The Viga municipal government failed to implement 15 development projects worth P16.7 million in 2021, indicating lack of proper planning, the Commission on Audit said in its report.
It stated that in CY 2021, the local government unit allocated P22,743,608.40 for 17 projects under the 20% Development Fund, in addition to the 30 projects worth nearly P28 million under the Continuing Appropriations for the same fund, for a total appropriation of P50.5 million.
The audit team noted that 15 projects were not implemented in 2021 while there were very low implementation rates in the other 32 projects.
The unimplemented projects are: Construction of Soboc Seawall (P1-M); Repair/Improvement of Magsaysay Multi-Purpose Building (P1-M); Purchase of Lot for Construction of Ogbong Multi-Purpose Building (P300,000.00); Repair/Improvement of Water System (P1-M); Construction of Purok III Flood Control System (P1-M); Construction of Tambongon Drainage with Road Concreting (P1.2-M); Repair/Rehab of San Jose Oco River Control (P300,000.00); Construction of Balay Silangan (P2-M); Site Development for San Vicente local projects (P1-M); Purchase of Lot for Slaughter House Access Road (P500,000.00); Construction of Slaughter House Access Road (P3.2-M); Site Development for Penafrancia Slaughter House (P3.3-M); CY 2019 Counterpart on Salintubif (P117,222.50); CY 2019 Purchase of Lot for Development Project Site (P429,883.64); and CY 2017 Financial Assistance to Livelihood (P364,040.50).
The report stated that low implementation rate was noted in CY 2021 with 46% and on continuing appropriation of CY 2017 with only 5%.
“(This) indicated that there was lack of proper planning on some of the 20% DF projects and likewise were not procurement-and-implementation ready, not consistent with Item Nos. 3.2.3 and 4.0 of DBM-DOF-DILG JMC No. 1, thus, the desired socio-economic targets and outcomes were not attained during the year,” the COA stressed.
It was later explained by the Municipal Engineer that some of the projects were found to be not feasible for implementation when they conducted site inspection and validation after receiving the list of approved projects.
The Engineering Office was not included in the planning and prioritization of projects for implementation, it was claimed.
On the other hand, the delay and non-implementation of some projects for the year was reportedly due to the limited technical personnel in the Engineering Department to prepare the required technical and procurement documents for the projects, including site inspection and validation.
Some of the projects were approved for implementation through a supplemental budget approved in December 2021, thus, implementation was not possible before year-end.
Some of the projects, it was stated, were already completed in CY 2022.
In response, the audit team urged the chairman of the Municipal Development Council to enjoin the Municipal Engineer or her representative in the planning and prioritization of 20% DF projects for implementation to avoid prioritizing projects which were not feasible on site.
Further, it added, the local chief executive may also consider augmenting the personnel complement in the Engineering Department to cope up with the workload.
In a related development, six Gender and Development (GAD) projects were either not implemented or had low implementation rates, defeating the intent of the program to pursue women’s empowerment, gender equality and for the children and youth welfare and development.
The audit team noted that in CY 2021, the LGU allocated P6.55 million for 39 programs, projects and activities under the GAD.
Among the projects not implemented were the PhilHealth Accreditation, Youth Welfare Program, Attendance to GAD Related Training, and Capacity Development, with a total funding of P411,600.00.
Two other PPAs – Operation and Maintenance of Fish Landing Center and the Sports Development Program, with appropriation of P1.5 million and P200,000.00, respectively – had low implementation rates of only 26% and 36%, respectively.
This defeated the intent of the program, the COA stated, contrary to PCW-DILG-DBM-NEDA Joint Memorandum Circular No. 2013-01.