eLegis Sanggunian ng Olongapo, SubicBay, Olongapo-Subic, Olongapo City Legislation, Sangguniang Panlungsod Resolutions and Ordinances

Uniform truck ban, isusulong

DAHIL sa matinding problema sa trapiko na idinudulot ng malalaking truck sa Metro Manila, nais ni Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago na magkarooon ng batas na tatawaging “uniform truck ban”.

Sa Senate Bill 1518 na inihain ni Santiago, sinabi nito mismong ang mga Metro mayors at si DTI Sec. Peter Favila na ang nakapuna na ang iba’t ibang truck ban hours na ipinaiiral ng mga local government units sa Kalakhang Maynila ang nagdudulot ng matinding trapiko at pagsisikip ng mga lansangan.

“In a memorandum, DTI Sec. Peter Favila said the varying truck ban hours being
enforced by local government units was causing delays that translated to high logistics costs, particularly among local exporters,” sabi ni Santiago sa kanyang panu-kala.

Kapuna-puna rin aniya na ang matindi pa rin ang trapiko kahit araw ng Sabado sa kabila ng ipinatutupad na United Vehicular Reduction Program sa ilalim ng MMDA
Regulation No. 96-005.

“Because of these, there is a need to synchronize the hours of their separate travel bans on trucks to ease cargo transport, according to the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority,” anang bill ni Santiago. Marlon Purificacion - Journal

Labels: KALYE KASIYAHAN FESTIVAL, truck ban

COA asks 6 Manila dads to return allowances

‘No legal basis for getting P1.6M each’

By Allison Lopez - Inquirer

MANILA, Philippines – Six Manila councilors have yet to return nearly P10 million to the city government’s coffers despite the Commission on Audit’s finding that there was “no legal basis” for them to receive a “monetary reward” for serving for three consecutive terms.

The six were identified as incumbent Councilors Luciano “Lou” Veloso, Jocelyn Dawis-Asuncion, Marlon Lacson and Monina “Pipay” Silva who received the money on behalf of her late husband, former Councilor Hilarion “Pipoy” Silva. The other two were former councilors Abraham Cabochan and Julio Logarta Jr. All six served in the city council for three consecutive terms from 1995 to 2004.

Based on documents obtained by the Inquirer, the six each received over P1.6 million (out of a total amount of P3 million each) as “initial payment” after they qualified for the Exemplary Public Service Award (Epsa) in 2005.

The Epsa was created by the Manila City Council through Ordinance No. 8040, enacted on Dec. 7, 2000, which authorized “the conferment of an exemplary public service award on elective local officials of Manila who have been elected for three consecutive terms in the same position.”

The ordinance, whose principal author was Lacson, covered the mayor, vice mayor and councilors and stipulated that qualified officials would receive “a plaque of appreciation, retirement and gratuity pay remuneration equivalent to the actual time served in the position.”

After the release of the money, however, then supervising city auditor Gabriel Espina said a “verification of the (above) payment showed that the grant of (a) monetary reward to former elective officials in the form of retirement and gratuity pay was approved and authorized by the city council without legal basis.”

Espina’s comment was in an audit observation memorandum (AOM) he issued in 2005, a copy of which was received by the Inquirer.

According to him, the remuneration was “not among the compensation and benefits due to elective local officials enumerated under … the Local Government Code of 1991.”

Eduardo de Gracia, a human resources management officer at City Hall, told the Inquirer that a city councilor is entitled to the following benefits every month: P23,422 in basic salary plus P10,000 representation allowance; P1,500 additional compensation and P500 personal emergency relief allowance. He added that city councilors do not receive retirement benefits.

Based on Espina’s AOM, the COA legal and adjudication office, through COA Director IV Elizabeth Zosa, issued a notice of disallowance on May 24, 2006 ordering the six councilors to return the P1.6 million each of them had received.

Zosa said that the giving out of a monetary reward “likewise contravenes Article 170 of Republic Act 7160, which provides that no elective or appointive local official shall receive additional, double or indirect compensation unless specifically authorized by law.”

Despite her order, a certification made by city accountant Ma. Lourdes Manlulu last week said that none of the six councilors has complied with the COA directive. Instead, they filed at the City Auditor’s Office “a motion to lift the notice of disallowance.”

Zosa added that several other city officials were also liable for the disbursement of the money.

They included former Mayor Lito Atienza for approving the ordinance creating the Epsa, former vice mayor and city council presiding officer Danilo Lacuna who approved the transaction, city council secretary Rodolfo Lapid who certified that the expenses were lawful and necessary, city accountant Gloria Quilantang who attested to the completeness and propriety of supporting documents and city budget officer Alicia Moscya.

In an interview with the Inquirer, Veloso confirmed he had received the money, although he defended the Epsa.

“There’s nothing wrong with it. My talent fee is even bigger than the amount I received,” Veloso, who is also an actor, said. “It is a big help to us councilors. Because of our meager salaries, most of us end up spending our own money to help people who come to us,” he added.

Labels: coa, KALYE KASIYAHAN FESTIVAL

Search Labels

APPAN PARK AS A HISTORICAL SITE

ARMY RESERVED COMMAND

CAPT. ROBERTO B. SARMIENTO

CITY HEALTH DEPARTMENT

CITY’S COUNTERPART FUND

CLOSING

CLRAA MEET

COA

COAL-FIRED THERMAL POWER PLANT

CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION

CONSTITUTIONAL POLICY OF TRANSPARENCY

CONSTRUCTION

CONTRACT

CONTRACT OF JANITORIAL SERVICES

CONTRACT OF LOAN

CONTRACT OF SERVICE APPOINTMENT

CONTRIBUTIONS

CORRECTION

CORTEZ

COUNCILMAN CESAR LORENZANA

CYNTHIA G. CAJUDO

DBP

DECLARING

DEFRAY THE EXPENSES OF BARANGAY MEDICAL SION

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

DESTRUCTION

DILG

DISCLOSE THE NAMES OF ALL THE CONSULTANTS ED

DISCOUNT

DISMANTLING OF ALL ILLEGAL FISH CAGES

DIVINE SPIRIT HOSPITAL and COLLEGES

DUET SINGING CATEGORY

EARLY CHILDHOOD CARE DEVELOPMENT

EAST BAJAC-BAJAC

EAST TAPINAC

ECCD EXPANSION PROGRAM

ECOLOGICAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN

EDUCATIONAL PRIVILEGES

ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL SANITATION

FREE COMPUTER TRAINING PROGRAM

HOSPITAL COMPUTERIZATION PROJECT

INSTITUTE OF GRADUATE

INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO.

INTERCONNECTION

INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S DAY

JAMES L. GORDON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

JATROPHA CURCAS L

JIMEC GLOBAL HOLDINGS

KALYE KASIYAHAN FESTIVAL

KALYE KASIYAHAN FESTIVAL 2007

KINDNESS

LAMP2

LAND MAPPING

LIBRARY INFORMATION MONTH

MEMORADUM OF AGREEMENT

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

MR. DIMASALANG E. TUASON

MS. AMETHYA DE LA LLANA

MS. ARABELLA F. ULAYE

MS. ARLIDA M. PAME

MS. IRA CHLOEMN B. DAYLO

NIGHT MARKET ACTIVITY

OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OLD CABALAN

OLONGAPENOS

OLONGAPEÑOS

OLONGAPO BUSINESS CLUB

OLONGAPO CITY

OLONGAPO CITY CONVENTION CENTER

OPERATING EXPENSES

OR RECEPTION OF ANY SIGNAL OR SERVICE ERED OVER A CABLE TELEVISION

OWNERSHIP AND ACCEPTANCE

P/SUPT RICHIE MEDARDO POSADAS

PA-LAMP2

PABX UPGRADE

PANGASINAN

PANGASINAN JANUARY 13

PHILIPPINE COUNCILORS LEAGUE

PHILIPPINE FOREST CORPORATION

PHILIPPINE HEALTH INSURANCE CORPORATION

PROPOSED SALARY SCHEME

PROVIDING

PUBLIC MARKET STALLHOLDERS

PUBLIC USE

PUBLIC UTILITY JEEPNEYS

PUROK TIBIGAR

PWA

RAMON MAGSAYSAY DRIVE

REGIONAL GAWAD KALASAG

REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE CODE

SANGGUNIANG PANGLUNSOD

SARAH DELA CRUZ

SBMA

SBWVMPC

SCOUTER MAXIMO GUERRERO VENZON

SECRETARY

SECRETARY ANGELO T. REYES

SKILLS TRAINING PROGRAM

ST. JOSEPH COLLEGE

STA RITA

STA. RITA

STALLHOLDERS ASSOCIATION

STANDING COMMITTEES

STATE OF CALAMITY

SUBIC

SUBIC BAY METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY

SUBIC BAY REGULATORY BOARD

TEN OUTSTANDING STUDENTS

TENNIS TOURNAMENT

THE CHANNEL

TO DONATE

TOURISM PROMOTIONS AND PURPOSES

USE OF THE OLONGAPO CITY PUBLIC MARKET KING AREA

WATER TARIFF INCREASE

WEST BAJAC BAJAC

WEST TAPINAC

WINNING

WINNING BIDDER OF THE GIS

ZENAIDA “ZENING” C. BERNARDINO

Labels: index, KALYE KASIYAHAN FESTIVAL, labels, search

The courtesy of a reply

POLICY PEEK
By Ernesto F. Herrera

Manila Times

ONE of the pieces of unsolicited advice I offered to newly elected legislators in a column over a month ago (Senate Briefing I and II) is to read and respond to the letters sent to them. I said that in order to work for people and truly represent their interests, you have to keep listening to them. Hey, you won because people voted for you. It’s the least you can do, to read their letters and not rely on staff to answer them for you. People would always remember those politicians who took the time to personally answer letters. On the contrary, people hate getting pro forma letters that have a lot of verbiage but actually say nothing.

It seems such a simple advice, but it is hard to follow. And not only legislators but also the rest of those in government service have usually been remiss in this regard. Also, not all of them may be aware that they are violating the law when they don’t respond to letters from the public promptly, if at all.

Republic Act 6713, approved in February 20, 1989, established a Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees to uphold the time-honored principle of public office being a public trust.

The Act prescribes the norms of conduct of public officials and employees, specifies their duties and responsibilities toward the public, and enumerates prohibited acts and transactions.

Section 5 of R.A. 6713 enjoins all public servants to respond to letters, telegrams or other means of communication (including email which wasn’t around at the time) sent by the public within 15 working days upon receipt, and at all times act promptly and expeditiously on the public’s personal transactions.

Despite R.A. 6713, the inaction or slow response of government officials and personnel to complaints, meritorious requests and requests for information, continues to be a major source of complaints from citizens and constitutes a blot on government credibility.

It is indeed unconscionable for public officials or employees to ignore a matter of great concern to a private citizen, especially nowadays when technology affords us so many ways to respond promptly to official correspondence. And yet this still happens. A lot. Ask anybody who’s had to follow up something from some government office or anybody who has had to research and get official government information. I myself have been a victim many times. Even when I was a senator I’ve been given the runaround when requesting official data that would be important in a public hearing, or in the drafting of a particular legislative measure.

This, of course, pissed me off, so much so that I sought to remedy this perennial lackadaisical and even intentional brush-offs and dilly-dallying from public servants through legislation. I filed a bill seeking to impose stiffer penalties on those members of the bureaucracy who remain indifferent and unmindful of their responsibilities to the people they are bound to serve.

I said stiffer penalties, yes, because under R.A. 6713 there are existing sanctions for those who violate its provisions, including that of not replying to citizens’ correspondence, complaints and requests within 15 days. The administrative sanction consists of a fine not exceeding the equivalent of six months’ salary, or suspension not exceeding one year, or removal depending upon the minimum gravity of the offense.

Note that the law has set only the maximum but not the minimum penalties. Thus, it is possible that an erring official or employee may be penalized for say, a fine equivalent to 10 to 15 days’ pay, or suspension for a similar number of days or less than a month.

One would think the prospect of being penalized with such alone would put the sense of urgency in any government bureaucrat, but such is not the case as we know from experience, perhaps because very few citizens have gone out of their way to file a case against erring public servants; or perhaps government officials don’t care enough to fully implement the Act’s provision on promptness on official correspondence. [Come to think of it, when was the last time we heard of any government employee who was suspended or fined for not answering a letter or for not acting promptly on a request from an ordinary citizen?]

Stiffer penalties or not, what we need is proper implementation of R.A. 6713. Proper implementation of the provisions on promptness in addressing official requests and correspondence will serve as a deterrent for those abusive and arrogant government personnel who neglect the duties imposed upon them by law to the detriment of the public, especially the common citizen, who oftentimes is the victim of pernicious bureaucratic red tape and indifference

Labels: code of conduct, KALYE KASIYAHAN FESTIVAL, reply

15 day reply rule

Palace finds penalties on Cabinet execs ‘too harsh’

By Juliet Labog-Javellana - Inquirer

MANILA, Philippines -- Saying the penalty was too harsh for the offense of failing to respond to a letter, a Palace committee of peers has rejected the recommendation of the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission to suspend three Cabinet secretaries for graft.

Presidential Management Staff chief Cerge Remonde said Sunday the committee of peers, which he heads, recommended to President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo that the Cabinet officials be issued warnings instead.

“There are no serious cases of graft, such as stealing the people’s money, against Cabinet officials, only a failure to answer communication within 15 days,” Remonde said on Radyo ng Bayan.

Remonde said the committee reviewed the cases against three Cabinet officials and found the PAGC’s recommended penalty “too harsh” for the “very simple offenses.”

Remonde declined to name the secretaries involved. “We need not put them to shame over the simple case. But we would like to remind our colleagues that there is a law requiring us to answer communications within 15 days.”

Remonde said one Cabinet secretary, for instance, was a most unlikely subject of a complaint because she was known to be efficient and well-liked in her sector.

He said this Cabinet official had explained that she asked an assistant secretary to respond to the letter but the latter got sick and no reply was sent within the prescribed period.

The committee of peers, which includes Budget Secretary Rolando Andaya Jr. and Commission on Higher Education chair Romulo Neri, was set up to review the PAGC’s recommendations against erring Cabinet officials.

Labels: 15 day rule, cabinet, communication, KALYE KASIYAHAN FESTIVAL, sanggunian, sangunian

eLegis Sangguniang Panlungsod ng Olongapo

26 September 2007

Uniform truck ban, isusulong

02 September 2007

COA asks 6 Manila dads to return allowances

01 September 2007

Search Labels

28 August 2007

The courtesy of a reply

27 August 2007

15 day reply rule

Olongapo City Philippines Sanggunian FaceBook

Previous

Archives