Conclusion
Records released by the Commission on Audit (COA) showed that some projects of the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) were not implemented at all, even though the funds meant for them were already disbursed by the government.
Although some of the funds released for these canceled projects were returned by the MMDA to the national Treasury, some of the allocations were used for other projects that could be considered as having little social or economic impact, particularly in terms of solving the perennial problems of flooding, heavy traffic, and inadequate sanitation and cleanliness in Metro Manila.
In many instances, in 2012 and 2013, which are covered by the COA’s latest audit reports on the operations of the MMDA, the agency had not shown efficiency in the use of funds.
For example, in the COA report for 2013, the commission noted that urban-renewal projects amounting to P72 million were
not implemented.
The MMDA reasoned that these projects were not implemented because there was an ongoing project by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) in the area, making
them unfeasible.
The projects that were not implemented include the following: asphalt overlay along Manila International Airport/Ninoy Aquino International Airport (MIA/Naia), P28.31 million; pavement markings and traffic-road signs along MIA/Naia Road, P2.33 million; asphalt overlay along Ninoy Aquino Avenue MIA Road to La Huerta Bridge, P38.26 million; and the pavement markings and traffic-road signs along Ninoy Aquino Avenue from MIA Road to La Huerta Bridge, P3.17 million.
The said projects were not implemented due to the construction by the DPWH of an elevated expressway in the same location.
The government would have saved money due to the cancellation of these projects, but the MMDA decided to pursue other projects instead. However, the replacement projects do not seem to have the same economic impact if compared to the original projects for which the funds were originally allocated.
The replacement projects implemented by the MMDA were flowerpots for beautification of Edsa, P15.74 million; landscaping works along Edsa from Roxas Boulevard to Aurora Boulevard/Tramo, P7.28 million; and landscaping work along Edsa from Kalayaan Avenue to Buendia Avenue, P1.41 million.
Compared to the original projects for which the P72-million budget was allocated, the funds spent by the MMDA for flowerpots and landscaping have little value for money, and the effects of which are not felt by the citizens, much less noticed by them while they’re caught in heavy traffic along Edsa. This did not escape the COA’s scrutiny.
“As may be noted, the implemented projects were entirely different from the original urban-renewal projects in terms of nature of works and location, thus, the purpose of the fund transfer was not fully attained contrary to COA Circular 94-013,” the COA’s annual report for 2013 said.
“The implementation of these projects left a fund balance of P47.65 million to be refunded to the DPWH. Verification revealed that the amount of P51 million, consisting of the unexpended balances for urban-renewal projects and other projects was already refunded to the Bureau of the Treasury on August 8, 2014,” the report added.
The policy behind the cited COA Circular 94-013 is to ensure that funds requiring interagency coordination are used for the intended purpose to ensure that the spending of government money is coordinated among the different agencies that have overlapping functions, such as the MMDA and the DPWH.
The COA, in its last two reports on the efficiency of the expenditures and implementation of the projects by the MMDA, also noted that the agency had not been very efficient in implementing flood-control projects.
The inefficiency is shown in either the delays in the completion of the projects, which prevented such projects from providing timely relief during the rainy season; or in the lack of planning and coordination in the implementation of infrastructure projects, which resulted in wastage of government money.
In 2012, for instance, the COA observed in its annual audit report for that year that flood-control projects did not serve the purpose for which they were funded by the government because of inefficient implementation and inadequate planning by the MMDA.
In that year, a big chunk, or 83.5 percent, of the flood-control projects were completed only in the third and fourth quarters of the year, long after the rainy season had begun, during which these projects were most needed.
“Of the 49 proposed flood-control projects in 2012, a total of 41, or 83.47 percent, costing P224 million of the P322-million budget, were completed only in the third and fourth quarters of 2012 and January 2013, as procurement activities were undertaken in the second and third quarters of the year, thereby defeating the intent of mitigating, or preventing, the impact of the heavy rains to the public at large to which these projects could have served their purpose,” the COA Annual Audit Report for 2012 said.
In response to the delayed implementation of the flood-control projects in 2012, the COA recommended that the MMDA should “revisit its strategies and practices in the implementation of flood-control projects, given that time is of the essence vis-á-vis the weather patterns of the Philippines.”
However, during the following year, the COA observed in its follow-up activities on its recommendation that there were still more than 50 percent of approved flood-control projects that were not delivered on time.
In the COA audit report for 2013, the commission said that when it followed up the recommendations on the flood-control projects the previous year, it was found that the MMDA only partially complied with such recommendations, resulting in another delayed implementation of these vital undertakings during the rainy season, when they are needed most.
“For projects undertaken in 2013, 30 of 62, or 48.40 percent, of the projects funded under the General Appropriations Act were still not delivered before the onset of the rainy season,” the Part III of the COA
Annual Audit Report in 2013 said.
While it may be a noble deed that the MMDA had been returning funds allocated for canceled projects to the national treasury, the full amount for the original projects was not refunded because a part of the fund was used for projects with minimal economic impact.
Instead of using the full allocation for the specified purposes, the MMDA used a part of the allocation for other purposes that do not have the same economic impact as the original purpose for which the allocation was actually made.
This results in a low value for money for the substitute projects, a fact that is camouflaged using the ruse that the substituted projects actually resulted in savings for the government.
The MMDA was created to make sure there is an efficient coordination of these activities so there would be a cost-effective use of government money in delivering such services. However, the record of the MMDA in undertaking these projects shows otherwise that there is no coordination and there is no efficiency, which results in further wastage of government money, the very intent for which the MMDA
was created.
Worse is the MMDA’s penchant for labeling these as savings, when there is really no savings because the projects that were substituted have little or no socioeconomic impact as compared to the original projects for which the allocations were granted.
In the end, it would be the performance of the MMDA that will be the gauge of its success or failure as a coordinating body. It would be the concrete efforts to address traffic and flooding that will be felt by the citizens, and not the MMDA’s propaganda and superficial projects.
Image credits: Kevin de la Cruz