Four city dads return disallowed assistance

MANILA, Philippines - Following the Commission on Audit opinion disallowing the disbursement of the P20,000 calamity aid to all Cebu City Hall officials and employees last year, four city councilors yesterday returned the amount each received last December 23.

While Councilors Eugenio Gabuya Jr. Sisinio Andales, Nida Cabrera and Nestor Archival were taken aback by the COA opinion, they obeyed the COA order and gave back the money to the City Treasurer’s Office right after their regular session yesterday.

City Councilors Mary Ann Delos Santos and Alvin Arcilla are reportedly also going to return the amount.

Andales, who was the one who moved to increase the aid to P20,000 from the P15,000 endorsed by the office of Mayor Michael Rama, said his decision to reimburse the amount was prompted by the arguments COA presented.

“There’s no harm of returning the amount since ni-declare ang COA nga illegal therefore disallowed ang pag-disburse sa amount. We have to refund the amount as added funds also to the city, he said.

The COA said that City Treasurer Diwa Cuevas was not bonded to disburse the amount; granting calamity assistance to government employees as expenses under a supplemental budget is not allowed; and there was no proof showing that the City Hall officials and employees were victims of the October earthquake and the November super typhoon.

Gabuya, Cabrera and Archival said they just decided to comply, even when Gabuya and Cabrera said they were indeed victims of super typhoon Yolanda, which ravaged the Visayas last November 8.

Cabrera said their ancestral house in Bogo City was wrecked by the typhoon and that it was gradually rebuilt with the help of the amount extended by the city government.

Gabuya, on the other hand, said the roof of his house was ripped off during at the height of the super typhoon, only that the damage was not documented.

“Mouli ko sa kwarta kay COA naman gud na. They (State auditors) have rendered their opinion, so I have to respect and obey their opinion,” he said.

Last year, City Councilors Noel Wenceslao and Alvin Dizon returned the P20,000 calamity assistance each of them received after lawyer Reymelio Delute filed a complaint before the Office of the President accusing Cebu City officials of “grave misconduct and grave abuse of authority.”

He named as respondents Rama and 13 other city officials. City Councilors James Cuenco, Richard “Richie” Osmeña, Margarita “Margot” Osmeña, and Leah Japson were not included in the complaint.

Cuenco was absent when the appropriation ordinance was approved; Richie was out; while Margot and Japson abstained from voting and did not claim the assistance.

Asked for his reaction, Rama belittled what the four city councilors did. “Too late to be a hero,” he said, adding that they should not have accepted the financial assistance in first place if they would later on return it.

“They should not have done that. They should have not received at all. I find it a little bit of a drama. They should join showbiz instead,” the mayor said.

As analogy, he mentioned the funds released under the Disbursement Acceleration Program of President Benigno Aquino III, wherein the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional all acts made under the program.

“Ngano wa man lagi nang-return sa DAP? Which is worse, DAP or the calamity assistance? Was there a decision from the Supreme Court ordering the return of the amount? Wala di ba because it went to the beneficiaries,” he said.

As to the COA, he said it should “be guided because you are too much into thinking and not feeling.”

“There should be feeling in deciding,” he said in explaining that state auditors should not simply follow to the letter the wording of the law but should also examine the spirit behind the guidelines.

Rama has encouraged the 4,200 regular and casual employees who received the assistance not to return the money.

“I’ll never be afraid and I will fight for you until the Supreme Court and even up to my grave,” he said.

City Councilor Gerardo Carillo also said he will not return the amount until the court would decide on the legality of the matter, saying it is the court, not COA, that can void a valid ordinance.

He further said that COA should have nullified the validity of the measure by asking the court for a “relief,” which the commission failed to undertake.

He said the COA opinion cannot be obeyed because it was a “collateral attack” against a valid ordinance.

“I’ll go that we exhaust all remedies and even raise it (COA opinion) to the Supreme Court because that (disallowance) diminishes the power and independence of a local government unit. For me, I will wait until the final resolution of this issue because this is not just returning the money, this is about the independence of an LGU and the principle of law on the validity of an ordinance.  You cannot, by rule of law, question collaterally an ordinance through an audit observation of COA,” Carillo, a lawyer by profession, said.

All lawyer councilors will be meeting this Sunday to further discuss the “all remedies” available that Carillo referred to. — (FREEMAN)