CODE-NGO Recommendations for Improved PDAF Guidelines to Ensure Integrity and Promote Effective Use
The Senate, House of Representatives and concerned government implementing agencies should link the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) to local development plans and initiatives, publicize the projects it supports and ensure that it goes to legitimate development projects and organizations.
CODE-NGO
August 15, 2013
Introduction:
As of now, the members of CODE-NGO do not have a consensus position on whether to abolish the PDAF or not. But while the PDAF remains, it is clear to all of us that significant improvements in the policies and procedures for the PDAF have to be put in place immediately to safeguard precious taxpayers’ funds and to ensure effective use of government funds for development and proverty reduction. It is also clear to us that the latest ‘pork barrel scam’ unfortunately allegedyl involves the use of fake NGOs by some ‘businesspersons’, government officials and legislators. However, we firmly believe that any proposal to disqualify all NGOs/CSOs from receiving PDAF or other government financial support is grossly unfair to the many legitimate CSOs doing good work in many parts of the country and merely diverts attentions from the true causes of the ‘pork barrel scam.’
It is in this context that these recommendations are being put forward to the executive department, the House of Representatives and the Senate.
A) On the Utilization of the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF)
-Require all PDAF projects of the congresspersons and senators to come from the approved comprehensive development plan (CDP) and local development investment plan (LDIP) or the local poverty reduction action plan (LPRAP) of the concerned LGU or endorsed by the concerned local development council (LDC) or local poverty reduction action team (LPRAT) to ensure that the projects are coordinated with the other projects in the locality.
B) On Transparency, Monitoring and Evaluation of the PDAF
1) For the House of Representatives (HoR) and the Senate
1.1) Include in the HoR and Senate websites a link to the DBM website where PDAF releases are reported and e-copies of the annual reports on their PDAF projects as provided in 1.2 and 1.3 below.
1.2) Require the congresspersons to submit annual reports on their PDAF projects (including, among others, project name, amount, location, beneficiaries, implementing agency and partner CSO, if any) to their constituents by providing copies to the municipal/city/provincial developments councils (LDCs); these reports should be distributed to the members of these LDCs, including the NGO/PO representatives, discussed at a council meeting for comments/suggestions, and posted at the municipal/city/provincial halls for at least 3 months.
For Party-List congresspersons, copies of their reports should be provided to all provincial and regional development councils, distributed to the members of these councils, including the NGO/PO representatives, discussed at a council meeting for comments/suggestions, and posted at the provincial halls and the NEDA regional office for at least 3 months.
1.3) Require the senators to submit annual reports on their PDAF projects (including, among others, project name, amount, location, beneficiaries, implementing agency and partner CSO, if any) to all provincial and regional development councils; these reports should be distributed to the members of these councils, including the NGO/PO representatives, discussed at a council meeting for comments/suggestions and posted at the provincial halls and the NEDA regional office for at least 3 months.
2) For the DBM and All Implementing Agencies
2.1) Require all implementing agencies to give a copy of the program of work/ project information and any updated version of this, including the total budget and breakdown per major component and work schedules, to the barangay captain and the NGO/PO members of the barangay development council of the area where the project is being implemented or to the appropriate government agency and NGO/PO (e.g. school principal and PTA and local school board or to the local health board and its NGO/PO members).
2.2) Require all implementing agencies including the LGUs to prepare (a) transaction flow charts, units/officials involved in PDAF project implementation, and the unit/ official (and contact information) who will receive and act on complaints or information about questionable actions, and (b) quarterly reports on the status of project implementation and fund utilization and to post these reports in their bulletin boards and, if applicable, websites and make these readily available to the public upon request. They should also submit and present these reports (on all PDAF projects in the area) for discussion at the meetings of the LDCs and Local Poverty Reduction Action Teams (LPRATs).
C) On Ensuring the Legitimacy and Accountability of CSOs that will Receive PDAF Funding Support
Only a small percentage of the PDAF funds have gone to NGOs and other CSOs to support programs and projects undertaken as part of government –civil society partnerships. Also, only a small percentage of the thousands of NGOs/CSOs have received support funds from the PDAF of legislators. Still, if ever PDAF funds are again used in the future to support NGOs/CSOs, we believe that policies/procedures have to be improved to ensure the legitimacy and accountability of these organizations.
Based on Circular 2007-001 of the Commission on Audit (COA), which provides guidelines for the release of government funds to non-government and people’s organizations (POs), these organizations would first need to submit documents, including, among others, their Certificate of Registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Cooperative and Development Authority (CDA) or the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), an authenticated copy of their latest Articles of Incorporation or of Cooperation and audited financial reports for the past three years. We now see that these are clearly inadequate. We are thus recommending the following –
1) Immediately require all government agencies releasing funds to a CSO to validate these records with the SEC, CDA or DOLE (which, with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board, provide primary registration to CSOs) and also thru an actual visit to the office of the CSO and interview with the Chairperson and Executive Director or equivalent officers of the said CSO. These government agencies must also validate the record and performance of the CSO with any other government agency which has provided to the CSO any secondary registration or accreditation or license, as may be required by law or regulation.
This validation must check into and include the following –
1.1. The organization’s track record (clear Vision-Mission-Goals and programs which are in line with the project, audited financial statements, implementation of its past projects)
1.2. Its governance structure and practices, including functionality of the Board and any possible conflict of interest related to PDAF funding
1.3. Its affiliation and networks and feedback from these groups
1.4. Its accreditation by NGAs or LGUs and their feedback about the organization
1.5. Project site validation and community interviews where the CSO has on-going and/or previous projects
The personnel of the government agency who did the said validation should be required to clearly certify under oath to the authenticity of the documents and the qualification of the CSO and be made accountable in case any such validated CSO be later found to be bogus or fake.
2) As soon as possible, transition to a better alternative to validation of CSOs by the government agencies involved in implementing PDAF projects — certification of such CSOs by the Philippine Council for NGO Certification (PCNC) or other similar CSO-managed CSO certification bodies, particularly for big PDAF amounts (say, more than Php 2 or 3 Million). Certification by the PCNC or these other certification bodies would provide a validation process that is independent of both the implementing government agency and the applicant CSO. This independent third party validation would better ensure the integrity and reliability of the validation of the legitimacy of the applicant CSOs.
(The PCNC is an independent and CSO-initiated and managed certification institution duly recognized by the Department of Finance that certifies CSOs for good governance, financial management, and track record for creating impact to their beneficiaries.)
3) Amend COA Circular 2007-001 to remove the provision that for NGOs and POs in existence for less than 3 years, an accomplishment and financial report for the period it has been in operation shall be sufficient. Organizations in existence for less than 3 years should not be qualified to receive PDAF funding support.
4) Oppose any move to centralize CSO vetting in any government agency since the broad diversity of CSOs means that no government agency can effectively and exclusively cover all CSOs. It is estimated that the SEC, CDA, DOLE and the HLURB, the 4 government agencies which provide primary registration to CSOs, have a total of 180,000 registered CSOs, including farmers’ organizations, fisherfolk organizations, community organizations, NGOs, foundations, social welfare agencies, cooperatives, labor unions and federations, homeowners’ associations and others. Instead, all government agencies should make their screening and monitoring of partner CSOs more effective.
The government should also work toward the immediate creation of a centralized database of CSOs registered with these 4 government agencies and licensed, accredited or provided secondary registration by other government agencies. This database should be created in partnership with CSO networks, should allow for easy sharing of information among government agencies and also CSO networks, and should be easily accessible to the public.
5) Require the DBM and the Senate and House of Representatives to conduct an annual review of the effectiveness of the PDAF guidelines and to include CSOs in this review process.
– 0 –