BURIED in the inside page of a national newspaper was a story about the order of the Commission on Audit (COA) versus Samar Congresswoman Milagros Tan to return almost P31 million to the government over irregularities in the procurement of goods.
Also in so many other cases, the Ombudsman ordered public officials to return money spent on projects which haven’t passed through the legal processes. And worst of all if it was attended by corruption and severely disadvantaged government.
Late last year Alex Caugiran who was a former Angeles City official and which later appointed as head honcho of Clark International Airport Corporation is questioning the wisdom of the City Council and Mayor Edgardo Pamintuan, his former ‘boss’ at city hall on why bury in debt the City Government by borrowing P1.2 billion for a new city hall and a sports complex.
The city fell into a debt trap with an indebtness that soared to P2.33 billion, according to Caugiran. It is viewed as a City Government misstep that went beyond and maybe the people of Angeles, mostly anyway, will not agree on the borrowing. Is COA stepping in this case?
For the appreciation of the Angeles constituency. The process here is for Mayor Pamintuan to send a communication to the City Council which is addressed primarily to Vice Mayor Bryan Mathew Nepomuceno seeking authority to borrow money. It’s mandatory that the members of the council should discuss the merits of the request and normally a long debate is expected among the members of the council on its whys and wherefores. There should be no short cuts in this massive borrowing because it will have its ripple effects on the city’s taxpayers.
Once given the authority the mayor can now make arrangement with the lending bank and once the loan got the approval the mayor has to get back to the city council for the latter to calendar the appropriation measure.
This is a crucial period in the process because after its first reading and referred to the committee on appropriation and maybe also on committees on public works and sports, the said committees should conduct hearings. And it could have been wise for purposes for the sake of transparency that a public hearing should have been done because it involves a huge amount. And of course repayments will surely be a passed on to the taxpayers. A proposal from the floor from any member of the council who has the interest of the taxpayers at heart can’t be denied by the whole membership. (It seems there was none).
And once again if the measure was approved by the majority (in this case, it seems it was unanimously) the executive department will seek an approval of the appropriation of the each amount intended for the items in the procurement and the amount for the infrastructure projects.
Again the referrals to the appropriate committees and hearings to be done. Once finished it is required that committee reports will be presented during plenary for approval and debates can be expected during the second reading. Once all these done the executive department will have to advertise the construction of the projects, the P635 million sports complex and the new city hall building. Also to be advertised on newspapers of general circulation is the procurement of items like garbage trucks etc, etc.
On the bidding itself it should be most transparent. Media persons should be invited as witnesses just like what they do on biddings in Clark Development Corporation and Clark International Airport Corporation. Of course city hall foregoes that as long as the bidding is fair and square.
If short cuts, irregularities and corruption attended the procurement and the constituency is not in accord with the borrowing, then it will reflect on the outcome of the 2019 local elections in Angeles City.