Must-read updates!

In my post last Oct 10th (Waived items in the 2010 NEP), I mentioned that three (3) PS costs were retained as waived items from the 45%-55% PS limitation. My source of information was the 2010 National Expenditures Program (NEP), otherwise known as the President's Budget, particularly, Section 87, General Provisions which was posted in the DBM Central Office web site. The printed hard copy of the same document, however, revealed that their are two (2) other PS costs added as waived items. These are: (a) retirement gratuity and terminal leave benefits of retiring LGU personnel; and (b) in the case of barangays, the Year-end Bonus of mandatory barangay officials up to P1,000 for the Punong Barangay and P600 each for the Kagawad, Barangay Secretary and Treasurer.

Before they went on recess last October, the House of Representatives approved on second reading the 2010 Budget (General Appropriations Bill). The waived items mentioned were carried in the House approval. It is expected that when the Senate resumes session today, November 9th, the budget bill will be among those that the body will tackle.

Revision of 20% Development Fund usage. In the next few weeks, a joint circular will be issued by the DILG and DBM revising Joint Circular No. 2005-1, prescribing the guidelines on the utilization of 20% Internal Revenue Allotment for development projects.

The revised guidelines will be issued in response to the requests of LGUs stricken by the recent calamities. In particular, projects related to disaster response, mitigation and preparedness will be added as among those that can be funded by the 20% Development Fund. These include: construction or rehabilitation of evacuation or relocation centers; purchase or repair of area-wide calamity-related alarm or warning system; purchase or repair of calamity-related rescue operations equipment; construction or rehabilitation of local roads and bridges; and purchase of dump trucks, graders and pay loaders.

The joint circular was drafted by the DILG, and in our coordination meeting today, the regional directors were asked to come up with the DBM comments and suggestions.

P 12 B Calamity Fund: The tale of two versions.

When Congress resumes session on November 9th, the Bicameral Conference Committee will try to reconcile the House and the Senate versions of Joint Resolution No. 48, setting aside P12 B to augment the already depleted Calamity Fund of the national government.

House version. The P 12 B will be sourced from the Unprogrammed Fund. Said Fund is among the Special Purpose Funds in the yearly GAA. DBM releases the money once the Bureau of Treasury certifies that the revenue back up has been collected. With the collection of our main collecting agencies, the BIR and BoC on a downtrend, that money is illusory. Thus, the House authorized the President to resort to borrowings. This means too that the money is not readily available because the government will have to look for investors for its blond flotation or schedule a series of treasury bill auctions.

Senate version. On the other hand, the Senate identifies the government's share from the Malampaya natural gas project as the funding source for the calamity fund augmentation. It is not clear though if the money is already available that is, the government share from the natural gas extraction has already been sold and the proceeds deposited in the National Treasury.

Time is of the essence considering that more relief operations are needed and massive rehabilitation efforts have yet to be started in areas affected by the typhoons "Ondoy", "Pepeng" and the previous typhoon "Frank".

Waived items in the 2010 NEP.

When Joint Resolution No. 4 (JR 4) was signed and the corresponding SSL 3 1st tranche guidelines (Executive Order No. 811) was issued by the President, the apprehension of many LGUs that they cannot implement the first tranche became a reality.

Position papers were prepared and submitted to Congress appealing to our legislators to amend Section 7 of JR No. 4 which provides that the determination by the local sanggunian of the salaries and wages of local government personnel shall be subject to the PS limitation prescribed under Section 325(a)of RA 7160. One such position paper was prepared by the Iloilo MBOs Association (IMBOA) which was adopted by the Iloilo League of Municipalities, and later on by the LMP Visayas. Nothing's been heard about Congress' response to the position paper.

What's closer to reality? It seems Congress is not keen on amending that disputed section of JR 4. We suggested that another tack may be employed by LGUs - which is to lobby to their respective Congressmen for the retention of Section 88, General Provisions of the 2009 General Appropriations Act (GAA). The said section enumerates the PS items that can be waived from the 45%-55% PS limitation, among them, the continued implementation of SSL.

The 2010 Budget submitted by the President is being deliberated upon by both Houses of Congress. As gleaned from the said budget (2010 National Expenditure Program), particularly, the last paragraph of Section 87 of the General Provisions - only three (3) PS costs are proposed to be waived from the PS limitation, namely:

- PS costs of mandatory positions specified in RA 7160;
- PS of NG personnel devolved to LGUs, and
- PS of hospital services transferred to new cities from the provinces

The other PS costs which used to be part of the waived items were deleted. These include: continued implementation of SSL; terminal leave; monetization of leave credits; magna carta benefits of PHWs; and honoraria and cash gift of barangay officials.

I am positive it's never too late to mount a concerted effort of lobbying with our legislators. Every LGU from Aparri to Jolo should contribute to the effort. Otherwise, LGU personnel, especially those employed in lower class LGUs will be left out in the cold.

Implementing the 1st Tranche of SSL 3 for LGUs.

I was supposed to post this story right after the issuance of the circular but the series of trainings on the roll-out of the revised IRR of the GPRA starting the third week of September, and the Executive Forum on the implementation of Internal Audit System for EC pilot provinces - have kept me pretty occupied.

Better late then never. Local Budget Circular No. 2009-92 has already been issued to implement the first tranche of SSL 3 for LGUs starting January 1, 2010. LGUs have been waiting for this and the timing of its issuance coincided with the finalization of local annual budgets. By this time, LGUs may already have decided whether or not to include in their annual budgets the funds to implement the first tranche.

This will now dispel any speculation that the much-awaited circular will ease the restrictions imposed by the mother SSL 3 issuance, JR No. 4. Not quite. LBC 2009-92 cannot amend the basic issuance. And so, the restrictions stay. LGUs can implement the first tranche if (a) they have not exceeded the PS limitation prescribed under Section 325(a) of RA 7160; (b) the implementation is confined to the modified salary schedule corresponding to their economic classification; and (c) subject to availability of funds.

LBC 2009-92, aside from prescribing a separate modified salary schedules for each class of LGUs (Annexes "A1" to "A8")- also spelled out the guidelines on the implementation of reallocated classes positions like Nurses, teachers, medical officers.

PERA and AdCom now combined per JR 4.

The DBM has recently issued Budget Circular No. 2009-3, prescribing the revised Rules and Regulations on the Grant of Personnel Economic Relief Allowance (PERA).

BC 2009-3 was issued to implement certain provisions of the Congress Joint Resolution No. 4 (SSL 3), particularly, on the categorization of compensation and other benefits authorized for government personnel, now termed as Total Compensation Framework (TCF). Under the TCF's enumeration of "Standard Allowance and Benefits", the PERA of P500 per month and the Additional Compensation (AdCom) of P1,500 per month are now combined as simply PERA. In effect, the PERA that government are entitled to is P2,000 per month.

BC 2009-3 is the second of a series of issuances that DBM has issued so far to implement JR 4.

Bayanihan spirit: The Sibalom way

I took this video in July 2008, a few weeks after the onslaught of Typhoon Frank. Barangay officials of the 76 barangays of Sibalom, Antique took turns in piling up sand bags along the bank of Sibalom river that served as temporary break water.

One year hence, it seems the rehabilitation of Sibalom river has not yet become a priority in the immediate rehabilitation works of the government. An inquiry from the DPWH revealed that the Sibalom project is in the list of the P5.876 B "Bangon Panay" project or the so-called Paglaum Fund. The money is be sourced from the proceeds of the Simplified Net Income Taxation System (SNITS) bill pending with the Senate Ways and Means Committee chaired by Sen. Lacson.

Meanwhile, Sibalom residents with the help of municipal and barangays officials have to fend for themselves, mustering their own resources to mitigate the damage every time the water level rises along the river bank.

I hope the President get to visit the area soon just as she did last Monday here in Iloilo where she ordered the release of an additional P100 M to augment the initial P481 M for the rehabilitation efforts in Panay.

Still on the National government's debt to GSIS.

This is an addendum to my post yesterday regarding the debt that the DepEd owes the GSIS representing arrears in premium on the insurance coverage of teachers and other personnel.

Practically, the entire bureaucracy including LGUs have incurred prior years' obligation with the GSIS since 1997. How did these obligations came about? In the case of national government agencies (I'll make a post on the case of LGUs later)- that "utang" was attributed to the 2.5% increase in the national government share in the premium rate from 9.5% to 12.5% starting July 1997 to December 1998. The premium deficiency was not paid because the appropriations in the GAA during the said period for the Retirement and Life Insurance Premium (RLIP) of state employees were computed at the rate of 9.5% only.

The reconciliation as to the actual amount of deficiency went on for several years. When the figures were finally established, the mode of settlement became another issue. The first option was for the DOF to issue a fixed rate treasury bond in favor of the GSIS. A MOA to that effect was executed between the DOF and DBM representing the national government, and the GSIS. For undisclosed reasons, the settlement did not push through. The second option which also did not materialize was for the national government to turn over to the GSIS a governmnent-owned property in exchange for the writing off of the debt. On the third settlement attempt, Congress agreed to appropriate the amount of P3,299,791,000 as part of the supplemental appropriation for 2006 through RA 9358 (the national government then was operating on a reenacted budget).

Joint Memorandum Circular No. 2007-1 signed by GSIS President Winston Garcia and DBM Secretary Rolando Andaya, Jr., was issued to implement the said appropriation. In gist, the joint circular prescribes that:

1) The DBM shall release the appropriated amount of P3,299,791,000 to the GSIS as payment of the deficiency in government share on the premium contribution from July 1997 to December 1998. The GSIS shall apply said payment on the principal amount only, not on any interest that it has imposed thereon;

2) The DBM shall post in its website the amount of increase in RLIP per agency as computed by the GSIS;

3) The GSIS shall post to the individual account of the GSIS retirees and members the said payment. Any interest imposed by the GSIS shall not be charged against the retiree/member but shall be subject to separate discussion by the DBM and GSIS;

4) The GSIS shall pay the members the amount pertaining to the adjustment in retirement benefits and basic monthly pension as well as refund the full amount deducted from the active members whose matured policies and salary/policy loans were reduced.

The issue of the settlement of the RLIP deficiency (principal amount) should be put to rest, that is, if the GSIS has fully complied with its commitment as drawn in the joint circular. But the matter of the interest imposed by the GSIS that it insists should be paid by the national government, is left hanging as negotiation between the former and the DBM has not been finalized yet.

Since this is a government to government negotiation, why can't the GSIS condone the said interest charges? The HDMF (PagIBIG) has resorted to this time and again.