Mindanao Daily

De Lima to Maguindanao massacre victims’ kins: Justice will be served under P-Noy gov’t

Election Result for Sarangani – Lone Legdist

MEMBER, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES of SARANGANI – LONE LEGDIST

Candidate Party Votes Percentage
PACQUIAO, Emmanuel D. PEOPLES CHAMP MOVEMENT 120052 66.35%
CHIONGBIAN, Roy L. SARANGANI RECONCILIATION AND REFORMATION ORGANIZATION 60899 33.65%
Statistics
Total number of Voters who actually voted 185450
PROVINCIAL GOVERNOR of SARANGANI

Candidate Party Votes Percentage
DOMINGUEZ, Miguel Rene A. LAKAS KABALIKAT NG MALAYANG PILIPINO CHRISTIAN MUSLIM DEMOCRATS 89668 51.28%
DOMINO, Juan D. PEOPLES CHAMP MOVEMENT 85196 48.72%
Statistics
Total number of Voters who actually voted 185450
PROVINCIAL VICE-GOVERNOR of SARANGANI

Candidate Party Votes Percentage
SOLON, Steve C. LAKAS KABALIKAT NG MALAYANG PILIPINO CHRISTIAN MUSLIM DEMOCRATS 88269 53.61%
BASINO, Fredo P. PEOPLES CHAMP MOVEMENT 76373 46.39%
Statistics
Total number of Voters who actually voted 185450
MEMBER, SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN of SARANGANI – SECOND PROVDIST

Candidate Party Votes Percentage
GALZOTE, Hermie C. PEOPLES CHAMP MOVEMENT 52628 10.18%
ALZATE, Eugene L. PEOPLES CHAMP MOVEMENT 50846 9.84%
SAGUIGUIT, Eleanor C. PEOPLES CHAMP MOVEMENT 49905 9.66%
TOBIAS, Virgilio C. PEOPLES CHAMP MOVEMENT 45769 8.86%
RUIZ II, Benedicto L. PEOPLES CHAMP MOVEMENT 40985 7.93%
PANGOLIMA, Abdulracman K. PEOPLES CHAMP MOVEMENT 39550 7.65%
ALABA, Napoleon F. LAKAS KABALIKAT NG MALAYANG PILIPINO CHRISTIAN MUSLIM DEMOCRATS 39174 7.58%
SANTOS, Eunice D. LAKAS KABALIKAT NG MALAYANG PILIPINO CHRISTIAN MUSLIM DEMOCRATS 38582 7.47%
TATAD, Jaime O. LAKAS KABALIKAT NG MALAYANG PILIPINO CHRISTIAN MUSLIM DEMOCRATS 38406 7.43%
OCTAVIO, Rolando Jr S. LAKAS KABALIKAT NG MALAYANG PILIPINO CHRISTIAN MUSLIM DEMOCRATS 38188 7.39%
MUSA, Ting J. LAKAS KABALIKAT NG MALAYANG PILIPINO CHRISTIAN MUSLIM DEMOCRATS 34180 6.61%
CARIÑO, Amelito Arnold B. LAKAS KABALIKAT NG MALAYANG PILIPINO CHRISTIAN MUSLIM DEMOCRATS 30404 5.88%
LIM, Roseller E. INDEPENDENT 18159 3.51%
Statistics
Total number of Voters who actually voted 127426
MEMBER, SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN of SARANGANI – FIRST PROVDIST

Candidate Party Votes Percentage
DE PERALTA, Elmer T. PEOPLES CHAMP MOVEMENT 24184 14.83%
MARTINEZ, Cornelio Jr C. PEOPLES CHAMP MOVEMENT 23382 14.33%
GACULA, Limuel N. LAKAS KABALIKAT NG MALAYANG PILIPINO CHRISTIAN MUSLIM DEMOCRATS 21680 13.29%
REGANIT, Alexander Bryan B. PEOPLES CHAMP MOVEMENT 21316 13.07%
FALGUI, George F. LAKAS KABALIKAT NG MALAYANG PILIPINO CHRISTIAN MUSLIM DEMOCRATS 19430 11.91%
BALLAN, Nicanor A. LAKAS KABALIKAT NG MALAYANG PILIPINO CHRISTIAN MUSLIM DEMOCRATS 19228 11.79%
MACAGCALAT, Umbra A. LAKAS KABALIKAT NG MALAYANG PILIPINO CHRISTIAN MUSLIM DEMOCRATS 16252 9.96%
MANGUIGIN, Pirot B. PEOPLES CHAMP MOVEMENT 12656 7.76%
BANDRANG, Iyadh M. PWERSA NG MASANG PILIPINO 4992 3.06%
Statistics
Total number of Voters who actually voted 58024
 

· · · · ·
Copyright © 2000-2010 Smartmatic Corporation. All rights reserved.

Election Result for South Cotabato – 2nd Legdist

MEMBER, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES of SOUTH COTABATO – SECOND LEGDIST

Candidate Party Votes Percentage
FUENTES, Daisy A. NATIONALIST PEOPLES COALITION 130602 61.82%
DE PEDRO III, Hilario L. LAKAS KABALIKAT NG MALAYANG PILIPINO CHRISTIAN MUSLIM DEMOCRATS 80653 38.18%
Statistics
Total number of Voters who actually voted 222650
MEMBER, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES of SOUTH COTABATO – FIRST LEGDIST

Candidate Party Votes Percentage
ACHARON, Pedro Jr B. NATIONALIST PEOPLES COALITION 163590 69.03%
MELLIZA, Ramon R. INDEPENDENT 51306 21.65%
GARCIA, Rogelio V. PARTIDO DEMOKRATIKO PILIPINO LAKAS NG BAYAN 14053 5.93%
GACAL, Franklin Jr. M. INDEPENDENT 6327 2.67%
ANGANGAN, Aldwin B. INDEPENDENT 985 0.42%
PLAZA, Abelardo S. INDEPENDENT 731 0.31%
Statistics
Total number of Voters who actually voted 258686
PROVINCIAL GOVERNOR of SOUTH COTABATO

Candidate Party Votes Percentage
PINGOY JR., Arthur Y. LAKAS KABALIKAT NG MALAYANG PILIPINO CHRISTIAN MUSLIM DEMOCRATS 120021 39.67%
HERNANDEZ, Ferdinand L. NATIONALIST PEOPLES COALITION 107870 35.65%
MIGUEL, Fernando Q. PWERSA NG MASANG PILIPINO 74687 24.68%
Statistics
Total number of Voters who actually voted 316865
PROVINCIAL VICE-GOVERNOR of SOUTH COTABATO

Candidate Party Votes Percentage
TOLOSA, Elmo B. LAKAS KABALIKAT NG MALAYANG PILIPINO CHRISTIAN MUSLIM DEMOCRATS 119388 42.62%
JUMILLA, Rene B. NATIONALIST PEOPLES COALITION 107430 38.36%
HURTADO, Marie Antonina I. PWERSA NG MASANG PILIPINO 53272 19.02%
Statistics
Total number of Voters who actually voted 316865
MEMBER, SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN of SOUTH COTABATO – SECOND PROVDIST

Candidate Party Votes Percentage
DIEL, Cecile E. INDEPENDENT 90069 8.01%
LADOT, Samuel L. LAKAS KABALIKAT NG MALAYANG PILIPINO CHRISTIAN MUSLIM DEMOCRATS 75774 6.74%
LUNTAO, Ervin B. LAKAS KABALIKAT NG MALAYANG PILIPINO CHRISTIAN MUSLIM DEMOCRATS 75218 6.69%
AGUIRRE, Jose Henry D. PWERSA NG MASANG PILIPINO 74205 6.60%
CATEDRAL, Ernesto I. PARTIDO DEMOKRATIKO SOSYALISTA NG PILIPINAS 74045 6.59%
SUBERE, Pablito S. PWERSA NG MASANG PILIPINO 64333 5.72%
DEMA-ALA, Agustin D. NATIONALIST PEOPLES COALITION 63101 5.61%
ALBA, Tomas Aniceto Y. LAKAS KABALIKAT NG MALAYANG PILIPINO CHRISTIAN MUSLIM DEMOCRATS 62264 5.54%
MORALES, Sergio Jr. S. LAKAS KABALIKAT NG MALAYANG PILIPINO CHRISTIAN MUSLIM DEMOCRATS 60744 5.40%
ESPARCIA, Carl L. NATIONALIST PEOPLES COALITION 57868 5.15%
BAAY, Dominador S. LAKAS KABALIKAT NG MALAYANG PILIPINO CHRISTIAN MUSLIM DEMOCRATS 52590 4.68%
CARLOS, Francis S. NATIONALIST PEOPLES COALITION 52408 4.66%
JANUTO, Romeo S. LAKAS KABALIKAT NG MALAYANG PILIPINO CHRISTIAN MUSLIM DEMOCRATS 49525 4.40%
MENDOZA, Angelito Sr. D. NATIONALIST PEOPLES COALITION 46720 4.16%
MACABABBAD, Juan G. NATIONALIST PEOPLES COALITION 37253 3.31%
LANDERO, Johnny P. PWERSA NG MASANG PILIPINO 32569 2.90%
BAGUNOC, Ruel A. PWERSA NG MASANG PILIPINO 32235 2.87%
GARROVILLO, Noel S. NATIONALIST PEOPLES COALITION 30243 2.69%
CRESPO, Ramonito B. PWERSA NG MASANG PILIPINO 29953 2.66%
ADORADOR, Wilfredo L. INDEPENDENT 28179 2.51%
CERVEZA, Elsie G. PWERSA NG MASANG PILIPINO 22132 1.97%
BIARE, Ramil C. INDEPENDENT 7415 0.66%
MANJARES, Romulo B. INDEPENDENT 5536 0.49%
Statistics
Total number of Voters who actually voted 222650
MEMBER, SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN of SOUTH COTABATO – FIRST PROVDIST

Candidate Party Votes Percentage
LUMAYAG, Honey L. NATIONALIST PEOPLES COALITION 49117 22.23%
MARIANO-BARROSO, Antonette D. NATIONALIST PEOPLES COALITION 47592 21.54%
MADANGUIT, Jose M. NATIONALIST PEOPLES COALITION 45091 20.41%
BAITUS, Jobeelyn C. LAKAS KABALIKAT NG MALAYANG PILIPINO CHRISTIAN MUSLIM DEMOCRATS 29897 13.53%
DIMAMAY, Eduardo A. LAKAS KABALIKAT NG MALAYANG PILIPINO CHRISTIAN MUSLIM DEMOCRATS 19832 8.98%
ABELLERA, Noel S. PWERSA NG MASANG PILIPINO 17882 8.09%
RAMO, Carlos M. LAKAS KABALIKAT NG MALAYANG PILIPINO CHRISTIAN MUSLIM DEMOCRATS 11522 5.22%
Statistics
Total number of Voters who actually voted 94215
 

· · · · ·
Copyright © 2000-2010 Smartmatic Corporation. All rights reserved.

Election Result for Sultan Kudarat – 1st Legdist 2

MEMBER, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES of SULTAN KUDARAT – FIRST LEGDIST

Candidate Party Votes Percentage
SAKALURAN, Raden C. INDEPENDENT 66979 70.28%
MANGUDADATU, Pax Pakung S. LAKAS KABALIKAT NG MALAYANG PILIPINO CHRISTIAN MUSLIM DEMOCRATS 28324 29.72%
Statistics
Total number of Voters who actually voted 137403
MEMBER, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES of SULTAN KUDARAT – SECOND LEGDIST

Candidate Party Votes Percentage
GO, Arnulfo F. LAKAS KABALIKAT NG MALAYANG PILIPINO CHRISTIAN MUSLIM DEMOCRATS 71927 73.64%
ARGUELLES, Reynaldo F. INDEPENDENT 9113 9.33%
GUMANA, Nesthur R. INDEPENDENT 7800 7.99%
TALMADGE, Jacqueline P V. LIBERAL PARTY 5498 5.63%
EXAMEN, Roberto E. INDEPENDENT 3339 3.42%
Statistics
Total number of Voters who actually voted 110338
PROVINCIAL GOVERNOR of SULTAN KUDARAT

Candidate Party Votes Percentage
MANGUDADATU, Suharto T. LAKAS KABALIKAT NG MALAYANG PILIPINO CHRISTIAN MUSLIM DEMOCRATS 141727 62.12%
VALDEZ, Carlos, Jr. D. NATIONALIST PEOPLES COALITION 82049 35.96%
ESTORQUE, Rodolfo V. INDEPENDENT 2219 0.97%
DEFIÑO, Ephraim B. INDEPENDENT 2152 0.94%
Statistics
Total number of Voters who actually voted 247741
PROVINCIAL VICE-GOVERNOR of SULTAN KUDARAT

Candidate Party Votes Percentage
MATIAS, Ernesto F. LAKAS KABALIKAT NG MALAYANG PILIPINO CHRISTIAN MUSLIM DEMOCRATS 144275 100.00%
Statistics
Total number of Voters who actually voted 247741
MEMBER, SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN of SULTAN KUDARAT – FIRST PROVDIST

Candidate Party Votes Percentage
DUQUE, Eduardo M. LAKAS KABALIKAT NG MALAYANG PILIPINO CHRISTIAN MUSLIM DEMOCRATS 81224 19.38%
PAGATPATAN, Generoso C. LAKAS KABALIKAT NG MALAYANG PILIPINO CHRISTIAN MUSLIM DEMOCRATS 80153 19.13%
RECINTO, Francis Eric E. LAKAS KABALIKAT NG MALAYANG PILIPINO CHRISTIAN MUSLIM DEMOCRATS 76138 18.17%
SEGURA, Orfelina P. LAKAS KABALIKAT NG MALAYANG PILIPINO CHRISTIAN MUSLIM DEMOCRATS 75186 17.94%
GARCIA, Benigno N. LAKAS KABALIKAT NG MALAYANG PILIPINO CHRISTIAN MUSLIM DEMOCRATS 68666 16.39%
QUEZON, Eduardo V. INDEPENDENT 37655 8.99%
Statistics
Total number of Voters who actually voted 137403
MEMBER, SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN of SULTAN KUDARAT – SECOND PROVDIST

Candidate Party Votes Percentage
POSADAS, Cornelio B. LAKAS KABALIKAT NG MALAYANG PILIPINO CHRISTIAN MUSLIM DEMOCRATS 49686 17.18%
FORNAN, Cesar L. LAKAS KABALIKAT NG MALAYANG PILIPINO CHRISTIAN MUSLIM DEMOCRATS 47139 16.30%
PLOTEÑA, Fernando L. LAKAS KABALIKAT NG MALAYANG PILIPINO CHRISTIAN MUSLIM DEMOCRATS 40848 14.12%
FORRO, Rolando D. LAKAS KABALIKAT NG MALAYANG PILIPINO CHRISTIAN MUSLIM DEMOCRATS 40707 14.08%
PERALTA, Peter J. INDEPENDENT 37489 12.96%
KARON, Datusalem A. LAKAS KABALIKAT NG MALAYANG PILIPINO CHRISTIAN MUSLIM DEMOCRATS 33914 11.73%
DEQUIÑA, Sonny G. LAPIANG MANGGAGAWA 25727 8.90%
DRUZ ALI, Salindatu S. PARTIDO DEMOKRATIKO SOSYALISTA NG PILIPINAS 13691 4.73%
Statistics
Total number of Voters who actually voted 110338

Election Result for Tacurong City

MAYOR of SULTAN KUDARAT – TACURONG CITY

Candidate Party Votes Percentage
MONTILLA, Lina O. NATIONALIST PEOPLES COALITION 14804 45.23%
JALANDONI, Jerry V. PWERSA NG MASANG PILIPINO 8654 26.44%
PAUYA, Excel G. INDEPENDENT 4664 14.25%
ARZAGON, Geronimo P. AKSYON DEMOKRATIKO 1963 6.00%
HECHANOVA, Eleuterio Jr. T. INDEPENDENT 1005 3.07%
BERNARDO, Ralen T. INDEPENDENT 990 3.02%
EUROPA, Angelito L. BANGON PILIPINAS 434 1.33%
ELISEO, Benjamin E. INDEPENDENT 217 0.66%
Statistics
Total number of Voters who actually voted 33991
VICE-MAYOR of SULTAN KUDARAT – TACURONG CITY

Candidate Party Votes Percentage
COLLADO, Charito L. NATIONALIST PEOPLES COALITION 17929 58.88%
ULANGKAYA, Antonio B. INDEPENDENT 5340 17.54%
FORRO, Larry M. PWERSA NG MASANG PILIPINO 3378 11.09%
CAÑIZARES, Alfredo Jr S. INDEPENDENT 2263 7.43%
DACANAY, Arcadio Jr. R. INDEPENDENT 1542 5.06%
Statistics
Total number of Voters who actually voted 33991
MEMBER, SANGGUNIANG PANLUNGSOD of SULTAN KUDARAT – TACURONG CITY – LONE DIST

Candidate Party Votes Percentage
SUCALDITO, Psyche M. NATIONALIST PEOPLES COALITION 16198 6.60%
SEGURA, Jose Remos P. INDEPENDENT 14676 5.98%
JAMORABON, Rodrigo P. NATIONALIST PEOPLES COALITION 14628 5.96%
LECHONSITO, Joseph G L. NATIONALIST PEOPLES COALITION 14441 5.88%
FLORES, Cirilo Y. NATIONALIST PEOPLES COALITION 14227 5.80%
FAJARDO, Benjamin Jr P. NATIONALIST PEOPLES COALITION 12762 5.20%
LEDDA, Paulino R. NATIONALIST PEOPLES COALITION 12253 4.99%
PAREDES, Virgilio C. NATIONALIST PEOPLES COALITION 10634 4.33%
CAJANDIG, Joselito Sr L. NATIONALIST PEOPLES COALITION 9957 4.06%
DE LA CRUZ, Ariel Ferdinand M. NATIONALIST PEOPLES COALITION 9895 4.03%
CABAGUING, Teresita T. NATIONALIST PEOPLES COALITION 8541 3.48%
COLLADO, Geraldine L. INDEPENDENT 8328 3.39%
ARCELLANA, Jesus A. INDEPENDENT 7202 2.93%
SESPEÑE, Earl Siegfredo S. INDEPENDENT 6823 2.78%
DOLOJO, Romeo Sr. G. INDEPENDENT 6642 2.71%
UMADHAY, Bernardino Jr L. INDEPENDENT 6176 2.52%
SUSTIGUER, Dona Mae A. INDEPENDENT 6091 2.48%
CASADOR, Maximo Jr L. INDEPENDENT 5204 2.12%
AREVALO, Liberato D. INDEPENDENT 5201 2.12%
LLAVORE, Ma. Lorraine A. INDEPENDENT 4838 1.97%
VIDAL, Alma T. INDEPENDENT 4517 1.84%
BALTAZAR, Susanita C. INDEPENDENT 4507 1.84%
PALADIN, Ronald P. INDEPENDENT 3956 1.61%
SALVADOR, Agapito P. INDEPENDENT 3906 1.59%
DE LA CRUZ, Fredenario N. INDEPENDENT 3798 1.55%
CLOMATA, Jocelyn B. INDEPENDENT 3559 1.45%
ARIGUIN, Ricardo F. INDEPENDENT 3210 1.31%
VENTURA, Romulo H. INDEPENDENT 2914 1.19%
YADAO, Jude Eric Q. INDEPENDENT 2742 1.12%
SAMSON, Pedro V. INDEPENDENT 2726 1.11%
MARAMENTO, Romeo S. INDEPENDENT 2442 1.00%
DELOS SANTOS, James P. INDEPENDENT 2081 0.85%
LASPE, Romeo F. INDEPENDENT 2000 0.81%
MORALES, Alberto D. INDEPENDENT 1912 0.78%
PACLIBAR, Edmundo P. INDEPENDENT 1853 0.76%
DUCALA, Celestino P. INDEPENDENT 1722 0.70%
PASOL, Alfredo B. INDEPENDENT 1279 0.52%
COSTALES, Emmanuel Jr. N. BANGON PILIPINAS 799 0.33%
LAPASTORA, Rodney Sr. J. INDEPENDENT 760 0.31%
Statistics
Total number of Voters who actually voted 33991
 

· · · · ·
Copyright © 2000-2010 Smartmatic Corporation. All rights reserved.

Tacurong City 2008 COA Audit 2

2. Value for Money Audit
2.1 Lapses of the BAC, loose monitoring by the Engineer’s Office and non-coordination between department heads within the city government resulted to the non-completion of the slaughterhouse building amounting to P9,641,500.00 thereby depriving the constituents of the benefits that could be derived therefrom.
In support of the 10 point Agenda of Her Excellency, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, the City of Tacurong, incorporated in its Annual Investment Plan for 2005, the project of constructing a Class AA Abattoir (Slaughter house) to align with the national program of economic recovery thru added income; help alleviate the problem of unemployment and production of clean and healthy meat to supply the demands not only of the constituents of Tacurong City but also of outside consumers.  The fund for the construction will be taken from a loan to be availed from the Development Bank of the Philippines, Tacurong Branch.
Accordingly, the city government’s application for a loan of P 10,705,000 duly supported with a feasibility study to project the period of loan repayment, the manpower to be created and the income to be derived from the operation was granted.

The Bids and Awards Committee (BAC), in accordance with the mandates of RA 9184 started executing its functions by issuing Invitations to Apply for Eligibility and to Bid to bidders. The invitation was published in conspicuous places within the city and also published in the newspaper of national circulation (Malaya) on August 23 and 30, 2005. However, only one bidder, the NC’s General Construction submitted his Letter of Intent and/or applied for eligibility check and met the criteria. When the Bid was opened on October 11, 2005, this bidder, the NC’s GENERAL CONSTRUCTION, submitted his bid, and the BAC found it to be responsive to the bidding requirements.  (Please see copy of Abstract of Bids marked as Annex 9) Subsequently the BAC conducted and accomplished a post-qualification of the bidder and considered the contractor’s bid to be the Single Calculated and Responsive Bid having met all the requirements and conditions for eligibility per Sec. 36 (A) of RA 9184. As an added factor, the BAC  considered the  Certificate  of Accreditation issued on August 30, 2004 to the Contractor  by the National Meat Inspection Commission with a coverage of one year after issuance,  copy of which is attached and marked as Annex 10.
The Head of the Procuring Entity ( HOPE – The City Mayor) issued the Notice of Award on October 25, 2005.  A contract was drawn for the Construction of the Slaughterhouse amounting to P 9,641,500 to take effect December 15, 2005 with a contract time of 240 calendar days and to complete the project on August 22, 2006. Subsequently, the HOPE issued Notice to Proceed on December 15, 2005.
All the necessary requirements enumerated in RA 9184 and its IRRA as amended were complied and the construction ran smoothly at the start with the Contractor posting his Performance Bond in a form of a Surety Bond covering the period December 1, 2005 to December 1, 2006.  The City government granted him a cash advance (Mobilization Fee) on February 10, 2006 amounting to P 1,446,225. He claimed his first partial payment on March 7, 2006 supported with a Contractor’s Statement of Work Accomplishment of 19.69% duly checked and verified by the engineers of the city government. On April 21, 2006, due to the absence of electrical power supply, the contractor’s requests for time suspension was granted by the agency moving the contract expiration time to September 22, 2006.  However, on August 21, 2006, management in letter (Please see Annex 11) drew the attention of the contractor on the delayed work which was only 31.10%  accomplished and required him to submit a catch-up plan to cope with the delay incurred which the contractor submitted but did not follow. This delay even caught the attention of the Sangguniang Panlungsod which called for a conference with the contractor for him to explain the delay.  Another conference was also called on October 6, 2006 wherein the presence of the officials of the Development Bank of the Philippines and other local officials who were very much concerned for the project were in attendance in order to reach a solution for the problem.  After these dialogues and due to the revision of plans and design on the Waste Water Treatment Facility (WWTF) recommended by the ECOGOV and the CENRO a contract time extension was again granted moving the contract time expiration to November 15, 2006. On November 9, 2006, he was paid his claim representing 41.86% accomplishment.  Up to this period, all his claims reflected deductions for taxes, recoupment of mobilization fee and 10% retention. (Please see Annex 12)
On December 4, 2006, the City Engineer computed a liquidated damage of P 1,440/day days which the contractor received on the same date. (Please see Annex 13). Yet, on that same day, the contractor was again paid his progress claim representing 55.75% accomplishment.  The liquidated damage was not imposed and the 10% retention was not applied. The succeeding progress payments up to 86.01% accomplishment paid on February 7, 2007 were not deducted of the liquidated damage and the 10% retention.

On September 30, 2008, the Contract was terminated by the Head of the Procuring Agency due to abandonment, as can be gleaned from his letter attached and marked as Annex 14.  The percentage of accomplishment is 86.01% only and concurred by the COA Technical Service Office in its inspection report, copy attached and marked as Annex 15.
In the review of the documents relative to the project and as gathered during the interview with some responsible management officials, the following lapses were noted:
1. Bids and Award Committee (BAC) –
The committee, having given a heavy weight on the accreditation issued by the National Meat Inspection Commission, failed to require the submission of the renewed accreditation as per document presented and attached, the accreditation was for August 30, 2004 –August 30, 2005.  The bidding was on October 11, 2005, hence the period of accreditation has already lapsed.
2. Accounting Department –
This Office failed to adhere to Sec. 6 of the IRRA (Annex E)  which states:
“Progress payments are subject to retention of ten percent (10%) referred to as the “retention money”.  Such retention shall be based on the total amount due to the contractor prior to any deduction and shall be retained from every progress payment until fifty percent (50%) of the value of works, as determined by the procuring entity, are completed.  If, after fifty percent (50%) completion, the work is satisfactorily done and on schedule, no additional retention shall be made; otherwise, the ten percent (10%) retention shall be imposed.” (underscoring supplied)
The retention money retained by the city government amounted to P 403,628.35 or 41.86% only.
3. Engineering Office –
This Office failed to closely monitor the implementation of the project:
a. Having computed the liquidated damage due to slippage of the contractor, it failed to inform the accounting department to impose the LD on the succeeding progress payments;
b. Having the knowledge that the contractor’s work was not satisfactorily undertaken and already delayed per schedule, it failed to advice the accounting department to continue deducting the ten percent (10%) retention money that could be used to answer for any defects found later.
c. This office had the knowledge that the contractor was granted time suspensions and contract time extension, yet it failed to verify whether the contractor has likewise renewed/extended his performance security so that could be co-terminus with the final completion of the contract..(Sec. 39.3(b) –IRRA of RA 9184.)
In an interview with the concerned city officials, the following were the justifications given:

1. Bids and Awards Committee:
The BAC Chairman admitted to have overlooked the coverage of the accreditation issued by the National Meat Inspection Commission to the NC’s General Contractor. She justified that having secured copies of the certificates of completion and acceptance of similar projects undertaken in other places the competence of the contractor was therefore creditable.  Moreover, it was only in the later part that the contractor incurred some slippages leading to abandonment and termination of contract.
2. Accounting Office –

In an interview with the City Accountant she averred that had her office been advised about the delayed and unsatisfactory performance of the contractor, the ten percent (10%) retention money could have been deducted in all progress payments.  There was no note in the Contractor’s Statement of Work Accomplished indicating slippages to warrant continuation of deductions.  Past projects of the city government were all satisfactorily undertaken; hence she presumed that the same applies to this project.  The same is true with the liquidated damage.  Imposition could have been done had her office been informed.
3. Engineering Office –
The City Engineer admitted that there really was non-coordination between her office and the accounting office as regards the imposition of the liquidated damage and the ten percent (10%) retention money.  She alleged that although the liquidated damage was computed, she did not immediately furnish the Accounting office regarding the imposition thereof in succeeding progress payments because she planned to have it deducted in the final payment.
As regards the performance security which the contractor failed to extend to make it co-terminus with the final completion of the contract, she admitted to her inadvertent oversight.
The termination of the contract has currently suspended the construction. When interviewed about the possible outcome of the project which had already amounted to P 8,292,917.04, responsible management officials informed that the administration is contemplating of taking over the project.  A consultant will be hired to guide the engineers in the installation of items which are highly technical in nature to conform to the standards of the NMIC. Other options are likewise considered but their main concern is the speedy completion of the project.

In the over-all evaluation of the project, it could be concluded that the City Government of Tacurong suffered injury and damage in the sense that the objectives of economic recovery thru additional income for the city government; employment opportunities for the constituents; and production of clean and healthy meat not only for the populace of Tacurong City but also for those residing outside the city are not attained. This project, categorized by the National Meat Inspection Commission (NMIC) as Class AA Abattoir (Slaughterhouse) could have supplied the demands of other cities and provinces, for a clean and healthy meat. Lastly, being the first Class AA Abattoir in the region, this building could have served as a showcase and a pride for the city government.

Due to its non-completion, the city government suffered the following losses in the monetary aspects such as:

1. The cash advance granted to the contractor for mobilization was not fully collected.  Out of the total cash advance granted  to  the  Contractor  amounting  to P 1,446,225  only P 1,243,937.24 was collected leaving an uncollected  balance of P202,287.76

2. Instead of retaining a total of P964,150 as retention money, only P403,628.35  or 41.86% was retained to answer for defects.
3. The City Government was not compensated for any liquidated damages from the defaulting contractor.
4. No performance bond can be called upon demand by the City Government to answer for any defects due to the non-renewal or non-extension of the performance bond of the contractor.
5. The one year Defects Liability period of the contractor can no longer be availed. (Sec. 62.2.1 –IRRA of RA 9184)
6. The City Government has to bear the re-payment of the loan out of its own resources as the project is not yet operative.  As of December 31, 2008, the City had incurred loan payments and interest expense for this project amounting to P2,081,527.77 and P2,474,739.08, respectively. This money could have been used to finance other projects beneficial to the constituents.

In the exit conference conducted on April 14, 2009, management commented that they are now negotiating with the contractor for a compromise agreement contract to finish the slaughterhouse and acknowledged there lapses regarding monitoring and implementation of this project.
Recommendation for Tacurong City Government:
We advise the management to exert efforts to complete the construction of the slaughterhouse. If management has to undertake the completion of the project, find means to hasten its completion because delay will entail other problems such as price increases and the like that will again hinder the implementation.

As this is the first incident wherein the project of the city government failed to reach its completion, this could serve as an eye-opener to both the officials and employees to be vigilant and closely monitor all the projects prosecuted by the city government.
We advise also the management to refrain from being complacent hopeful that all projects will come to completion even without the monitoring of accomplishments.  We must bear in mind that all our undertakings are financed by the taxes of the people.  Hence, they deserve to enjoy the benefits from their taxes.

2.2 Had  the  implementation of the 20% Economic Development Fund  amounting  to  P43,139,413.08 been maximized and effectively spent for prioritized projects identified in DILG and DBM Joint Circular No. 1, Series of 2005, the agency’s objective to provide economic stability and sustainable development could have been attained benefiting the constituents of the city.
Mandated in Sec. 287 of Republic Act 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991 is the provision that “each local government unit shall appropriate in its annual budget no less than twenty percent (20%) of its annual internal revenue allotment for development projects. x x x “
To guide management on the proper utilization of this fund DILG and DBM Joint Circular No. 1, Series of 2005, provides that:
“2.3 – All projects to be funded shall:
2.3.1 Contribute to the attainment of desirable socio economic development and environmental management outcomes;
2.3.2 Partake the nature of investment and capital expenditures; and
2.3.3 Take into consideration cost recovery and entrepreneurship.”
The Annual Investment Plan of the city for the year 2008 was originally divided into five (5) major programs with corresponding sub-programs. (Please see Annex 16).
1. Social Services P    3,558,000.00
2. Economic      400,000.00
3. Infrastructure 32,300,000.00
4. Environment   2,300,000.00
5. Provision of Info Tech Programs   1,115,458.00
Total P 39,673,458.00
Supplemental Budget and other enactments added other priority projects bringing the appropriations for the 20% EDF for the year to P 46,139,413.08.

In the evaluation of the City’s Annual Investment Plan, it was observed that although the projects embodied therein were arrived at after consultation with the barangay leaders, most of the projects were not properly harmonized with the national development goals and strategies as aimed by DILG and DBM Joint Circular mentioned earlier.

Moreover, when these projects were compared with the locally funded projects totaling P 40,081,750, embodied in the Annual Budget (Please see Annex 17) it was be noted that there were funded projects which were directed towards similar purposes showing duplication of projects resulting to slow implementation thereof.  Other projects were not even implemented at all. As of year-end only 67.4 % of the programs/projects under the 20% EDF were implemented.  Sad to note, projects that could assure cost recovery were given the least funding and the lowest implementation such as Livelihood project under its economic program. In like manner, the programs for the Youth welfare & development (anti-drug campaign, out of school youth) – P200, 000 and the Kaunlaran sa Barangay- P 200,000 classified under the Social Development (3.1.1) and Environmental Management (3.3.2) were not also utilized. It was further observed that from 2004, the appropriations for these programs were were not utilized and instead reverted to other programs.  The non-implementation of these projects defeated the objectives of the issued guidelines, – the DILG and DBM Joint Circular No. 1, Series of 2005.
In the review of the transactions of the city government, it was noted that it had granted one (1) livelihood project to the Notre Dame Foundation-ACDC Employees MPC amounting to P 200,000.  It had likewise incurred expenditures for the training of some programs such as manicure, pedicure and the like but these programs were charged to the locally funded projects. Barangay development projects with funds in the 20% EDF and the locally funded projects were not fully implemented as the City Engineer’s Office could not cope up with the work.  Due to duplication of projects, some projects were under the status of “Still waiting for the availability of equipment or still waiting for the availability of manpower” as reflected in the accomplishment reports. If every year, the implementation of the projects is not maximized, the 20% Economic Development Fund which is automatically allocated out of the IRA received during the year would remain idle. Had management properly identified and prioritized the projects under the 20% EDF, the allocated amount under the locally funded projects could have been directed to other projects such as the completion of the gymnasium, the improvement of the City Cemetery and other projects that could generate income to augment the resources of the city.

The minimal utilization of the 20% Economic Development Fund was already brought to the attention of management in the previous year’s annual audit report  of which they justified that due to the election conducted during the year the implementation of the projects was restricted. We reiterate our observation and show in the next page are the balances representing unutilized funds every year-end, except for reversions of some projects; viz:
20% DEVELOPMENT FUND
YEAR
APPROP’NS
OBLIG’NS
EXPENSE
BALANCE
2004
30,990,044.00
8,836,181.65
8,554,240.38
22,435,803.62
2005
32,797,448.00
4,963,035.10
4,249,893.67
28,547,554.33
2006
38,132,945.00
22,253,011.73
20,237,256.72
17,895,688.28
2007
39,673,458.00
29,626,759.32
23,312,043.08
16,361,414.92
2008
46,139,413.08
38,818,102.81
31,256,283.47
14,883,129.61

Although there is an increase from 59% (2007) to 67.74% (2008) implementation in the projects, the benefits could not be fully felt by the constituents because the projects which are primarily directed to them such as desirable socio-economic development and environmental management, cost recovery and entrepreneurship were not totally implemented.

In the exit conference conducted on April 14, 2009, management assured this office to align there projects and programs in accordance with the DILG and DBM Joint Circular No. 1 regarding socio-economic development and maximizes the utilization of the fund.
Recommendation for Tacurong City Government:

We advise the management to identify the projects and programs under this fund in accordance with the provisions of the DILG and DBM Joint Circular No. 1, Series of 2005 to provide desirable socio-economic development which are beneficial to the constituents of the city. Refrain from duplicating the projects to maximize the utilization of the funds.

We further advise the management to intensify the implementation especially of livelihood programs by conducting information dissemination to include feasible projects, process of availing the programs and the economic outcomes. Make available to those who have already undergone seminars/trainings the necessary starting capital that would partake the nature of a loan so that upon recovery of the amounts, these will be loaned out to other deserving beneficiaries.

2.3 The objectives for the creation of Special Education Fund (SEF) were not fully attained because the programs, projects and activities funded through SEF by the Local School Board were not clearly defined, prioritized and implemented in accordance with the provisions of DECS, DBM and DILG Joint Circular Nos. 01 s. 1998, 01-A s. 2000, RA No. 5447, otherwise known as the Special Education Fund (SEF) Act dated April 14, 1998, March 14, 2000 and September 25, 1968, respectively and Section 99 (a) and 100 (c) of RA 7160 which prescribed the rules and regulations to be observed in the utilization of the SEF by the Local School Boards for the operation and maintenance of elementary and secondary public schools.
The SEF is created as a financial support of the government to the goals of education which shall be expended exclusively for the activities of the Department of Education and in accordance with the provisions of the Special Education Fund Act (RA 5447).
According to the criteria set by the DepEd, the Local School Board determines the annual supplementary budgetary needs for the operation and maintenance of public schools within the province, city or municipality, as the case may be, and the supplementary local cost of meeting such needs, which shall be reflected in the form of an annual school board budget. (Section 99 (a) of the Local Government Code) Please see form in Annex 18 for the format of Special Education Fund-Budget Preparation No. 1.
The Division Superintendent, City Superintendent, or District Supervisor, as the case may be, shall prepare the budget of the school board concerned for the ensuing fiscal year. Such budget shall be supported by the prioritized programs, projects and activities of the school board for the operation and maintenance of elementary and secondary public schools prescribed in Section 100 (b) of the Local Government Code, DECS-DBM-DILG Joint Circular No. 01 s 1998 and RA 5447 , as shown below:
Rank
Program/Project/
Activity
Personal Services
Maintenance & Other Operating Expenses
Capital Outlay
1
Elementary/Secondary Program
1.1 Establishment of extension classes

xxx

xxx
2
Construction and repair of school facilities and equipment

xxx

xxx
3
Educational Research
xxx
xxx
4
Acquisition/Procurement of books, instructional materials, textbooks, periodicals and acquisition of school sites

xxx

xxx
5
Acquisition of IT Equipment and Materials.

xxx
xxx
6
Expenses for school sports activities xxx

xxx
xxx
Total Expenditures (For BY)
xxx
xxx
xxx
Item 3 of Joint Circular No. 01-A s. 2000 of DECS, DBM and DILG dated March 14, 2000 prescribes the quarterly reporting requirements and authorization on the utilization of SEF (using the form as per Annex 19) to be prepared and submitted by the Local School Board to Department of Education (DEpEd) ROs, copy furnished the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) ROs and Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) ROs. The aforesaid quarterly report shall be submitted one week after the end of the quarter.
Review of the budget of the Special Education Fund for the Budget Year 2008 as mandated under Resolution No. 1 series of 2008 amounting to P 9,400,000.00 revealed that the programs, projects and activities in the budget do not conform to the above provisions. Instead, the budget is broken down per Division and District offices as to their personal services, maintenance and other operating expenses and capital outlays, as shown in the next page:
Office
Personal Services
Maintenance & Other Operating Expenses
Capital Outlay
Total
Division Office
1,543,573.00
2,954,096.00
160,000.00
4,657,669.00
Central District
0.00
345,000.00
155,000.00
500,000.00
East District
0.00
344,500.00
155,000.00
500,000.00
West District
2,241,850.00
391,000.00
109,000.00
2,741,850.00
South District
0.00
425,000.00
75,000.00
500,000.00
North District
0.00
408,500.00
91,500.00
500,000.00
Total
3,785,423.00
4,868,096.00
746,000.00
9,339,519.00
Details are shown in Annex 20.
In addition, the Local School Board does not prepare and submit the SEF Utilization Report as required in the above provisions to asses the budget accountability of the SEF.
Further, examination of disbursement vouchers revealed the following transactions for CY 2008 were not only contrary to the priorities provided in the above provisions but also some operational expenses of the division and district offices is found to be a bit too much compared to their budget in the General Appropriations Act for the FY 2008 as an office proper:
1. Payment of personal services totalling P1,815,781.47 for the salaries and personnel-related benefits of non-teaching personnel which their functions are administrative in nature (i.e., clerks, encoders, collectors and drivers) assigned at the City School Division office and in the Accounting and Treasury offices of the City Government of Tacurong (see Annex 21 for the list of personnel). This is contrary to R.A 5447 and (DECS-DBM-DÌLG) Joint Circular Nos. 01 s. 1998, 01-A s. 2000 and 01-B s. 2001, which state that payment of salaries, authorized allowances and personnel-related benefits are only for hired teachers that handle new classes as extensions of existing public elementary or secondary schools established and approved by DepEd.
2. Purchase of motorcycle amounting to P 62,000.00 last July 8, 2008 with Disbursement Voucher No. 0700433 was charged to SEF and used by the City Treasury Office. These is contrary in the above provisions and of COA Legal Opinion No. 97-010 dated                April 30, 1997 Quoting the legal opinion rendered by COA General Counsel Raquel R. Habitan –
“Moreover, R.A. No. 5447 which created the Special Education Fund provides for the basis of determining the activities to be financed by the said fund. Further reference under Section 1 thereof states that the Special Education Fund shall be expended exclusively for the activities of the Department of Education as enumerated in the said act.
x x x the purchase of vehicles charged against SEF is contrary to the limitation provided under R.A. 5447 for its use, hence bereft of legal basis.”  (underscoring ours)
Further, charging of fuel expenses, insurance,  and repair and maintenance expenses totalling to P627,133.12 of motor vehicles assigned to the City School Division office and District offices to the Special Education Fund are in violation also of the said provisions.
Details are shown in Annex 22.

3. Representation expenses totalling to P80,630.00, which include meals and snacks expenses consumed by the teachers and other personnel in different events and activities that are not related to the activities provided in the provisions of the Act. Details are shown in Annex 23.
4. Other Maintenance and Operating Expenses totalling P 20,000.00 include meals and snacks expenses consumed by the Treasurer’s office for the City’s Tax Campaign Educational Program (TCEP), an activity which is not related to the activities provided in the provisions of the
Act.
5. Subscription of Internet and Cable services amounting to P32,105.18 and P14,487.04, respectively, supposedly intended for research and as supplementary instructional materials for students and teachers were installed and available only in the Division and District offices.
6. The Office Supplies and Other Supplies Expenses totalling P569,799.90, were only purchases of bond papers, book papers, computer supplies, pens, janitorial supplies, curtains and other supplies that are used only for the operations of the City School Division office and District offices. Details are shown in Annex 24.
7. Travel expenses totalling P12,020.00 include per diems of drivers and other personnel companions travelling to Davao City for check up and maintenance of motor vehicles. Details are shown in Annex 25.
8. The total Electricity, Water and Telephone Expenses amounting to      P412,047.24, about 74.51% amounting to P307,035.09 were consumed only by the City School Division office alone. Details are shown in Annex 26.
Further, we also observed that the budget for Capital outlays and Repair and Maintenance of School Buildings totalling to P1,052,897.26 were expended mostly thru painting works, landscaping, repairs, constructions and improvements of principal offices, division and district offices and purchases of office equipment, furniture and fixtures such as computers, conference tables, air condition units and wooden cabinets for the use only of the offices mentioned. Details are shown in Annex 27.

Of the P 9,400,000.00 budget for the CY 2008 of Special Education Fund, P8,410,986.19 were expended which 57.07% amounting to P4,799,739.95 were expended to support only the operations, repair and maintenance, beautifications and constructions of the Division, District and Principal offices and P1,676,707.70 or 19.93% were expended in travelling and training expenses. Moreover, only P1,934,538.54 or 23% were apportioned to address the main problems in education of Tacurong City, which should be the  priority spending of SEF. Details are shown in Annex 28.
Based on the report submitted by the City School Division Office on the status and deficiencies of public schools of Tacurong City, the City lacks about 69 classrooms, 6,160 desk, and 3,021 armchairs. Further, majority of elementary and secondary students still have an average of 5-10:1 ratio of books while the teachers lack instructional materials and have no supplies of chalks, workbooks, atlases, flip charts, science and mathematics teaching aids, simple laboratory devices and other visual aids (see Annex 29 for details). According to the guidelines, SEF should be dedicated more to address these various deficiencies rather than just financing/paying for the operations of Division and District offices and improvement of the offices of school principals, Division and District were there only mandate is supervision of schools. We would like to reiterate that such spending is not in accordance in the above provisions that SEF should be exclusively expended only in the priorities provided in the Act. Should the SEF been appropriated accordingly and spending has been properly prioritized, these education gaps could have been met, or at least, lessened.
During the Exit Conference conducted on April 14, 2009, the Local School Board co-chairman and school division superintendent commented that a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was drawn by City Mayor and Regional Director on June 29, 2003, as part of the conditions to establish an Interim City Schools Division. The MOA states that the operating and maintenance expenses of the interim division shall be borne by the city government chargeable to Special Education Fund until such time that the DepEd-DBM requirements for the establishment of regular schools division are met and the funding requirements are provided in the General Appropriations Act. The Division Superintendent also argued that all expenses incurred are just necessary, inevitable and obligatory in the operation and maintenance of the interim division considering their role to improve and supervise the schools and improve the students’ academic performances. Further, he claimed that the figures they provided in this office which shows the shortages in classrooms, desk and armchairs are “not as alarming as they appear and they are only manipulated figures so that they can still avail the school furniture program of the DepEd”. He also added that 80 dilapidated classrooms were not included in the inventory and are still being used by the schools. Similar situation was also observed in the case of the desks and armchairs wherein these items were supposed to have already been condemned but are still being used. The Superintendent further stated that they cannot prioritize the utilization of SEF for the operation and maintenance of public schools rather for the operation and maintenance of the division and district offices. Otherwise, this would cease their operations and existence as a Division and, “will be a great disservice to the people of Tacurong”.

This office remains firm in our stand that SEF should be utilized according to the prioritized programs stipulated in DECS-DBM-DILG Joint Circular Nos. 01 s. 1998, 01-A s 2000, 100 (c) of RA 7160 and RA 5447 for the operations and maintenance of public schools and not for division and district offices. With regards to the drawn Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), the terms provided in the MOA which stated that the operations and maintenance expenses of the interim division and district offices should be borne by the city government chargeable to SEF is contrary to the latter provisions and DepEd Order No. 50 s. 2002 that the operating expenses and personal services of staff of the established interim city schools division should be chargeable to the General Fund of the city government, subject to approval of the city if they want to appropriate a fund for its operations. Further this MOA has already lapsed since Tacurong Interim School Division has already been established as a regular schools division and was already included in the funding in the General Appropriations Act (GAA) for the Fiscal Year 2008 in the amount P1,162,000.00. Furthermore, there is no provision in the SEF guidelines which states that SEF can be utilized for the operations and maintenance of schools division. Moreover, comparing the appropriated amount of P1,162,000.00 for the operation and maintenance expenses of the division office proper from the GAA to the actual expended amount of P4,799,739.95 from the SEF, data show that the SEF was misappropriated and that the expenses of the division for CY 2008 was found to be a bit too much for their operations as an office proper.

The division reported that many classrooms, desks and armchairs are dilapidated and declared condemned. These items should have been repaired/replaced and that SEF should have been used to fund these activities. It is reiterated that the SEF shall be expended exclusively and specifically to the operations of the public schools which among others are construction and repair of school facilities and equipment such as classrooms, desks and armchairs. Instead they continue to use these defective school facilities, detrimental to the students’ safety.

Lastly, the provisions of the SEF utilization are clear and that it should be used primarily for the operations and maintenance of public schools, not on the operations of schools division and district offices. Moreover, even without SEF, the operations of the latter offices will not ceased their operations nor will be a great disservice to the people of Tacurong since these offices are already funded in the General Appropriations Act.

Recommendation for Tacurong City Government:
Advise the Local School Board to:
1. Strictly prioritize the programs, projects and activities of the whole division of Tacurong City, as stipulated in DECS-DBM-DILG Joint Circular Nos. 01 s. 1998, 01-A s 2000, 100 (c) of RA 7160 and RA 5447 to address the problems of the students and teachers and for the operation and maintenance of public schools not for the operation and maintenance of Division and District offices.
2. Use the Special Education Fund-Budget Preparation No. 1. form provided in Section 99 (a) of LGC in the preparation of SEF budget and prepare Budget Authorization No.1 form and SEF Budget Utilization provided in DECS-DBM-DILG Joint Circular No. 01-A s. 2000 in authorization and accountability of SEF budget.
3. Refrain from charging personal services of non-teaching personnel, maintenance and other operating expenses and capital outlays of the Division and District offices to the SEF and instead, charge to General Fund as a temporary financial assistance by the city to Interim Division office until they are approved as independent Division office of DepEd so that the SEF can be utilized fully and properly.
4. Adopt the austerity measures of the government provided in Administrative Order No. 103 dated August 31, 2004 and establish guidelines regulating the operations and maintenance expenses of Division and District offices to prevent unnecessary, extravagant and excessive expenditures of government funds.

Tacurong City 2008 COA Audit 1

Detailed Findings and Recommendations

Favorable Observations
1. Out of the appropriated amount of P32,300,000.00 for its Infrastructure projects funded from 20% Development Fund for CY 2008, 95% or P30,601,356.20 was utilized and implemented. Infrastructure projects include installation of streetlights, construction of drainages and concreting of roads of the following:
a. 20 barangays of Tacurong City
b. Terminal Exit Road connecting national highway to the Public Terminal
c. Cemetery at Barangay Calean
d. City Roads
This is the positive response of the management in our Audit Observation Memorandum from our last year’s Annual Audit Report to maximize the utilization of the 20% Development Fund.
2. Tacurong City purchased a lot located in Barangay New Isabela amounting to P2,000,000.00 intended for extension of Public Terminal.

Findings and Recommendations
1. Financial and Compliance Audit
1.1 The validity and accuracy of the Property, Plant and Equipment accounts totaling P 254,543,821.26 could not be ascertained due to the non reconciliation of physical inventory with the accounting records and the failure of the City General Services Officer to conduct a complete physical count of city property resulting in a discrepancy of P248,508,224.08 against the accounting records.  Reconciliation of balances could not be effected as the Accounting and General Services Departments failed to maintain ledger and property/stock cards as required under Section 114, Volume I of the NGAS Manual.
Sec. 124, Volume I of the NGAS Manual requires periodic physical inventory of supplies or property.  Physical count of property, plant, and equipment by type shall be made annually and reported on the Report on the Physical Count of Property, Plant and Equipment (RPCPPE).  This shall be submitted to the Auditor concerned not later than January 31 of each year.
Section 114 of the same Manual requires the Chief Accountant to maintain Property, Plant and Equipment Ledger Card (PPELC) for each category of plant, property and equipment. The General Services Officer is required to maintain property cards for property, plant and equipment in their custody to account for the receipt and disposition of the same.  The balance per property cards should always reconcile with the ledger cards of the accounting unit.
The GSO conducted physical count of the City’s property for the year 2008 and submitted the Report on Physical Count of property, plant and equipment to this Office on February 9, 2008 showing a total of     P113,838,748.12.  Comparison of the reported balances of the inventoried property, plant and equipment with the accounting records of P254,543,821.26 revealed a difference of P248,508,224.08.  Details are shown in Annex 5.
Verification of records and inquiry with concerned officials disclosed the following procedural lapses and deficiencies that resulted in the discrepancy:
* The costs of Land, buildings and other structures were not included in the inventory report as the General Services Department was not aware that these should also be inventoried.
* Physical count of some items far exceeded the book value per accounting records either due to misclassification of property and some of the items include properties that should be considered inventory supplies as provided in  Annex A of COA Accounting Circular         No. 2005-02 dated April 14, 2005 (see Annex 6 for the list of these items).

* The costs of property already disposed of by the General Services Office are still carried in the books of accounts as discussed in audit finding no. 1.3
* The Accounting and General Services Departments failed to maintain ledger and property/stock cards.
* There was no regular reconciliation of records between the GSO and Accounting Department in current and previous years.
In addition, it was also observed that most of the Property, Plant and Equipments have no property tags that indicate it as government properties, thus exposing these items to loss or thefts.
Hence, fair presentation of the balances of Property, Plant and Equipment in the financial statements could not be ascertained
In the exit conference conducted on April 14, 2009, management commented that the GSO is instructed to implement the reconciliation and complete inventory of Property, Plant and Equipment and instructed also the City Assessor’s Office to coordinate regarding the valuation of real properties.
Recommendations
Advise the GSO to conduct a complete inventory of all the Property, Plant and Equipments as a basis for the preparation of annual inventory report and secure these items with property tags to prevent loss or thefts. The General Services Officer and City Accountant are enjoined to take appropriate action to facilitate the dropping of disposed property in the books of accounts. Accordingly, the Accounting Department and General Services Office should maintain complete ledger and property/stock cards as control records for PPE accounts.
Further, we advise management to strictly monitor and give full support to the reconciliation of accounting records and inventory report to establish the correct value and classification of property, plant and equipment in the financial statements. We likewise recommend that an Asset Management Division as an internal division within the City General Services Office be created to directly manage the fixed and real estate assets owned by the Tacurong City Government.
1.2 The total inventory supplies expense amounting to P13,895,352.08 is not fairly presented in the financial statement due to non-adoption of Perpetual Inventory Method provided in Sections 114 to 124 of the NGAS Manual, Volume I, prescribing the process to be followed in the control of inventory. In addition, findings show that there was poor internal control of management of inventory supplies, thus, exposing these supplies to loss or wastage thru irregular, unnecessary and excessive usages.
All resources of the government shall be managed, expended or utilized in accordance with law and regulations, and safeguarding against loss or wastage through illegal or improper disposition, with a view to ensuring efficiency, economy and effectiveness in the operations of government. (Section 2 of Presidential Decree No. 1445)
COA Circular No. 85-55-A dated September 8, 1985 which provides for the rules and regulations on the prevention of irregular, unnecessary, excessive or extravagant expenditures or uses of funds and property and defines that the term unnecessary expenditures pertains to expenditures which could not pass the test of prudence or the diligence of a good father of a family, thereby denoting non-responsiveness to the exigencies of the service. Unnecessary expenditures are those not supportive of the implementation of the objectives and  mission  of  the agency  relative to the nature of its operation. This would also include incurrence  of  expenditure   not dictated  by the demands of good government,  and  those the  utility  of  which  cannot  be  ascertained  at  a specific time.  An expenditure that is not essential or that which can be dispensed with without loss or damage to property is considered unnecessary.  The mission and thrusts of the agency incurring the expenditures must be considered in determining in whether or not an expenditure is necessary.
Regarding this provisions, COA established a process in inventory control of supplies thru Section 114 to 123 of the NGAS Manual, Volume I, which requires that:
“Sec. 114. Perpetual Inventory Method. –Purchases of supplies and materials for stock regardless of whether or not they are consumed within the accounting period shall be recorded as inventories following the perpetual inventory method. Under the perpetual inventory method, an inventory control account is maintained in the General Ledger on a current basis. In addition, detailed inventory records are maintained for each inventory. Supplies and materials purchased out of the Petty Cash Fund for immediate use shall be taken up as expense.
Sec. 116. Requisition Procedures. – (c) At the beginning of the year, the Office of the General Services Officer (GSO) shall prepare a Purchase Request (PR) for supplies and materials needed for the quarter based on the approved Annual Procurement Program. Subsequent requisition from stock shall be made by the head of office or department needing the supplies. A Supplies Availability Inquiry (SAI) shall be used to inquire as to availability of supplies needed from the Accounting office. If supplies are available, the Requisition Issue Slip (RIS) shall be prepared and submitted to the GSO for the issuance of supplies. If the supplies needed are not available form stock, a PR shall be prepared.
The head office or department needing the supplies shall certify as to their necessity for official use and shall specify the project or activity where the supplies are to be used.
Sec. 118.  Acceptance and Inspection of Purchases. – Deliveries of items purchased by the local government units shall be accepted first by the general services officer before inspection. Inspection of purchases shall be made by the authorized inspector/s for conformity with specification in the order.  Acceptance and inspection shall be made using the Acceptance and Inspection Report (AIR).
Sec. 119.  Property Records to be Maintained. – The General Services Officer or the Local Treasurer, as the case maybe, shall number each type of supplies and maintain Stock Cards per stock number.
Deliveries of supplies or property shall be immediately recorded in the property records on the basis of the AIR and other supporting documents. The AIR and other supporting documents shall be forwarded to the Chief Accountant for the preparation of the DV and recording of deliveries in the appropriate ledger cards.
Sec. 120.  Recording of Deliveries of Supplies or Property in the Books of Accounts. – The Chief Accountant shall maintain Supplies Ledger Cards per stock number;   Property, Plant and Equipment Ledger Cards for each category of assets; and Real Property Ledger Cards for land.
Upon receipt of the AIR and other supporting documents, the Chief Accountant shall record the deliveries in the appropriate ledger cards. Upon completion of the disbursement process pertaining thereto the Chief Accountant shall prepare the JEV taking up the in the books the procurement made. Thereafter, the Chief Accountant shall reconcile the JEV with the appropriate ledger cards.
Sec. 121. Reporting on Issuance of Supplies/materials. – The General Services Officer shall consolidate weekly the RIS for which supplies and materials were issued using the Summary of Supplies and Materials Issued (SSMI). The SSMI together with the original copy of the RIS shall be submitted to the Chief Accountant, who shall compute cost of supplies issued and ending inventory using the moving average method. Based on the SSMI, a JEV shall be prepared to record the expenditures using the appropriate expenditure accounts.
Sec. 122. Inventory Process. – See Annex 7 for the narrative flowchart.
Sec. 123.  Receipts of Issuance. – All issuances of supplies or property shall be properly receipted using the forms prescribed under applicable rules and regulations on supply and property management in local government units.
Sec. 124. Inventory of Supplies or Property. – The Local chief executive shall require periodic inventory of supplies or property. Physical count of inventory items by type shall be conducted semestrally and reported in the Report of the Physical Count of Inventories (RCPI). This shall be submitted to the Auditor concerned not later than July 31 and January 31 of each year for the first and second semesters, respectively.”
Evaluation of transactions for CY 2008 pertaining to purchases of various supplies that were used by different offices for basic, social, medical and livelihood services and for repair and maintenance of various infrastructures undertaken by administration  revealed that these supplies mentioned were bid separately per office/program/project according to their annual supply procurement plan and bid quarterly or when it is needed. Mostly each office then go to the winning bidders’ stock rooms to claim their supplies and, in cases of repairs of infrastructures, these supplies were directly delivered to various sites of repair. In addition, the GSO sometimes are not conducting actual inspections nor recorded the delivered items on the stock cards though Acceptance and Inspection Report (AIR) has been prepared to support the Disbursement Voucher.
On the other hand, the Accounting unit did not prepare the Supply Ledger Card to record the inventory on the basis of AIR. Instead the said items were directly charged to each expense account totaling to P13,895,352.08. Details are shown in Annex 8.

These procedures prevented the management to conduct physical inventories of these supplies which is required, as stated in the above provisions. Further, the total inventories supply expenses amounting to P13,895,352.08 stated in the financial statement (Annex do not fairly present the actual expenses consumed by the Local Government Unit because some of these supplies are still unused examples of which are  accountable forms which are still found in the stock room of the Treasury Office, office supplies and construction materials that are not yet used nor consumed by the agency.
Overall, these procedures are indication of poor internal control in safeguarding these assets against loss or wastage through irregular, unnecessary and excessive usages and contrary to Sections 114 to 124 of the NGAS Manual, Volume I, which prescribe the process to be followed in the control of inventory that is very important in ensuring efficiency, economy and effectiveness in the operations of the government.

In the exit conference conducted on April 14, 2009, management commented that the inability to adopt the Perpetual Inventory Method was primarily due to absence of a stockroom/bodega and lack of staffs to manage the issuances of supplies, but they assured that they will partially implement the method starting 2nd Quarter of 2009 as soon as the completion of there stockroom and will formulate a guidelines regarding the issuances of supplies to the end-users.

Recommendations for Tacurong City Government:
We advise the management to formulate a sound internal control in regulating and safeguarding the use of these inventory supplies. To make it effective, the management should consider that inventory control should be automated or computerized so that costing and tracking of the movement of inventories will not be laborious nor complicated.
We also advise the management to have a sound feasibility plan for these inventory supplies and construction materials that will be consumed by the management in there operations and for the repairs and maintenance of various infrastructures by administration for the whole year and consolidate it at the beginning of the year and purchased similar items in bulk quarterly or monthly to avail discounted prices that will be beneficial to the government.