Not only Senate President Enrile handed out largesse to senators favored by him, there is also what appears to be a relatively-new tradition of giving year-end bonuses to government employees. The municipal employees I asked said they thought the custom started during the term of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.
And whereas Enrile tried to parry criticism by calling the millions he handed out to senators as additional MOOE or Maintenance & Other Operating Expenses, the year-end bonuses for other government employees are personal cash gifts that do not require liquidating.
A limit of P10,000 has been mentioned for such cash gifts, but in some cases, the amounts were P30,000, and some even much higher, “depending on the size of the savings”.
Does this mean that government units and agencies are awash with spare cash that can simply be made presents of? How does that square with “budgetary constraints” or more simply “lack of funds,” the most common explanation for why even some basic services or programs are inadequately implemented? What are the technicalities that result in unspent moneys that then are tagged as “savings?”
Unfilled positions or releases of funds too late to implement projects have been mentioned as some of the circumstances that can be sources of “savings”. But how else could such funds be treated other than being turned into gifts, and what decision-making is involved in their use?
It would seem that a clearer definition of what constitutes savings, and policies on their use are called for, in light of the chronic shortage of government funds, or at least of government officials’ frequent statements to that effect.
This is not about a lack of generosity to government employees, who may or may not (since the bonuses are not linked to any performance evaluation) deserve special consideration for their service to the people.
The government is already the country’s largest employer, and is hardly a lean bureaucracy (with many jobs handed out as political favors.)
The total sums given out as bonuses might be staggering, and people couldn’t be blamed for wondering what else could be done with that money, the people’s money.
It’s quite different in the various NGOs I’ve been involved with for decades. “Savings” is hardly a concept because funders expect, demand, and monitor that implementation of projects or activities closely follow the submitted plans, budgets, and timelines. If for whatever reason there are unused funds, these must be reported, returned, or a request made for their realignment to other program uses.
In the case of one particular funder, even the bank account interest that project money might accumulate has to be reported and returned. Funders have been known to terminate partnerships with NGOs if performance or accountability is found wanting.
Clearly, a government system is of a different scale, but it’s still all about making maximum use of resources. When so much needs to be done, and resources are always short, priorities need to be set.
It is to be hoped that Senator Enrile’s misguided “generosity,” if that’s what it was, will lead to reflections towards a less cavalier, more purposeful use of people’s money.
