The ongoing budget season has been marked by a contentious dispute between Vice President Sara Duterte and the House of Representatives, detracting from critical fiscal issues that demand attention.
The conflict, characterized by a series of public accusations, obscures the more pressing matter of how the Vice President manages public funds. During the second round of budget deliberations for the Office of the Vice President (OVP) on September 10, several valid concerns were raised by House lawmakers.
A primary issue is the disbursement of P73 million in disallowed confidential expenses in 2022. This allocation, released with the approval of the Office of the President, was meant for surveillance and information gathering. However, the Commission on Audit (COA) has demanded the return of P73.287 million, citing insufficient documentation to verify the expenditures, which include payments for various goods, medicines, rewards, and office equipment.
Additionally, the OVP’s socioeconomic programs for 2025, which require P2.037 billion in new appropriations, have been scrutinized for potentially duplicating services provided by other government agencies. Lawmakers question the necessity of these programs, such as medical and burial assistance, which overlap with existing services from departments like the Department of Health and Philippine Health Insurance Corporation.
Critics also highlight underutilization and mismanagement of funds. The COA audit report for 2023 points to deficiencies in the OVP’s distribution of welfare goods and the mismanagement of food items in the mobile kitchen program. For instance, only 0.4% of the P150 million allocated for the ‘Mag Negosyo Ta ‘Day’ program was utilized, with documentation issues cited as a barrier to fund distribution.
Moreover, the rapid establishment of 10 satellite offices has raised questions about their necessity and compliance with procurement rules. Critics argue these offices replicate services offered by regional agencies and suggest their locations may be strategically chosen for political reasons. Uniform budgets for these offices have also been questioned, given the varying scope of beneficiaries.
The culmination of these issues has led lawmakers to consider reducing the OVP’s budget for 2025. The ongoing deliberations seek to address these fiscal irregularities and ensure accountability in the management of public funds.
As the budget season progresses, it is imperative that the Office of the Vice President addresses these valid concerns to justify its budget proposals and maintain public trust.
Source: Rappler