EDITORIAL - Slip in transparency

Those who have been following the debates on the utilization of funds by the Senate will agree with the results of an international survey on budget transparency. In the Open Budget Survey 2012 covering 100 countries and conducted by the Washington-based International Budget Partnership, the Philippines garnered a score of 48 percent – a seven-point slip from its score in the previous survey in 2010.

That’s not a good sign for the administration of daang matuwid, which is touting transparency as a come-on for investors to take a look at the country. The budget survey, undertaken every two years, showed the Philippines trailing Indonesia, although scoring better than Thailand and Malaysia. A worsening of the quality of information provided in the Organizational Performance Indicator Framework 2012 Book of Outputs plus the late publication of the year-end report were tagged as reasons for the slip in the Philippines’ score.

The survey rates public access to eight documents: the pre-budget statement, executive’s budget proposal, citizens’ budget, enacted budget, in-year reports, mid-year reviews, year-end reports, and audit reports.

Philippine budget officials pointed out that the survey did not take into consideration several reforms in the budget process to promote transparency. The reforms include the early submission to Congress and enactment of the proposed annual appropriation to prevent reenactment, the breaking up of lump sum items to prevent fund diversions, and the requirement for executive departments and agencies to post their budgets online.

The slip in the country’s score, plus the ongoing bitter feud in the Senate over fund utilization, indicate that more reforms are needed. Government auditors, for example, have admitted that lawmakers are allowed to issue mere certifications for the way they utilize certain funds.

The feud at the Senate erupted after its chief, Juan Ponce Enrile, released unequal amounts of cash to his colleagues during the Christmas season. Initially described as gifts, Enrile later clarified that the cash releases were meant as additional maintenance, operating and other expenses, sourced from the chamber’s savings. He came under fire when he gave P1.6 million each to 18 senators and only P250,000 to each of the four who have been critical of his leadership.

In recent years, both Congress and the judiciary have come under scrutiny for opaqueness in their utilization of public funds. The controversy at the Senate, combined with the results of the budget survey, should lead to reforms that will bring more transparency in fund utilization in all branches of government.