Another three million reasons
When a citizen pays tax, his payment is mixed with the taxes of all other citizens. His tax maybe just few pesos because his income is very little, still that minuscule amount is commixed with the billions remitted to the government. His payment loses its individual identity as it forms part of the general fund. So, when government spends a part of the public fund, like three million and a citizen views that expenditure as wasteful, imprudent, or illegal, he has the right to ask questions. His queries cannot be dismissed because he only contributed few pesos. This is legal concept behind taxpayer’s suit.
In all modesty, I religiously pay my taxes and regulatory fees. Tax clearances I regularly get from the Bureau of Internal Revenue and city treasury indicate my compliance with my responsibility to support the government. It stands to reason I have the right to ask questions on how taxes are being spent even if my contribution is just a few pesos.
I read a proposed resolution sponsored by a north district city councilor. In its form, it is a study of generous, yet seemingly unsubstantiated assumptions. One whereas clause, for instance, says our mayor has approved a budget of P3 million to be charged against an account identified as “City Sponsored Activities.” I can, thus, assume that when the City Council deliberated last year on this year’s appropriation, our councilors must have known city is sponsoring this activity. I got no such validation.
In another whereas clause, this proposed resolution mentions the event is a “fireworks competition.” This somehow casts a certain degree of vagueness, if not confusion. Is the city to spend P3 million for a competition? Like, the money is for the prizes such as P1.5 million for first prize, P1 million and P500,000 respectively for the second and third prizes? Or is the P3 million for whatever expenses related to staging of the event itself? Yet, why is it that in another part of the proposed resolution, it says that “a spectacle (sic) exhibition xxx (is) provided by (a name of a private firm is given)”? How is it that the city will spend P3 million when the “exhibition” is, after all, provided by a private enterprise?
Here’s more confusion engendered by the proposed resolution. It reads: “the event encompasses three participations from the world renowned fireworks companies from Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao for this world-class Pyro-musical competition, a spectacle exhibition will also be provided by the (name of company deleted) on top of the participants display.” Ambi, basaha kuno ug maayo kon makasabut ka ba sa buot ipasabut sa nagsuwat. Please disregard the atrocious construction. I am sure that the way this measure is written embarrasses more our city than its author. But, never mind it, English is a borrowed language, after all. Just try to get the substance. Is the P3 million to pay for these three world-renowned firms so that they can come to Cebu City to entertain us for few minutes?
This proposed resolution falls within the language of the law called “Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act” for it aims to use our tax money for a private end to our prejudice. If the author thinks otherwise, let him ask legal advice. I also don’t believe this plan has the blessing of our mayor. He has sworn to protect our public funds and he might agree with me that there are perhaps, three million reasons, predicating this measure enough for former mayor Osmeña to tinker with and file charges and enough reason for Mayor Labella to discard it.
- Latest
