YAP
ILOILO City – A staunch advocate of good governance from Aklan province filed plunder and graft charges against Mayor John P. Yap of Malay, Aklan, for allegedly misappropriating a huge amount of public funds. Five other local officials were also sued for graft.
The complainant, who requested anonymity, filed criminal charges against Yap for plunder and sued five other officials for violation of the provisions of Republic Act 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and for appropriate administrative rule or laws violated.
The five other respondents in the complaint were Constancio A. Baguipo Jr., municipal accountant; Anneli C. Sespene, municipal budget officer; Engr. Theresa Lyn G. Lozanes, senior environmental management specialist (MENRO designate); Abram L. Sualog, Association of Barangay Captains (ABC) president and ex-officio Sangguniang Bayan member; and Glenn Y. Sacapano, Boracay Island Chief Operating Officer, a position created by the office of the mayor.
In his complaint-affidavit filed at the Office of the Ombudsman Visayas here dated April 25, 2016, the complainant disclosed that in 2014, as per its Commission on Audit (COA) Report, the local government unit (LGU) of Malay has appropriated P103,363,393.58 for its solid waste management program. Continuing appropriation for the program was at P14,472,303 at the beginning of the year. The total expenditures for 2014 reached P92,098,843.14.
Verification of the documentation and computation for claims done by COA on the above transaction revealed that various expenditures in the amount of P49,254,062.55 were not supported with the required documents, such as but not limited to procurement document, delivery receipts for procurement of goods, and accomplishment report for payment of services, fuel consumption report and trip tickets for payment for fuel, discrepancies of dates on certain documents and contract for infrastructure projects, and land procurement document.
Henceforth, the complainant said, the “lack of required supporting documents for the Solid Waste Management Expenditures due to the LGU’s failure to observe rules for documentary requirements resulted in the impropriety, invalidity, irregularity, and ineffectiveness of the project and transaction, amounting to P49,254,052.65, contrary to Section 4(6) of PD No. 1445, which provides that claims against government funds shall be supported with complete documentation.”
On the other hand, the COA Audit Report for 2014 transactions revealed that the LGU entered into a memorandum of agreement (MOA) with the Malay Fisherfolk and Seaweed Planters Association. On Aug. 27, 2014, under the MOA, the latter agreed to act as sea rangers, who will assist the LGU in implementing ordinances on the preservation and maintenance of marine resources. The MOA also provided for the collection and distribution of shares in the snorkeling fees to be collected from tourists.
COA further revealed that transactions amounting to P1,529,000 were not supported by evidence showing that the nongovernment organization (NGO) is indeed qualified and accredited by the Bids and Awards Committee or a Committee created for the purpose by the municipality. Other necessary documents, such as the budgetary requirement for the program and financial statement, which are proof that it is a bona fide organization capable to implement the proposed project, were not attached to the disbursement voucher submitted to COA.
Documents necessary for the basis of selection, payment of share in snorkeling fees, and authority to collect such shares of the NGO were not attached to the disbursement voucher in the total amount of P1,529,000, thus resulting in the difficulty in evaluating the propriety of transaction and the qualification/capability of the NGO to manage certain resources, COA said.
In view of the foregoing, there is risk that financial assistance to NGOs has been granted by the LGU to those who are not qualified, considering that supporting documents required for the disbursement thereof were not submitted, the complainant said.
Likewise, the complainant questioned the Physical Count of Property Plant and Equipment (PCPPE), which did not reconcile with the records of the Municipal Accounting Office, resulting in the deficiency and incorrectness of the balance of the PPE Account in the amount of P60,940,4727.12 that affected the LGU’s Asset Management Function, as clearly manifested in the COA report.
The complainant also said that, based on the COA report, the LGU failed to reconcile RPCPPE with the accounting records; the non-submission of the duly reconciled RPCPPE resulted in the inaccuracy, nonexistence of the condition of the assets.
As for Gender and Development (GAD) programs, the complainant also questioned how the LGU spent the P91,588,860.52 GAD budget for 2014. COA said, “This [amount] is higher than the amount required by the regulation, which is 5 percent of its total budget, or an equivalent amount of P17,500,000. However, audit of the transaction pertaining GAD PAPS disclosed that the LGU included even those that have no bearing in achieving the objective of GAD amounting to P57,316,62.78. It is not among those to be charged to GAD budget. In fact, said joint circular prescribed that GAD programs and activities should be related to addressing gender issues.”
In his complaint-affidavit, the complainant alleged that all respondents “conspired and confederated with one another, acting in unison by helping each other in the commission of the above-entitled offense.”
In the criminal and administrative complaint filed before the Ombudsman on April 26, the complainant alleged that all named respondents committed the above-said violations of law in the following detailed manner:
“a.) Respondents, acting in unison approved the payment, as a matter of fact, released the payment of government funds to Malay Fisherfolks and Seaweed Planters Association released and paid in favor of the said nongovernment organization (NGO) the total sum of P1,529,000.
“b.) Complainant claimed that the above subject NGO has no proof of legal existence. Complainant also noted that subject NGO is not accredited and qualified by Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) or a committee created by said municipality for the purpose. Other necessary requirement such as budgetary requirement for the program, financial statements and other documentary requirement to prove that such NGO is a bona fide organization and are capable to implement the proposed project were not attached to the Disbursement Voucher submitted to the COA.
“c.) Complainant added that the series of payments made to the NGO were received by different individuals on different occasions. However, there were no documents attached to show that the recipients of government funds were authorized to receive payments in behalf of said NGO, who itself is not qualified and validated properly as an NGO.
“d.) Furthermore, complainant said that the act committed by the respondents is contrary to COA Circular 2007-001 dated Oct. 25, 2007 and section 4(6) of PD 1445, thus resulting to difficulty in evaluating the propriety of said NGO to manage certain resources and activities of the local government unit of Malay.”
LEGAL FEE
The complainant also took to task Malay LGU for “illegally disbursing” P85,000 collected by a private lawyer it contracted to handle its legal affairs in 2014.
The respondents violated the law when the municipal mayor, in unison with the rest of the respondents, contracted lawyer Julius L. Leonida as the legal adviser of the municipality, thus setting totally aside COA Circular No. 98-002 dated June 9, 1998, which provides that public funds shall not be used for payment of services of a private counsel or law firms to represent government agencies and instrumentalities, including government-owned or -controlled corporations and local government units, in court or render legal services for them, the complainant said.
“The municipal legal officer should handle legal needs of the municipality, or in the absence or inavailability of a municipal legal officer, the provincial legal officers should be utilized. Consequently, payment made to private lawyer/s violates COA Circular No. 98-002 dated June 9, 1998, in relation to Section 481 of RA 7160,” said the complainant.
EDUCATION FUNDS
Furthermore, the complainant noted that the municipality failed to achieve its goal in improving education services provided by the government due to its failure to strictly observe the limitations on the utilization of Special Educational Funds (SEF), contrary to Republic Act 7160.
The complainant cited the COA audit of 2014 disbursements that showed various expenses, such as salaries of administrative contractuals, incentives of SEF teachers, remuneration of sports referees, and even those for school beautification in the total amount of P395,850, were charged to SEF although these did not contribute to the achievement to the purpose of the fund.
Claims against SEF, particularly the payroll, were not supported with necessary documents, contrary to Section 4(6) of PD 1445, which resulted in the difficulty in validating the validity and regularity of the transaction, the COA report said.
The audit report added: “Payroll of teacher claim under SEF [was] not supported by accomplishment reports and daily time records. Failure to provide such documents resulted to doubtful validity of disbursement budget in the amount of P2,450,780, which is contrary to section 4(6) of PD 1445.”
Programs/Projects/Activities (PPAs) not related to achievement of GAD objectives amounting to P57,316,624.78 were identified and included as part of GAD budget for 2014, contrary to PCW-NEDA-DBM Joint Circular No. 2012-01, thus GAD funds were “exposed to risks and [used] not for its intended official purpose but … for their own political and personal purposes, to the damage and prejudice of the constituents of the municipality of Malay and the whole LGU,” the complainant alleged.
The complainant clarified that he based his complaint not on hearsay but largely on the COA audit report for 2014 signed by State Auditor V Jose C. Cabarles and “duly received by the concerned officials of the municipality of Malay.”
‘PRIVATELY CREATED POST’
Furthermore, the complainant alleged that Sacapano acted and worked as Boracay Island chief operating officer, a position created by Mayor Yap with the support of all the other respondents without securing the approval of the Sangguniang Bayan; hence, the “position is privately created by all the respondents.”
“But salaries, allowances and expenditures sustained by said office have been and still being charged against GAD. Said office collected several forms of fees from all parties doing business in Boracay Island. Said money collected is managed only by the Boracay Tourism Office headed by respondent Sacapano and are used and distributed among all the respondents and were never remitted to the Office of the Municipal Treasurer. Funds generated illegally are immediately disbursed and distributed,” the complainant lamented.
Malay is a major destination for local and international tourists. Its crown jewel, Boracay Island, has been attracting millions of tourists every year, contributing to economic growth as a major source of income of the LGU. Malay’s other sources of income are business permits, real property taxes from establishments in the island, environmental fees, and shares from terminal fees, among others./PN