribution of additional maintenance, operating and other expenses (MOOE) by Enrile to his colleagues during the Christmas holidays.

Enrile was reported as having released P11.6 million in three tranches, from funds classified as Senate savings, to 18 senators, and only P250,000 to Santiago, Cayetano, PiaCayetano and Antonio Trillanes IV. All four are critical of Enrile.

Santiago also reported about P4 million in office savings on Dec. 12 and 15, with about P1.3 million allocated for “subscription” purposes.

The Senate, which had ousted former Supreme Court Chief Justice Corona for corruption is now the center of the public eye for “misuse” of public funds. Now, concerned sectors are pressing an auditing of how Senate funds are spent.

Reports have it that the Senate had kept State auditors in the dark about fund use from the utilization of public funds to the exact number of people on the payroll of each lawmaker.

With the Senate leading the way, the two chambers of the legislature reportedly adopted resolutions in 2011 and 2012 that state auditors said barred them from looking closely at the way Congress spends public funds.

The congressional move has raised questions on where one draws the line between fiscal autonomy and transparency needed for good governance. As early as 2010, state auditors had expressed concern about the lack of transparency in the Senate’s fund utilization.

In its annual audit in 2011, the Commission on Audit (COA) had expressed concern over the practice of issuing mere certifications by lawmakers on the way they utilize their maintenance, operating and other expenses (MOOE).

On July 25, 2011, the two chambers approved Concurrent Resolution No. 10, recognizing the “delicate and unique nature of the functions, operational and organizational structures of the Senate, the House of Representatives, the Commission on Appointments, and the Senate and House Electoral Tribunals.”

The resolution declared that the COA “has consistently allowed” Congress to continue “the current system of liquidation by way of certification,” which recognizes that lawmakers have utilized their MOOE “in the performance of their legislative functions.”

This system, according to Resolution No. 10, “is in keeping with the nature of the performance by the members of the Senate and the House of Representatives and their respective committees of their legislative, oversight, and constituent functions and responsibilities.”

With the concurrence of the House, which has the power of the purse, the Senate declared that the system of financial accounting and liquidation by each lawmaker is “consistent with applicable accounting and auditing rules” and “shall be maintained.”

Senators adopted the resolution on Aug. 24, 2011 while the House followed on Feb. 1, 2012.

“The senators only issue certifications on the receipt and use of funds. They don’t submit receipts. They actually do not practice transparency in the Senate,” a source was quoted by a national daily as saying.

Sen. PanfiloLacson, chairman of the Senate committee on accounts, was quoted as saying Resolution No. 10 “was not in our consciousness” when it was passed. He said adoption of the resolution went unnoticed amid the many others that the Senate has approved.

Now, it’s unlikely that the legislature will be able to fully address these concerns in the little time that remains before it goes on an extended break for the election campaign.

With the sideshow at the Senate, President Aquino has called on lawmakers to focus on passing certain bills. Among these measures is the Freedom of Information bill which languished in the legislative mill.

In light of the delay in hearing the consolidated FOI Bill in the House of Representatives, youth groups have added their voice to the clamor for the measure to be immediately tackled by the House Committee on Public Information chaired by Eastern Samar Rep. Ben Evardone.

Youth leaders recently formed the FOI Youth Initiative or the FYI, a network of organizations and student councils “that believe that transparency and accountability are prerequisites for genuine social transformation.”

These groups come from schools such as the University of the Philippines System, the Ateneo de Manila University, the Polytechnic University of the Philippines, and the College of Saint Benilde.

Carlo Brolagda, one of the FYI’s convenors and the Chairperson of the UPD CSSP Student Council, said “it is high time the youth join in the clamor for the FOI to be passed into law. This is our issue, too.”

The FYI also voiced out their dismay over the inaction of the Rep. Evardone in allowing the bill to be heard in the Committee. “We don’t buy the excuses. Malacañang has already given its support for FOI. They even have their own version. Why Chairman Evardone seems to be dilly-dallying with calendaring the bill is beyond us,” he said.

The group released a manifesto signed by its partner youth and student organizations calling on lawmakers “to sincerely respond to the interests of the people by eliminating all obstacles that cause the slow pace of tackling the measure in the legislative mill.”

They also commended the 117 legislators from the House of Representatives who declared their commitment in passing the FOI Bill in a manifesto that was circulated by its authors, Deputy Speaker Erin Tañada and Rep. Walden Bello.

The FYI vowed to join in efforts of other sectors to lobby for the FOI Bill and to “recruit more young people to the campaign transforming a government that is genuinely transparent and accountable to the Filipino people.”

Whether Congress will act on the measure before the May elections remains to be seen. Media reports have it that some members of both Houses of Congress don’t actually want the bill enacted into law as it would open to the public a lot of anomalous transactions in government involving them, their kin or minions.

Besides, the political season has actually started, and according to political analysts, the FOI wouldn’t be enacted under the present Congress.