Many 'irregularities' in cash disbursement forms of DPWH Bulacan — DPWH official
Daily TribuneThe Sandiganbayan Third Division justices conducted an ocular inspection of the alleged ghost flood control project at Purok 5, Brgy. Bunsuran in Pandi, Bulacan last 15 April linked to ex-Senator Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr. and former officials of the DPWH Bulacan 1st District Engineering Office.
Analy Labor
An official from the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) said she noticed irregularities in the process of how funds were disbursed at the department’s 1st District Engineering Office (DEO) in Bulacan.
The statement was made as part of the ongoing trial concerning a case of graft against former Senator Ramon “Bong” Revilla and other DPWH officials at the Sandiganbayan’s Fourth Division.
Genevieve Cuaresma, the Finance Service Director of DPWH, noted that the standard procedure whenever it came to the release of funds was to ensure that all necessary forms were signed by district officials.
However, based on her examination of the forms used to distribute funding for the ₱92.8-million alleged “ghost” flood control project in Pandi, Bulacan, she noticed that there were insufficient signatories.
One such requirement that lacked a marking was the Statement of Work Accomplished (SWA) on the project that was supposed to be signed by then District Engineer Brice Hernandez.
Based on the DPWH guidelines, the SWA serves as the basis for the production of the List of Due and Demandable Accounts Payable-Advice to Debit Account (LDDAP-ADA) that would grant a contractor the payment for a particular project.
In the case of the Pandi project with the contract ID 25cc0299, funds were dispersed even with the lack of the mentioned document as evidenced by the statements of SYMS Construction Trading and other DPWH officials in previous hearings.
Asked by Associate Justice Ernest Louie Miguel why the DPWH had not detected such anomalies, Cuaresma noted that District Offices were granted autonomy to distribute the cash grant to contractors.
The public works official explained that funds were not necessarily handed out by the DPWH Central Office on a project-to-project basis, rather it was annually handed out after the national budget was approved.
She further clarified that the autonomy given to District Offices was still under the impression that they would be abiding by the standard process of the department.
As a means to audit such transactions, Cuaresma said that the DPWH was assisted by the Commission on Audit (COA).
The next trial on the case of graft is set to take place on May 26 when former DPWH Engr. turned state witness Henry Alcantara will be taking the witness stand.