The Tesda headquarters in Taguig. (Photo from the Tesda website)
MANILA, Philippines — Senate Minority Leader Franklin Drilon advised the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (Tesda) to quickly settle the issue of its transfer of P160 million to its regional offices for the implementation of anti-insurgency projects, an action state auditors earlier tagged as “highly questionable.”
In its 2020 report, the Commission on Audit (COA) said that if there was a lack of legal basis that would authorize Tesda’s fund transfer, it might be a “ground for technical malversation of public funds.”
READ: COA to Tesda: Justify transfer of P160M to regional offices for NTF-ELCAC projects
“This very serious warning of COA that the management could be liable for technical malversation because they spent funds for purposes other than what is appropriated by Congress,” Drilon pointed out during the Senate plenary debates on the Tesda budget on Tuesday.
“I do not see this kind of warning very often and I would strongly suggest that this matter be settled in order that the Ombudsman will not take it up and foster a technical malversation [case] against the management of Tesda,” he added.
Based on the COA report on Tesda’s 2020 expenditures, the Tesda Central Office released P147.3 million for the implementation of Executive Order No. 70, which created the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-Elcac).
Auditors also noted fund augmentations in several of its regional offices, which totaled P12.70 million.
According to COA, such fund transfers of Tesda are “highly questionable” due to lack of authority as Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 1445 states that “no money shall be paid out of any public treasury or depository except in pursuance of an appropriation law or other specific statutory authority.”
In response to Drilon’s concern, Sen. Joel Villanueva, who sponsored the Tesda budget, said the agency has clarified the issue with COA.
“I was being told by the leadership of Tesda that it has been clarified by Tesda with COA and it is already being corrected,” Villanueva said, citing the answer given to him by officials, led by Tesda chief Isidro Lapeña, present in the session hall.
The senator noted that Tesda’s transfer of funds was in support of its National Technical Education and Skills Development Plan Strategic Thrust on Technical Vocational Education and Training for social equity and poverty reduction.
“The provision of Tesda’s programs and services, particularly scholarship programs to special clients, has been given priority as such in Tesda Circular No. 11 series 2020 dated Jan. 23, 2020, or Omnibus guidelines for Tesda scholarship programs for special clients,” Villanueva explained.
“The above-mentioned guidelines also included the implementation of a special skills training program, which was established in support of Executive Order No. 70 to address the needs of indigenous peoples and former rebels,” he added.
Drilon then asked if the circular cited by Villanueva existed at the time the transfers were made. The latter said Lapeña answered in the affirmative.
But Drilon pointed out that COA may not have found it sufficient enough since it still flagged the transfer.
In response, Villanueva said he was told that Tesda was not able to give to the COA at the time the “pertinent document” that would prove the legal authority in the transfer of the funds.
“What they are saying is they failed to show documents that COA is asking for but now they were able to clarify this issue with COA, according to the leadership of Tesda. It is being corrected,” Villanueva said.
“They were given a verbal commitment and the COA will come up with a joint rejoinder,” he added.