National discretion, local persecution

After the decorative lamppost scam there is now another alleged irregularity involving a national government project. This time the agency concerned is the Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority whose purchase of a fire fighting vehicle is being questioned. Like the lamppost the focus of the complaint is overpricing.

Overpricing is the usual source of graft in the implementation of government projects, local or national, but especially, national. What has been happening is that the mother offices of various departments are almost always the initiator of major projects programmed for various regions. The gods therein conceptualize these, or ape the concepts from their field personnel, then craft the implementing strategies, including funding and mode of acquisition. They even set the price, if the project involves purchases, and even identifies the supposedly accredited distributor or service provider. They also do the disbursements, if the project involves a huge amount, say, tens of millions of pesos. But for those costing a few millions, local agency heads are authorized to do the payment.

The payment aspect of the project is where the fun begins. For projects involving big amounts the agency head in Manila signs the disbursement documents, but the middle level official concerned based regionally also signs the same, including some kind of certification to the effect that the transaction is justifiable and that proper procedures have been observed. For a regional officials signing such statement is very risky especially because if lapses in the implementation are later discovered he would surely be included in the complaint.

Concerning costing, the practice is for Manila office to put a price tag on the items to be purchased or structures to be constructed, an amount supposed to be arrived at after a nationally conducted bidding. But even under this circumstance the regional official still exposes himself to possible charges of graft. In fact, there have been cases in which the department head was later acquitted (allegedly for a ministerial act) but leaving the regional official holding the bag of the fiasco.

Sometimes, perhaps to avoid later complications, an agency chief authorizes a regional head to disburse an amount beyond the latter's signing capacity and releases the fund to the local office. The catch, however, is that the supplier or service provider is already identified and verbal or even written advice is issued toward this effect. Most often, the regional official goes along with the advice and proceeds to consummate the transaction only to find out later that what he has done makes him vulnerable to charges.

Aside from overpricing, there are other irregular practices. For instance, if the project recipients are local governments or offices, the distribution of fund is seldom in accordance with actual needs. Although field offices are consulted as to project locale, what finally comes out is divergent from what was recommended.

In DepEd, for example, divisional and regional offices are asked every year to submit their operational needs with regard to classrooms, textbooks, desks, arm-chair and others. These offices then submit their requests based on verified statistical data. But when the final allocations are released, many of the areas identified as project locale are stricken off and substituted with other areas where there is no need for the project, or where the need is not urgent.

Sometimes the subnormal practice involves the mode of implementation, whether by administration or by a contractual arrangement with a private individual or company. In the case of school buildings, the usual procedure (by DPWH, the implementing agency) is to use a private contractor. Bidding is of course conducted, and the costing per unit usually follows the one set by Manila. Such costing, however, can be reduced considerably if the project is done through administration, with the cost disparity of from 30% to 40% lower per unit. If anything, this indicates that the costing prepared by the Manila office is not realistic.

The alleged anomalies relative to the decorative lampposts and now the MCIAA rescue vehicle must have involved some key officials in Manila of the agencies concerned. However, like other national agency heads, they are close to the power centers, thus they are not usually included in the complaints.

Pity the local officials who naively (and intentionally?) allowed themselves to be used. It's all a case of national discretion but local persecution.

* * *

Email: [email protected]