ANGELES CITY – The city government here failed to follow the procedures in submitting the 2008 annual budget amounting to P987 million, the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) said.
In a letter dated December 15 obtained by Punto yesterday, Budget Secretary Rolando Andaya Jr., said “the annual budget as transmitted for review must bear the signature of the Vice Mayor, as presiding officer, and the attestation by the Secretary to the Sanggunian.”
It added that “the Secretary to the Sanggunian who should forward the FY 2008 Annual Budget of Angeles City to the DBM-RO III for its review.”
But Vice Mayor Vicky Vega-Cabigting, in her letter to the DBM, said Nepomuceno had submitted the annual budget and not Atty. Eric Mendoza, the secretary to the Sanggunian.
She added that her signature and the attestation of Mendoza were not in the said budget.
Cabigting said that after DBM Regional Director Elisa Sason, in his letter to Nepomuceno on February 8, had found the 2008 annual budget “to have substantially complied with the provisions of R.A. 7160,” otherwise known as the Local Government Code (LGC).
The DBM head office, in the same letter, said the DBM-Region III should have done either of following after receiving from Nepomuceno the budget: Refuse to receive the documents; if already received, return the documents together with a notice of incomplete submission; or retain the budget and require the submission of the required supporting document/s. In cases like this, the reviewing agency or body may give reasonable time, provided it is within the reglementary period, to the LGU to comply with the requirement.
The failure of the LGU to comply with the required document/s after the lapse of reasonable time is a ground for the reviewing agency or body to act on the budget based on existing documents.
Andaya, in his letter, said “accordingly, the review per letter dated February 8, 2008 of DBM-RO III is hereby set aside.”
Cabigting, in the same letter to Andaya, said “the required number of votes to approve its Appropriation Ordinance was insufficient.” She added that eight and not seven councilors “are needed to approve the Appropriation Ordinance,”
But Andaya said “regarding the issue on the affirmative votes on the FY 2008 Annual Budget, it may be informed that this Department does not rule on questions on procedures undertaken in the enactment of appropriation ordinances.”
In a letter dated December 15 obtained by Punto yesterday, Budget Secretary Rolando Andaya Jr., said “the annual budget as transmitted for review must bear the signature of the Vice Mayor, as presiding officer, and the attestation by the Secretary to the Sanggunian.”
It added that “the Secretary to the Sanggunian who should forward the FY 2008 Annual Budget of Angeles City to the DBM-RO III for its review.”
But Vice Mayor Vicky Vega-Cabigting, in her letter to the DBM, said Nepomuceno had submitted the annual budget and not Atty. Eric Mendoza, the secretary to the Sanggunian.
She added that her signature and the attestation of Mendoza were not in the said budget.
Cabigting said that after DBM Regional Director Elisa Sason, in his letter to Nepomuceno on February 8, had found the 2008 annual budget “to have substantially complied with the provisions of R.A. 7160,” otherwise known as the Local Government Code (LGC).
The DBM head office, in the same letter, said the DBM-Region III should have done either of following after receiving from Nepomuceno the budget: Refuse to receive the documents; if already received, return the documents together with a notice of incomplete submission; or retain the budget and require the submission of the required supporting document/s. In cases like this, the reviewing agency or body may give reasonable time, provided it is within the reglementary period, to the LGU to comply with the requirement.
The failure of the LGU to comply with the required document/s after the lapse of reasonable time is a ground for the reviewing agency or body to act on the budget based on existing documents.
Andaya, in his letter, said “accordingly, the review per letter dated February 8, 2008 of DBM-RO III is hereby set aside.”
Cabigting, in the same letter to Andaya, said “the required number of votes to approve its Appropriation Ordinance was insufficient.” She added that eight and not seven councilors “are needed to approve the Appropriation Ordinance,”
But Andaya said “regarding the issue on the affirmative votes on the FY 2008 Annual Budget, it may be informed that this Department does not rule on questions on procedures undertaken in the enactment of appropriation ordinances.”
