The Cebu City Transportation Office (CCTO), the forerunner of Citom (the City Traffic Operations and Management), then headed by Atty. Koko Holganza, was predictively right when it refused to accept the new traffic system installed in Cebu City’s 18 intersections. Its performance was below par, even with the superlative claims of the contractors that it utilizes “the latest and most advanced technology that uses adaptive countdown timers.”
The Commission on Audit (COA) has finally spoken on the controversy revolving around the P252 million traffic system for Cebu City. In its 2024 audit report, COA raised several red flags regarding the initial payment for the P480-million modern traffic light system project, launched in 2020. These are:
Lack of supporting documents: The COA found that the City Government disbursed P252.316 million to the contractor without adequate supporting documents, violating government procurement rules.
Non-functional features: Several features of the digital traffic system are not working as intended, including license plate recognition technology and digital traffic lights.
Invalid contract signing: The COA questioned the validity of contracts signed by former city administrator Floro Casas Jr. for lack of appropriate authority.
Inspections and findings: The Metropolitan Manila Development Authority identified critical issues with the system, including a lack of real-time data processing, poor pedestrian safety, and flawed synchronization between intersections.
Alleged anomalies: Former councilor Jocelyn Pesquera raised concerns over alleged anomalies in the project, including overpricing and lack of functionality.
Investigation recommended: The COA recommended an investigation into the non-functionality of the license plate recognition system and digital traffic lights in Phase 2.
These findings by state auditors somehow suggest a pattern of mismanagement and potential corruption in the implementation of the digital traffic system project. The report highlights the need for greater transparency and accountability in government projects to prevent such issues in the future.
It was reported that these traffic light system projects were awarded in September 2020 and September 2021 to Triune Electronics Systems Inc. and Cylix Tech CCTV and Smart Surveillance, respectively. Despite the issues raised then by Holganza, the Department of Engineering and Public Works (DEPW) reported that both phases were 100 percent complete as of December 2024.
The COA’s request for technical documents and reports has not been complied with, as there were incomplete details in the approved plans, particularly concerning wiring. This lapse raised significant concerns about the validity, propriety, and reasonableness of the contracts. The auditors recommended the immediate submission of all required documents and an investigation into the non-functionality of the license plate recognition system and the digital traffic lights in Phase 2.
In line with Section 4 (6) of Presidential Decree 1445, COA Circular 2012-001 and the 2016 Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act (RA) 9184, or the Government Procurement Reform Act, the state auditors strongly maintained that all claims on government funds must be supported by complete documents.
In that 2024 audit report, COA stated that the initial payment for the P480-million modern traffic light system project, launched in 2020, lacked crucial wiring layout plans for the underground fiber optics network at each intersection.
State auditors discovered, during their visit to the CCTO Command Center Eagle’s Eye, that the license plate recognition technology for Phase 1 was not functional since September 2024. It was also reported that intersections included in Phase 2 were not integrated into the command center and the closed-circuit TV cameras were not operational. However, the DEPW reported that it is 100 percent complete.
On the lack of authority of Casas to sign the contract, the City, in its reply to COA, stated that under RA 7160, or the Local Government Code, the mayor’s authorization of the city administrator does not require an SP resolution. It stated that only the mayor has the authority to suspend such authorization, not the City Council. But COA retorted that the lack of concrete authority from the City Council was inconsistent with Sections 22(c) and 480 (b)(5) of RA 7160.
So, what’s COA’s next move? Recommend the filing of administrative or criminal case or cases against those who may be responsible? Let’s wait and see!