DEVELOPMENT planning at this point in our socio-economic growth is decidedly the in-thing. This is the current jargon, I believe, of technicians and their field workers doing the tasks meant for our country to move forward.
It is a common aspiration for most nations in the globe to achieve social and economic stability. This a simple and acceptable human hope.
But simple and acceptable as it may seem even to a government like that in Cebu City that appropriated last year an amount from its special budget intended to finance a number of projects for the residents, this was not so for the Department of Budget and Management (DBM). The big question facing the Cebu City Government then is what will happen next.
The Cebu City Government’s so-called second supplemental budget was considered "inoperative” because the funds that were part of the previous year’s budget that were considered “retained operating surplus and reversion of accounts payable from the previous year” cannot be considered as source of funds for projects of the succeeding year.
This policy could hamper public services.
But then, as a matter of policy and to prevent confusion in the management of public funds, the money that was intended for the operation of the government the previous year needs to be used to protect public interest, too.
There must be a way to resolve this dilemma, and it is presently bugging the Cebu City Government considering that the amount in question- --P286.88 million—has already been farmed out to the city’s various “creditors” for projects.
How will the problem be resolved? A Cebu City councilor expressed “alarm” over the findings of the DBM that he revealed in a speech during the regular session of the city council the other day, since he believed that the funds have already been approved and disbursed to the various city creditors.
Among the items said to have been funded from Supplemental Budget 2 (SB2) included P140-million financial assistance to 80 barangays.
The other items that the DBM disapproved, and which may affect the delivery of basic services if not resolved, included the P15 million for burial assistance program, P30 million for garbage collection services, P10 million for traffic signalization, P9.7 million for city-sponsored activities, and P1.188 million for other miscellaneous services like garbage collection and salaries for daycare workers.
When asked about it, Mayor Michael Rama responded that “he no longer wants to add anything on the matter.” What is important for him is that “there was no corruption, the funds did not go to anybody’s pocket, and there was no technical malversation of funds.” In parting, he said that the DBM finding is not a law anyway, but just an observation.
I believe, too, that it is one of the policies that is useful but obstructs the implementation of needed programs.