Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Consolidated Report On The Audit of The Disaster Risk Reduction Management DRRM Funds For The Year Ended December 31 2022
Consolidated Report On The Audit of The Disaster Risk Reduction Management DRRM Funds For The Year Ended December 31 2022
COMMISSION ON AUDIT
Commonwealth Ave., Quezon City
CONSOLIDATED REPORT
Page
II. Introduction 3
Financial Highlights 6
Operational Highlights 16
A. Authority
1. Pursuant to Section 2, Article IX-D of the 1987 Philippine Constitution and Section
43 of the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines1, auditors of the different
National Government Agencies (NGAs), Government-Owned and/or -Controlled
Corporations (GOCCs) and Local Government Units (LGUs) have audited the
Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) Funds as part of their regular
audit.
2. A Consolidated Report thereof has been prepared in compliance with Section VII,
Par. 9, of COA Memorandum No. 2014-009 dated August 28, 2014.
B. Objectives
3. This report aims to improve the availability, reliability and quality of financial
information on disaster funds, promote transparency, enhance accountability and
mitigate potential risks in disaster related transactions.
1
Presidential Decree No. 1445 dated June 11, 1978.
4. The report covers the results of audit on the receipts and utilizations of the DRRM
Funds as provided under Republic Act (RA) No. 10121 otherwise known as the
Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010.
5. The Financial Highlights of this report were based from the summary of releases
taken from the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) website, and other
financial data submitted by the auditors of 109 NGAs, 56 GOCCs and 1,661 LGUs.
9. This eventually led to the enactment of Republic Act (RA) No. 10121, otherwise
known as the Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010,
which paved the way for a paradigm shift in the country’s disaster management
system from one primarily focused on response and preparedness for response to one
which is more focused on reducing and managing disaster risks2.
10. This national policy transformed and reformed the way the Philippines deals with
disasters and strongly recognized that risks need not become disasters and that the
impacts of disasters can be reduced by addressing the underlying causes of risks. It
emphasized the importance of strengthening people’s capacity to absorb shocks and
stresses, maintaining basic functions during disasters and building back better from
disasters. It likewise recognized some long-standing good practices at the local level
and institutionalized them for upscaling.
11. To implement the provisions of RA No. 10121, the National Disaster Risk Reduction
Management Council (NDRRMC) was created and empowered by relevant agencies
involved in the Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) by virtue of their
respective mandates.
13. The Office of Civil Defense (OCD) is the implementing arm of the NDRRMC and
serves as the Secretariat of the Council.
14. The NDRRMC is also supported by various Regional Disaster Risk Reduction and
Management Councils (RDRRMC) and Local Disaster Risk Reduction and
Management Councils (LDRRMC) nationwide, also known as its Networks.
2
National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Plan 2020-2030.
16. RA No. 10121 also enumerated various sources of funds to be used by all agencies
and instrumentalities of the Government to implement the identified DRRM
programs and projects.
17. In the use of disaster funds, emergency procedures are usually introduced. As such,
procedural controls are frequently bypassed to save lives and mitigate losses3.
18. In these conditions, our auditors, as well as the people who have the fiscal
responsibility over the said funds, face challenges in terms of handling and managing
risks which are inherent in disaster-related activities.4
19. COA’s goals to improve the availability, reliability and quality of financial
information on disaster funds, make it more transparent, enhance accountability and
mitigate potential risks in disaster-related transactions, led to the promulgation of
various circulars and memoranda to prescribe the accounting and reporting guidelines
on the receipt and utilization of DRRM funds.
3
COA Circular No. 2014-002 dated April 14, 2014.
4
COA Memorandum No. 2014-009 dated August 24, 2014.
21. The Financial Highlights of this report include summary of releases taken from the
Department of Budget and Management (DBM) website, and other financial data
submitted by the auditors of 109 NGAs, GOCCs and 1,661 LGUs. Details are
presented in Annex B.
22. On the other hand, the data reported in the Operational Highlights of this report was
gathered from the reports submitted by the OCD.
A. Financial Highlights
23. In order to achieve the vision of a safer, adaptive and disaster-resilient Filipino
communities toward sustainable development, RA No. 10121 established various
sources of funds (herein referred to as the DRRMF) to support and implement the
identified DRRM programs and projects, to wit:
a. A disaster fund on the national level, herein referred as National Disaster Risk
Reduction Management Fund (NDRRMF), which shall be used for disaster risk
reduction or mitigation, prevention and preparedness activities. It can also be
utilized for relief, recovery and reconstruction efforts that address the impact of
calamities that occurred during the budget year or disasters that happened two
years prior to the budget year5;
c. All departments, bureaus, offices and agencies of the government are also
authorized to use a portion of their appropriations to implement projects designed
to address DRRM activities in accordance with the guidelines issued by the
NDRRMC and DBM7;
d. LGUs are likewise mandated to fund its DRRM activities from the following
sources (herein referred as LDRRMF):
5
Section 22(a) of RA No. 10121.
6
Section 22(c) of RA No. 10121.
7
Section 22(e) of RA No. 10121.
● Fund transferred from the NDRRMF upon the approval of the President; and
e. All agencies are also allowed to receive financial aids or donations, both in cash
and in kind, from local and foreign sources.
24. The NDRRMF appropriated during the year is composed of the following:
a. Appropriations under Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 General Appropriations Act8 (GAA)
amounting to ₱20 billion for the following programs:
25. Out of the total appropriated NDRRMF totaling ₱20.7 billion, DBM released
₱17.893 billion during the year.
26. QRF appropriations totaling ₱6.35 billion were fully released to eight core agencies,
namely: Department of Agriculture (DA), Department of Education (DepEd),
Department of Health (DOH), Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH),
Department of Social Welfare Development (DSWD), Bureau of Fire (BFP),
Philippine National Police (PNP) and OCD.
27. Moreover, various NGAs and GOCCs reported allocation totaling ₱658.182 million
from their regular budget to implement various DRRM projects and programs.
28. Meanwhile, 1,517 LGUs allocated an aggregate amount of ₱43.789 billion for its
LDRRMF for CY 2022.
29. Various cash donations totaling ₱3.354 billion were also reported during the year.
8
RA No. 11639.
9
RA No. 11518.
31. Out of the funds available for the year, ₱72.778 billion was utilized/ transferred to
other agencies, while the amount of ₱11.546 million was reverted to the Bureau of
Treasury (BTr), leaving a balance of ₱65.603 billion as of report date. Summary of
fund receipts, utilizations and balances are presented in Table 1.
Table 1: Summary of Receipts, Utilizations and Balances of DRRMF
(in thousand Philippine pesos)
NDRRMF (A.1) Agencies’
Particulars QRF Regular LDRRMF Donations Grand
NDRRMP MRRRP CARED10 Total (A.2) Budget (A.4) (A.5) Total
(A.3)
Balance, Jan. 1 6,382,106 5,540,030 1,734,921 13,657,057 5,554,579 - 32,371,526 4,620,367 56,203,529
NGAs 5,193,366 1,875,439 505,619 7,574,424 5,554,579 - - 295,358 13,424,361
GOCCs 1,188,740 3,664,591 1,229,302 6,082,633 - - - - 6,082,633
LGUs - - - 32,371,526 4,325,009 36,696,535
Add:
(978,744) 3,228,614 417,673 2,667,543 (4,285,406) 9,933,273 1,483,552 345,422 10,144,384
Adjustments:
NGAs (2,365,320) (341,437) (87,189) (2,793,946) (4,285,406) 9,866,292 - (99,561) 2,687,379
GOCCs 1,386,576 3,570,051 504,862 5,461,489 - 66,981 - 1,312 5,529,782
LGUs - 1,483,552 443,671 1,927,223
Adj. Balance 5,403,362 8,768,644 2,152,594 16,324,600 1,269,173 9,933,273 33,855,078 4,965,789 66,347,913
NGAs 2,828,046 1,534,002 418,430 4,780,478 1,269,173 9,866,292 - 195,797 16,111,740
GOCCs 2,575,316 7,234,642 1,734,164 11,544,122 66,981 - 1,312 11,612,415
LGUs - - - - 33,855,078 4,768,680 38,623,758
Add: Receipts
17,087,273 805,789 - 17,893,062 6,350,000 658,182 43,789,356 3,353,591 72,044,191
during the year
NGAs 15,393,962 586,009 - 15,979,971 6,350,000 616,030 - 40,500 22,986,501
GOCCs 1,693,311 219,780 - 1,913,091 42,152 - 6,601 1,961,844
LGUs - - - - 43,789,356 3,306,490 47,095,846
Total Funds
22,490,635 9,574,433 2,152,594 34,217,662 7,619,173 10,591,455 77,644,434 8,319,380 138,392,104
Available
Less:
Utilization
14,169,666 6,482,483 1,090,137 21,742,286 6,773,394 5,967,383 34,474,764 3,819,993 72,777,820
during the
Year
NGAs 12,875,686 1,907,451 397,396 15,180,533 6,773,394 5,937,937 - 101,767 27,993,631
GOCCs 1,293,980 4,575,032 692,741 6,561,753 29,446 - 417 6,591,616
LGUs - - - - - - 34,474,764 3,717,809 38,192,573
Less: Reversion
6,506 341 - 6,847 4,699 - - - 11,546
to BTr
NGAs 6,506 341 6,847 4,699 - - - 11,546
Balance, Dec.
8,314,463 3,091,609 1,062,457 12,468,529 841,080 4,624,072 43,169,670 4,499,387 65,602,738
31
NGAs 5,339,816 212,219 21,034 5,573,069 841,080 4,544,385 - 134,530 11,093,064
GOCCs 2,974,647 2,879,390 1,041,423 6,895,460 - 79,687 - 7,496 6,982,643
LGUs - - - - - - 43,169,670 4,357,361 47,527,031
10
Comprehensive Aid to Repair Earthquake Damage (CARED) For Region XI (Davao Region) and Region
XII (SOCCSKSARGEN).
32. As shown in Table 1, various NGAs and GOCCs still have prior years’ unutilized
funds totaling ₱16.325 billion, which is still available for use during the year. DBM
also released allotments for the NDRRMF for CY 2022 totaling to ₱17.893 billion to
20 NGAs and seven GOCCs. As such, a total fund of ₱34.218 billion is made
available for use.
33. Out of the total allotments released by DBM to various NGAs and GOCCs, DPWH
received the highest amount of ₱5.121 billion, followed by the DSWD with total
allotment of ₱4.230 billion, DA with ₱3 billion and DepEd with total allotment of ₱2
billion. Graphical representation is shown in Figure 1.
DA DEPED
2B NHA, 1.307 B
3B
34. Shown in Table 2 are the detailed receipts and funds available to various recipient
agencies for CY 2022.
35. Out of the total funds available for the year totaling ₱34.218 billion, the NDRRMF
reported a total utilization of ₱21.742 billion, which includes disbursements totaling
₱20.269 billion and fund transferred to other agencies totaling ₱1.473 billion. while
the amount of ₱6.847 million was reverted to the BTr, leaving a balance of ₱12.469
billion at year-end. Details are shown in Table 3.
Table 3: Utilization of NDRRMF
(in thousand Philippine pesos)
Utilizations
Program Total Funds Fund Reverted Balance,
Available Disbursement Transferred to Total to the BTr Dec. 31
Other Agencies
NDRRMP 22,490,635 13,747,139 422,527 14,169,666 6,506 8,314,463
MRRRP 9,574,433 5,431,573 1,050,910 6,482,483 341 3,091,609
CARED 2,152,594 1,090,137 - 1,090,137 - 1,062,457
Total 34,217,662 20,268,849 1,473,437 21,742,286 6,847 12,468,529
36. Out of the 20 NGAs and seven GOCCs, two agencies have already exhausted their
funds as of year-end, while 19 agencies reported a utilization rate ranging from 0.73
to 99.90 percent. On the other hand, no utilizations have been reported by six
agencies. Details are shown in Table 4.
Table 4: Utilization of NDRRMF per Agency
(in thousand Philippine pesos)
Total Utilizations Utilization
Agency Reverted Balance,
Funds Rate
NDRRMP MRRRP CARED Total to the BTr Dec. 31
Available
NGAs
1. BTR 883,460 - 883,460 - 883,460 - - 100.00
2. PNP 25,174 25,174 - - 25,174 - - 100.00
3. BFP 3,896 - 3,892 - 3,892 4 - 99.90
4. DTI 67,038 - 66,924 - 66,924 - 114 99.83
5. DOTR 170,500 500 167,450 - 167,950 - 2,550 98.50
6. EMB 38,172 - 37,375 - 37,375 - 797 97.91
7. BJMP 8,376 - 8,039 - 8,039 337 - 95.98
8. DOH 338,000 - 293,600 - 293,600 - 44,400 86.86
9. OCD 1,042,634 869,321 - - 869,321 7 173,306 83.38
37. At the beginning of the year, seven out of eight core agencies still have unutilized
QRF amounting to ₱1.269 billion This amount, along with the QRF released during
the year totaling ₱6.350 billion, comprise the total available funds of ₱7.619 billion.
38. Out of the total available funds, these agencies utilized a total amount of ₱6.773
billion or 88.90 percent, while the amount of ₱4.699 million was reverted to the BTr,
leaving a balance of ₱841.080 million at year-end. The summary of receipts,
utilizations and balances per agency is presented in Table 5.
A.3. Summary of Receipts and Utilization of funds from Agencies’ Regular Budget
39. Twelve agencies reported that they have allocated a portion of their regular budget
for the implementation of various DRRM programs and projects for CY 2022 totaling
40. Out of the total available funds, these agencies utilized a total amount of ₱5.967
billion or 56.29 percent, leaving a balance of ₱4.624 billion at year-end. The
summary of receipts, utilizations and balances per agency is presented in Table 6.
Table 6: Receipts, Utilizations and Balances of Allocated Funds from Agencies’ Regular Budget
(in thousand Philippine Pesos)
Utilization
Adjusted Allocation Utilization
Agency Total Funds Fund Balance,
Balance, during the Rate
Available Disbursement Transfer to Total Dec. 31
Jan. 1 Year
IAs
NGAs
1. DBM - 102 102 102 - 102 - 100.00
2. PN - 681 681 681 - 681 - 100.00
3. OCD 27,281 615,247 642,528 596,374 5,458 601,832 40,696 92.82
4. DPWH 9,839,011 - 9,839,011 5,335,322 - 5,335,322 4,503,689 54.23
Subtotal 9,866,292 616,030 10,482,322 5,932,479 5,458 5,937,937 4,544,385 56.60
GOCCs
1. LBP - 227 227 178 - 178 49 78.41
2. PICCI - 95 95 55 - 55 40 57.89
3. PHIC 4,981 25,642 30,623 16,730 - 16,730 13,893 54.63
4. DBPLC - 300 300 96 - 96 204 32.00
5. PCA - 4,399 4,399 1,164 - 1,164 3,235 26.46
6. DBP 62,000 - 62,000 10,606 - 10,606 51,394 17.11
7. LBP-LFC - 11,289 11,289 617 - 617 10,672 5.47
8. CIC - 200 200 - - - 200 -
Subtotal 66,981 42,152 109,133 29,446 - 29,446 79,687 26.98
Total 9,933,273 658,182 10,591,455 5,961,925 5,458 5,967,383 4,624,072 56.29
41. A total of 1,517 LGUs allocated a total amount ₱43.790 billion for its LDRRMF for
CY 2022. This amount, along with the unexpended balances in the preceding years
totaling ₱33.854 billion, comprise the total available funds for the implementation of
various LDRRM programs and projects totaling ₱77.644 billion.
42. The LGUs reported a total utilization of ₱34.474 billion or 49.37 percent, leaving a
balance of ₱43.170 billion at year-end. The summary of receipts, utilizations and
balances per region is presented in Table 7, while details per LGU were presented in
Annex C.
A.5. Summary of Receipts, Utilization and Balances of Donations from all Sources
43. Three NGAs, one GOCC and 552 LGUs reported a total cash donation of ₱8.319
billion available for use during the year, which is composed of the prior years’
unutilized balance and amount received during the year totaling ₱4.966 billion and
₱3.353 billion, respectively. The total utilization reported during the year was ₱3.82
billion, leaving a balance of ₱4.499 billion at year-end. Details are shown in Table 8.
Table 8: Cash Donations Received and Utilized
(in thousand Philippine Pesos)
Agency/ Region Adj. Balance, Total Funds Balance,
Receipts Utilization
Jan. 1 Available Dec. 31
NGAs
DepEd 13,601 1,832 15,433 12,929 2,504
DSWD 124,558 - 124,558 3,641 120,917
OCD 57,638 38,668 96,306 85,197 11,109
Subtotal 195,797 40,500 236,297 101,767 134,530
GOCCs
PEZA 1,312 6,601 7,913 417 7,496
Subtotal 1,312 6,601 7,913 417 7,496
LGUs
NCR (6) 6,589 5,060 11,649 5,074 6,575
CAR (33) 60,037 72,114 132,151 94,633 37,518
Region I (36) 142,460 131,101 273,561 127,692 145,869
Region II (24) 46,925 364,480 411,405 27,990 383,415
Region III (15) 412,203 125,888 538,091 296,731 241,360
Region IV-A (104) 936,427 275,281 1,211,708 695,920 515,788
Region IV-B (39) 549,731 146,371 696,102 263,291 432,811
Region V (55) 478,733 388,646 867,379 441,713 425,666
Region VI (57) 610,676 295,916 906,592 362,113 544,479
Region VII (41) 256,227 552,685 808,912 492,015 316,897
Region VIII (44) 263,861 381,774 645,635 434,938 210,697
Region IX (8) 160,650 62,966 223,616 68,131 155,485
Region X (19) 194,254 37,784 232,038 65,958 166,080
Region XI (24) 438,030 87,540 525,570 167,818 357,752
Region XII (15) 143,030 99,116 242,146 41,906 200,240
Region XIII (20) 65,765 247,869 313,634 126,307 187,327
BARMM (12) 3,082 31,899 34,981 5,579 29,402
Subtotal (552) 4,768,680 3,306,490 8,075,170 3,717,809 4,357,361
Grand Total 4,965,789 3,353,591 8,319,380 3,819,993 4,499,387
44. Two NGAs reported various unutilized/ undistributed in-kind donations received in
previous years totaling ₱15.374 million, along with donated relief goods and other
non-food items received during the year totaling ₱19.066 million. Of this amount,
relief goods totaling ₱21.767 million were issued to various beneficiaries, leaving a
balance of ₱12.673 million at year-end. Details are presented in Table 9.
46. Moreover, four NGAs also reported various relief goods and PPEs received and
utilized during the year, however, the amounts of the in-kind donations were not
specified. Details are presented in Table 11.
47. In order to realize the vision for a safer, adaptive and resilient Filipino communities,
the need to properly equip the different member agencies are recognized through
acquisition of various equipment and other relief items during the year. Details are
shown in Table 12.
Table 12: Equipment and Relief Items Acquired out of DRRM Funds
Agency from GAA Cash Donations Total
NGAs
BFP ₱ 10,702,448.00 - ₱ 10,702,448.00
DA 88,591,555.00 - 88,591,555.00
DepEd 1,665,987.24 - 1,665,987.24
DOH 49,758,319.42 - 49,758,319.42
DOT 748,262.00 - 748,262.00
DSWD 947,823,714.65 - 947,823,714.65
OCD 133,244,016.48 ₱ 2,233,000.00 135,477,016.48
PAF 350,971.00 - 350,971.00
PCG 59,710.00 - 59,710.00
PN 431,860.00 - 431,860.00
PNP 96,381,152.99 - 96,381,152.99
Subtotal 1,329,757,996.78 2,233,000.00 1,331,990,996.78
GOCCs
DBPLC 95,788.00 - 95,788.00
GSIS 662,384.41 - 662,384.41
Subtotal 785,172.41 - 758,172.41
Grand Total ₱ 1,330,108,967.78 ₱ 2,233,000.00 ₱ 1,332,749,169.19
48. To implement RA No. 10121, the DRRM Framework was developed and approved
on June 16, 2011 to provide a comprehensive, all-hazards, multi-sectoral, inter-
agency and community-based approach to DRRM. Thereafter, OCD led the
development of the National DRRM Plan (NDRRMP) 2011-2028.
49. The NDRRMP serves as a roadmap towards the realization of DRRM and sets out
goals and specific objectives for reducing disaster risks together with related actions
to accomplish these objectives.
50. To ensure its relevance and responsiveness to the evolving risks the country faces,
RA No. 10121 mandated the conduct of reviews to assess the progress on DRRM
Framework and NDRRMP.
51. As prescribed under the law, a Sunset Review was conducted to provide a systematic
evaluation of the accomplishments and impact of the Act as well as the performance
and organizational structure of its implementing agencies.
52. Relative thereto, the updated NDRRMP 2020-2030 was developed and duly
approved by the Council to help the country move towards its vision of resilience, as
stated in its framework
53. The updated NDRRMP, consisting of 23 outcomes, 50 outputs and 206 activities, is
guided by various considerations, including but not limited to the following:
a. The four thematic areas were retained, but the outcomes, outputs, and activities,
were revised based on the learnings from the past eight years of implementation;
b. The four thematic areas are still to be steered by the four vice chairpersons of the
NDRRMC;
c. The updated timeline is attuned with the national development planning cycles
and the NDRRMP will use a common timeline for all the activities;
d. Risk reduction strategies and plans, across different timescales and landscapes,
with targets, indicators, and time frames, aimed at preventing the creation of risk,
the reduction of existing risk and the strengthening of economic, social, health,
and environmental resilience were adopted; and
e. The need to invest in the health of all Filipinos as demonstrated by the COVID-
19 pandemic was considered. This is done by prioritizing health and wealth-being
in DRRM actions.
55. The reported accomplishments of various member-agencies for the four thematic
areas are as follows:
OBJECTIVES:
⮚ Improve access, understanding, and use of updated risk information, DRR-related
statistics, and research;
⮚ Apply integrated risk management assessment tools;
⮚ Implement risk-centered national, sub-national and sectoral policies, plans and budgets;
⮚ Institutionalize timely, responsive, context- and culture-specific early warning systems;
⮚ Access to effective, responsive and inclusive risk financing and insurance mechanisms.
⮚ Improve and protect ecosystem integrity;
⮚ Build resilience of livelihoods and businesses; and
⮚ Disaster-resilient human settlements
LCCET
• The CCET helpdesk received a total of 113
AIP-CCET submissions, these include 20
cities, 82 Municipalities and 10 Provinces.
Also, CCC published the Local Climate
Investment Brief (LCIB) for FY 2016-
2020. The report showed that LGUs have
identified ₱250.8 billion for adaptation and
₱29.5 billion for mitigation.
OBJECTIVES:
⮚ Increase the level of awareness and understanding of governments and communities of
hazards, exposure, and vulnerabilities;
⮚ Equip governments, institutions, communities, families, and individuals with the necessary
skills to respond and cope with the adverse impacts of disasters;
⮚ Increase the capacity of institutions for risk governance to avert loss of lives and assets;
⮚ Strengthen partnership among all key actors and stakeholders; and
⮚ Develop and implement comprehensive and mutually-reinforcing national and local disaster
preparedness and response plans and systems.
OBJECTIVES:
⮚ To activate emergency operations center equipped with response workforce and volunteers;
⮚ To activate risk and forecast-based financing to forecasted affected communities
⮚ To evacuate safely, preemptively and immediately the affected communities and ensure their
safety
⮚ To ensure the timely, effective and well-coordinated response action and humanitarian
logistics among cluster members and other actors;
⮚ To ensure adequate, prompt and well-coordinated assessment of needs and damages; and
⮚ To immediately and temporarily restore basic needs.
OBJECTIVES:
⮚ Assess damages, losses, and needs during disasters as basis for the formulation of
rehabilitation and recovery program; and
⮚ Develop short- and medium-term rehabilitation and recovery plans, aligned with or
contributing to the national medium- and long-term national, regional, or local development
plans
OUTCOME 18: Clear policy directions for rehabilitation and recovery
Lead Agency: NEDA
Implementing Partners: OCD, DOLE, DOF, DSWD, DPWH, DA, DILG, DHSUD,
DENR-MGB, DOST-PHIVOLCS, DOH, DICT, DOTr,
DepEd, DOE, DTI, DBM, PCW, NAPC-VDC, OPAPP,
ULAP, LPP, LMP, LCP, LMB, CSOs, PRC, Private Sector,
LGUs, DRRMCs
53. As part of the OCD’s mandate to capacitate the LGUs particularly the provinces,
cities, and municipalities in DRRM, the Office established the Gawad Kalasag (GK)
Search for Excellence in Disaster Risk Reduction and Management and
Humanitarian 0Assistance which served as the country’s recognition and awards
scheme for various stakeholders who promote and implement disaster risk reduction
and management, climate change adaptation (DRRM-CCA), and humanitarian
assistance programs that protect and shield high-risk communities against extreme
hazards and render them more capable of addressing their vulnerabilities.
55. With the assessment, the NDRRMC and LGUs can properly determine the challenges
and gaps in their LDRRM Plan implementation processes, thus helpful in identifying
the activities to address DRRM-CCA needs and priorities of LDRRM officers and
staff as well as LDRRMC members.
56. The LGUs conducted a self-assessment using the LDRRMCO Assessment Toolkit.
The toolkit provided a set of assessments that allowed the local government units to
assess their disaster resilience, aligning it with the mandates of the LDRRMCO under
Republic Act 10121, the Seal of Good Local Governance-Disaster Preparedness
Area, and the Gawad KALASAG indicators.
57. Accordingly, the OCD Regional Offices (ROs) conducted field and remote validation
vis-a-vis the submitted Means of Verification (MoV) by the LGUs in consonance
with NDRRMC Memorandum Circular No. 02, s. 2023 or the Guidelines for CY
2022 Gawad KALASAG Seal and Special Awards for Excellence in Disaster Risk
Reduction and Management and Humanitarian Assistance.
58. The following are the major indicators of the LDRRMCO Assessment Toolkit:
60. Out of 1,279 LGUs who have submitted their self-assessment toolkit, most LGUs or
675 (52.8%) did not comply with the provisions of Sec 11 and 12 of RA 10121. Of
which, 501 LGUs (39.2%) were partially compliant and 174 (13.6%) LGUs were
61. The detailed results of the assessment made are presented below:
I. STRUCTURE
A. Establish and Functional LDRRMC
Indicators Accomplishments
Establishment of LDRRMC A total of 851 (66.5%) LGUs have established their
LDRRMC through a Sanggunian Ordinance, Resolution,
or Executive Order that is compliant with the composition
of council members 16 mandatory members with at least
four accredited CSO and at least one private sector. Out of
the 851 compliant LGUs, 612 (47.8%) exceeded the
composition of members as required in RA 10121.
Meanwhile, 359 (28.1%) did not meet the required
composition of members and 69 (5.4%) were not able to
establish their council.
Convene the LDRRMC quarterly or A total of 282 (22%) LGUs have conducted more than the
as necessary one regular meeting every quarter, while 509 (39.8%)
LGUs have convened one regular meeting every quarter,
with minutes of meetings and attendance sheets. While
305 (23.8%) LGUs have conducted less than the four
council meetings (one meeting quarterly) and 183 (14.3%)
LGUs have no documented council meetings.
B. Creation of LDRRMO
Secretariat and Executive Arm of A total of 613 (47.8%) LGUs were able to provide
LDRRMC secretariat support to the LDRRMC and organize regular
conduct of LDRRMC meetings within the last three years.
Of which, 349 (27.2%) maintained a database or record of
all relevant issuances such as guidelines, protocols, and
proceedings of the LDRRMC and had minutes of the
meeting. While 423 (33.1%) LGUs only provide support
as LDRRMC secretariat and 243 (19%) LGUs show no
provision of support to the LDRRMC.
Creation of LDRRMC Office, and A total of 644 (50.3%) LGUs have created their LDRRM
LDRRMO Staffing Office and its Personnel Complement, whereby there is a
presence of the Sanggunian Ordinance or Resolution or
Executive Order creating the LDRRM Office, and a
separate office facility/space, as well as a designated or
Local DRRM Officer Most LGUS were able comply in this criterion, with 820
(64.1%) LGUs in terms of existence of a Local DRRM
officer, showing that they met the minimum required
classification, such as (a) permanent LDRRM Officer
occupying the plantilla position, performing the functions
of the position, with SG level prescribed by the
NDRRMC-DILG DBM-CSC JMC 2014-1; (b)
educational attainment and eligibility; (c) completion of
necessary DRRM-related training. LDRRMC Officer is
operationally defined as the head or the highest-ranking
official in the LDRRM office. Meanwhile, 174 (13.6%)
LGUs were found to have not met the qualifications of the
LDRRM Officer.
Take all necessary steps on a A total of 1,144 (89.4%) LGUs take all necessary steps
continuing basis to maintain, continuously to maintain, provide or arrange the provision
Provide, or arrange the provisions of, of or to otherwise have an available suitably trained, and
or to otherwise make available, competent personnel for effective civil defense disaster
suitably-trained and competent risk reduction and management in its area. This indicates
personnel for effective civil defense that LGUs have availability of response equipment/assets
and disaster risk reduction and for the top two hazards in the locality as well as organized
management in its area. ERTs are provided, training on ERRs and LDRRMCO/C
personnel or SRR and basic ICS. Of which, 339 (26.5%)
LGUs were able to provide insurance to their LDRRMO/C
personnel, while 135 (10.6%) LGUs had no personnel to
perform the Civil Defense and DRRM functions.
II. COMPETENCY
A. Capacitated on Disaster Prevention and Mitigation
Indicators Accomplishments
Risk Assessment
Facilitation and Support to Risk The Facilitation and Support to Risk Assessment, shows
Assessment that 718 (56.1%) LGUs were able to conduct risk
Maintenance of Local Risk Maps A total of 694 (54.3%) LGUs have updated their hazard
maps and local risk maps. Of which, 432 (33.8%) have
developed their digitized local risk maps. However, 438
(34.2%) LGUs have their hazard and local risk maps but
are not updated, while 147 (11.5%) were not able to
develop their hazard maps.
Consolidation of Local Disaster A total of 921 (71.1%) LGUs had their database of critical
Risk Information. infrastructure with resource/evacuation/capacity/
inventory maps. Of which, only 171 (13.4%) had a
complete, disaggregated, and regular inventory of vital
resources needed during an emergency. While, 358 (28%)
LGUs have not established their database.
Presence of BDRRM Plan A total of 543 (42.5%) LGUs have 100% of their
subordinate LGUs approved C/M/BDRRMPs. While a
total of 291 (22.7%) LGUs have at least 50% of their lower
LGUs with approved C/M/BDRRMPs, and 445 (34.8%)
LGUs have less than 50% in their lower LGUs that have
approved DRRM plans.
Presence of LCCAP A total of 798 (62.4%) LGUs have their LCCAPs, which
is approved by their LDCs and adopted by their respective
Sanggunians. Of which, 444 (34.7%) LGUs integrated
their LCCAP in the CLUP and CDP, while 354 (27.7%)
only had their draft LCCAP and 267 (20.9%) LGUs had
no LCCAP.
Presence of contingency plans A total of 619 (48.4%) LGUs have their contingency plans
for at least top two hazards that were formulated/updated,
approved by the LDRRMC, and is adopted by the
Sanggunian. Of which, only 201 (15.7%) updated their
Monitor and evaluate the A total of 347 (27.1%) LGUs have an approved Local
implementation of the LDRRMP’s DRRM Plan and Monitoring and Evaluation Report. Of
and regularly review and test the which, only143 (11.2%) conducted their evaluation every
plan consistent with ither national quarter and semester. While, 335 (52%) LGUs only have
and local planning program their approved LDRRMP and 267 (20.9%) have no
LDRRMP at all.
Capacity-Building
Organization and conduct of A total of 483 (37.8%) LGUs have no DRRM-related
training, orientation and knowledge training, orientation, and knowledge management
management activities on DRRM at activities conducted. While, 410 (32.1%) LGUs have
the local level conducted less than five DRRM-related activities such as
seminars, briefings, orientation and other knowledge
management activities. Moreover, 386 (30.1%) LGUs
have organized and conducted training, orientation, and
knowledge management activities on DRRM based on the
risk identified in their LGU within the last three years.
Notably, only 206 (16.1%) LGUs have conducted at least
five DRR-related training or workshops and have
developed pool/s of trainers.
Operations
Response to and management of A total of 407 (31.8%) LGUS only have a presence of
adverse effects of organized emergency response teams, systems,
emergencies/disasters procedures, and protocols, while 350 (27.4%) LGUs have
established and organized emergency response teams,
systems, procedures, protocols, and organized timely and
effective GAD responsive and PWD inclusive responsive
operations during normal and alert conditions.
Accordingly, 231 (18.1%) LGUs were able to document
their timely reporting to appropriate (OCD, DILG, or
higher LGUs) in addition to having established and
organized gender and PWD-inclusive response systems.
Further, 291 (22.8%) LGUs have not organized emergency
response teams, systems, procedures, and protocols.
Participation on other external A total of 433 (33.9%) LGUs have conducted five or more
activities set by higher DRRM identified activities attended within a year, i.e. Nationwide
Councils Simultaneous Earthquake Drill, National Disaster
Resilience Month related activities, Gawad KALASAG,
DRRM related training, DRRM related seminars or
forums, and other DRRM-related activities conducted by
higher DRRM councils or other stakeholders.
Accordingly, 229 (17.9%) LGUs managed more than three
but less than five identified activities, and 317 (24.8%)
LGUs had less than three activities attended within the
year of assessment. While, 300 (23.5%) LGUs did not
participate in the activities set by the higher DRRM
Councils.
62. The slow implementation of various DRRM projects defeats the purpose of
RA No. 10121 or the Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act
of 2010 which intends to lessen the impact of disaster and facilitate the
resumption of normal social and economic activities.
62.1. Section 3 of RA No. 10121 provides that it is the policy of the State to
uphold the people’s constitutional right to life and property by addressing
the root causes of vulnerabilities to disasters, strengthening the country’s
institutional capacity for disaster risk reduction and management, and
building the resilience of local communities to disasters, including climate
change impacts.
62.3. The very slow implementation of DRRM projects resulted to delays in the
completion of said projects and defeat the purpose of allocating government
funds to provide an immediate response to the needs of the intended
beneficiaries. Further, it is not consistent with the policy of the State to
lessen the impact of calamity and help the communities affected by the
Agency Recommendations
1. NHA On Uncompleted HUs:
2. LWUA Direct the Engineering Service (ES) and Water and Sanitation
Utilities Development Department (WSUDD) to make proper
coordination to address the following:
4. PCG Utilize the allotments for NDRRM to avoid reversion of the budget.
63. The limited utilization of the allocated annual budget of PhilHealth for the
Disaster and Emergency Preparedness Program (DEPP) during CYs 2021 to
2022, primarily resulting from delayed procurement of supplies, equipment,
and other necessary expenses, significantly undermines the Corporation's
disaster resilience and response capabilities, which is contrary to the
provisions of RA No. 10121.
63.4. Moreover, comparison of the appropriations and utilizations for the past two
years shows that despite the decrease in the CY 2022 appropriations, which
were considerably lower than the previous year, the utilization rate for CY
2022 is even lower than that of CY 2021.
63.5. While the procurement and execution of the procurement are scheduled by
the end of the first semester of each respective year, the planned
procurement did not materialize as scheduled, resulting in limited or
nominal utilization.
63.6. The procurement activities and budget monitoring are conducted by the
Office of the SVP-MSS, who also chairs the CDCC. However, given the
rigorous nature of the procurement process, the load of duties and
responsibilities directed to the Committee and the Secretariat, in addition to
their individual duties in their respective offices, suggest that the
procurement activities should not be exclusively managed by the SVP-
MSS’s office.
63.7. The delayed or incomplete procurement activities under the DEPP, beyond
the set timelines, run counter to the provisions of RA No. 10121. It is
essential to emphasize that these laws and regulations are designed to
effectively anticipate and mitigate, if not totally eliminate, the hazards of
natural disasters, which have the potential to cause significant and
devastating consequences.
11
Subject: Adopting the PhilHealth Disaster and Emergency Preparedness Management Plan (PDEPMP) and
Reconstitution of the Corporate and Regional Disaster Coordinating Committees (CDCC) and Defining Their
Functions (Revision 1).
12
Subject: Composition of the Secretariat for the CDCC (Revision 2).
64. The unexpended/unutilized funds totaling ₱62.307 million were not returned
to the National Treasury despite completion of the project or lapse of the
validity to use the fund, contrary to Section 9 of the NDRRMC Memorandum
Circular (MC) No. 110, series of 2021, and deprived the NG of additional fund
to finance other priority projects.
64.1. NDRRMC MC No. 110, series of 2021, on the revised guidelines on the
administration of the DRRM Fund, prescribes that:
64.3. Non-remittance of these unutilized funds to the BTr deprived the NG of the
much-needed funds it could allocate further for the implementation of other
priority programs and projects.
65. The food packs distributed by DSWD Field Office (FO) IX to the victims of
disaster included canned goods that were not “Halal” certified, packs that
were lacking in food composition and rice that were of low-grade quality and
with lots of broken grains contrary to DSWD Administrative Order (AO) No.
02, series of 2021.
65.1. Section 6 (B.a.ii) of DSWD AO No. 02, series of 2021 mentions that
components of packs to be provided to affected families must be culturally
acceptable to beneficiaries. All food components must be “Halal” certified.
65.3. Random inspection of the food packs showed that the box did not contain
the 250g of fortified margarine, 10 sachets of multi-nutrient growth mix and
lacks two sachets of 22-gram instant choco malt, contrary to the
aforementioned guidelines. Also, the product of the four canned tuna flakes
of 155 gram composing the relief supplies were not labeled as certified
“Halal” and the six kilos of rice appeared to be of poor quality, with lots of
broken kernels, aged in appearance and dull in color. Compared to the rice
vacuum sealed in plastic from DSWD CO in which the rice grain is whole,
white and polished.
65.4. It was also noted that there were no markings outside the food pack boxes
listing down the composition of the goods, as a way for the clients to check
the completeness of the food packs they received.
65.5. Comparison of the canned tuna flakes in vegetable oil contained in the box
packed by FO IX with the canned tuna flakes in vegetable oil from DSWD
CO, showed that the two canned goods have the same brand name, the color
and design of the labels are nearly alike but the details and information
found on their labels differ, giving the impression that one of the products
was an imitation of the other.
65.7. The Auditors recommended that the Management instruct the DRRM
Head in FO IX to direct the DRRM Officer to make sure that the:
(a) face of the food pack box contains the list of the goods being
distributed to clients; (b) products for distribution to disaster victims
are “Halal” certified, the rice is of good quality and fit for human
consumption; and (c) composition of the food pack is complete
pursuant to DSWD AO No. 02, series of 2021.
66. The utilization and distribution of Non-Food Items (NFIs) in OCD Regional
Office (RO) No. 8 amounting to ₱65,873,747.50 were not in accordance with
OCD Memorandum No. 572 s. 2021.
66.1. OCD Memorandum No. 572, dated August 24, 2021 provides for the
guidelines on the utilization and distribution of Non-Food Items (NFIs).
Among which are the following:
a. NFIs shall be intended to augment the resources of: (a) LGUs that are
affected or projected to be affected by disasters or emergencies; and
(b) NDRRMC Response Cluster member-agencies in line with their
mandate to provide assistance to victims of disasters.
c. OCDRO shall require the receiving LGU to submit, within seven days,
the official report on the relief distribution with photos and a
distribution list duly signed by the beneficiaries. Said report should be
submitted to the CO for information.
66.2. During the year, RO No. 8 distributed a total of 472,490 units of NFIs, such
as family packs, hygiene kits, blankets, bottled waters, sakoline, solar lights,
etc., with a total cost of ₱65,873,747.50. However, the following
deficiencies were observed:
b. All NFI recipients did not submit the official report on the relief
distribution with photos and distribution list, within seven days.
66.3. These deficiencies were not in accordance with OCD Memorandum No.
572, which aims to ensure the proper, efficient, and effective utilization and
distribution of the NFIs.
67. Various inventories held for distribution in OCD totaling ₱37.104 million
remained undistributed and non-moving in the books of accounts from two to
eight years; thereby, exposing these assets to possible loss, wastage and/or
misappropriation.
67.1. Section IV.C.8 of COA Circular No. 2014-002 provides that donated relief
goods shall be sorted, inventoried/counted and recorded upon receipt and
before repacking. The distribution of these items shall be made
immediately, especially the perishable goods/items.
67.2. Various inventories held for distribution, such as sleeping kits, medical
supplies, portable water filtration system, tents, generator sets, portalet,
water pumps and the like, totaling ₱37.104 million remained undistributed
and has been non-moving in the books of accounts for two to eight years
67.3. In 2020, the Office entered into the emergency procurement of 2,000 sets
of sleeping kits and 12,000 sets of admission kits with a total contract price
of ₱20.247 million, which was intended to be distributed to various
quarantine facilities during the surge of COVID-19 pandemic. However,
various items such as pillows and pillow cases, bedsheets and blankets
totaling ₱12.091 million remained undistributed as of report date.
67.5. The Management needs to identify the purpose or intention for these items.
If these properties were intended to be kept by the Office to be used or lent
during disaster, it should be reclassified to appropriate PPE or inventory
accounts. If the intention was indeed to be distributed to victims of
calamities, it should be distributed accordingly as soon as the need arises to
avoid possible loss, wastage and/or misappropriation of assets.
67.6. The Auditors recommended that the Management direct the Chief,
Supply Section and concerned offices to cause the immediate issuance
of the inventories for distribution to intended beneficiaries.
68. The DSWD NCR’s storage facility is not well-maintained and in a state of
disrepair making it unfit to accommodate relief goods for emergency
situations, which is not in accordance with the standards set in FO NCR RMO
No. 009, series of 2018. This likewise poses risks for theft, vandalism, and other
security breaches that could compromise the safety of the staff and the stored
goods for distribution to displaced population or disaster victims.
68.1. It is the declared policy of the State that all resources of the government
shall be managed, expended or utilized in accordance with laws and
regulations, and safeguarded against loss or wastage through illegal and
improper disposition, with a view to ensuring efficiency, economy and
effectiveness in the operations of the government.
68.2. The Food and NFIs are valuable commodities for internally-displaced
persons’ (IDP) survival, health and well-being, especially during
displacement where the IDPs are likely to have limited or no access to
outside resources. The prepositioning and management of NFIs, therefore,
68.3. It was observed that the storage facility used by FO NCR for the storage
and handling of food packs and NFIs such as sleeping kits, hygiene kits,
shelter kits, clothing kits and kitchen kits was not well-maintained and
requires major repairs, if not a new building. The overall condition of the
facility is subpar and does not meet the required standards for a safe and
secure storage environment. The external structure showed visible signs of
wear and tear, including broken windows, damaged roofing and missing
part of the entrance door. Its fences were made of galvanized metal only,
which could allow unauthorized entry in the storage area. The flooring,
walls and ceiling of the internal storage area were likewise deteriorated and
requires immediate action. The lighting and ventilation systems were
inadequate, further exacerbating the problems within the facility. The
comfort rooms were not well-maintained and some were used to store the
NFA rice with weevil, folded tables, whiteboards and monobloc chairs.
Such conditions of the storage facility poses safety hazard to the warehouse
staff and the stored goods.
68.4. Moreover, the warehouse staff who are responsible in the receiving and
releasing of goods and maintenance of records held office in the aisle at the
main entrance of the building. This area is not conducive for working as it
was neither properly enclosed nor sufficiently protected against intrusion
by unauthorized persons. They also informed the Audit Team that in this
area warehouse staffs repack the relief goods. The door in the main entrance
was defective, with one side missing, posing a risk of theft of the
Department’s equipment and the goods for distribution.
68.5. It was noted further that some of the food packs and family kits were stored
only in a tent outside the building. Inspection showed that there was a space
on the first floor to accommodate the food packs.
68.6. The non-maintenance of the storage facility exposes the relief goods to risks
of wastage, spoilage, contamination and loss of government funds. It also
affects the quality of service of the Department to the people needing
immediate emergency assistance. Likewise, the poor fencing of the facility
poses a risk of theft, vandalism and other security breaches that could
compromise the safety of the staff and the stored goods for distribution.
b. Head of the General Services Section to: (i) immediately repair the
storage facility, to conform with the standards to prevent further
deterioration of the relief goods on-hand and the building; and (ii)
provide an enclosed space for the warehouse staff as a good internal
control measure in safeguarding public resources; (iii) conduct
regular maintenance of the warehouse facility; and
69. The DSWD NCR piling system for relief goods was not observed in the storage
facility, contrary to Item VII of FO NCR RMO No. 009 series of 2018, thus,
posing risk of spoilage and damage to goods, which could lead to financial
losses for the government.
69.1. Item VII of FO NCR RMO No. 009, series of 2018 provides the general
policies and implementing procedures on warehouse management.
69.2. During the inspection of the warehouse, it was observed that the piling
system for relief goods was not observed. Pallet or square timber were not
used for the base of the stocks on file. Relief goods were found to be stacked
haphazardly with no clear organization or label of items.
69.3. Inspection also revealed that the goods meant for repacking were no longer
in their original boxes, making it difficult for the staff to locate and retrieve
the required items for repacking. The food packs were stacked on top of
each other with no proper labeling, which resulted in some food packs being
damaged or expired. The staff informed us that they had to transfer the
goods, especially for coffee and cereals, due to cockroaches and rats in the
building. They also disclosed that no regular pest control measures were
conducted in the facility.
69.4. The Audit Team encountered difficulty in conducting physical count of the
goods due to the disorganized piling system. Partial inspection revealed that
there were 249 expired cereals and expired hand wash liquid soap in the
camp management kit.
69.5. The lack of cleanliness and organization in the storage area increases the
risk of spoilage, damage, and loss of goods, which could result in financial
losses to the government.
70. The contract cost of three infrastructure projects implemented by NHA in the
Most Affected Areas in Marawi City, Lanao del Sur, amounting to ₱4.534
billion, includes special items such as motor vehicles, computers, and other
equipment, contrary to COA Circular No. 2012-003; thus, considered as
excessive and irregular expenditures that unnecessarily increased the project
cost by ₱11.095 million.
70.1. Paragraph 5.1 of the COA Circular No. 2012-003 dated October 29, 2012,
defines excessive expenditures as unreasonable expenses incurred at an
immoderate quantity and exorbitant price. It also includes expenses which
exceed what is usual or proper, as well as expenses which are reasonably
high and beyond just measure or amount. They also include expenses in
excess of reasonable limits.
70.2. In addition, Annex "D" of the same COA Circular enumerates the cases that
are considered “excessive” expenditures of government funds. One of them
is the inclusion in the contract of a specific infrastructure project of special
items such as motor vehicles and computers, which unnecessarily increased
project costs due to the provision of indirect costs.
70.3. The NHA entered into three contracts with a private contractor for the debris
management and construction of roads in the Most Affected Areas (MAA)
in Marawi City, Lanao del Sur. Review of the contracts and their supporting
documents disclosed that the three projects included special items such as
motor vehicles and office equipment that unnecessarily increased the
project costs by ₱11.095 million, as shown in the next page.
70.4. According to the NHA’s scope of works, the rental of a brand-new service
vehicle for the Debris Management Project was intended for the use of
government personnel supervising the project implementation for a period
of 240 calendar days. Similarly, the three brand-new service vehicles, along
with all related expenses such as fuel oil, maintenance, lubricants, as well
as the computers, gadgets, and other office equipment enumerated in the
preceding table, were provided for the entire duration of the Construction
of Roads projects, which were designated for use of NHA engineers,
supervisors, and NHA staff, and would be turned over to NHA.
70.5. Post-audit of the disbursement vouchers and review of the latest status
report of the three projects revealed that the Debris Management in Sectors
1 to 9 of MAA had been completed, while the Construction of the Primary
Road with Solar Lamps and Underground Utilities, as well as the
70.6. To stress, maintenance and other related expenses were already included in
the cost computation of the contracts. However, the Marawi Project
Management Office (MPMO) responsible for implementing the three
projects, simultaneously used the three vehicles at the same location during
the project implementation, which may have resulted in the incurrence of
expenses such as fuel costs, chauffeur salaries, and other avoidable
expenses associated with their shared usage thereof.
70.7. It was also observed that the costs of laptop, computers, printers, and smart
phone tablets are higher than the market price.
70.8. Consequently, this practice circumvents the pertinent rule on motor vehicle
acquisition by government agencies. Likewise, the inclusion of indirect
costs such as motor vehicles, computers, and other office equipment
unnecessarily increased project costs, which is disadvantageous to the
government and reduces funds available for other important programs and
projects.
71. Cash donations received by two NGAs totaling ₱30.650 million intended as
financial assistance to disaster-stricken communities remained unutilized as of
report date; thereby, defeating the very purpose of the donations and
depriving the supposed beneficiaries of the maximum benefits that they may
have derived from the financial assistance.
71.1. COA Circular No. 2014-002 dated April 15, 2014 provides that agencies
can receive cash donations from local or foreign sources to be used to
augment its resources for various DRRM projects.
b. Remit to the BTr the unutilized funds if there are no plans to use
such donated funds for the Typhoon Yolanda and Marawi victims.
72. The non-compliance of PEZA with COA Circular No. 2014-002 dated April
15, 2014 casts doubt on the completeness and regularity in the accounting and
reporting of receipt and utilization of cash and in-kind aids/donations of at
least ₱6.601 million.
72.1. COA Circular No. 2014-002 provides that cash donations shall be
acknowledged through the issuance of Official Receipts and recorded in the
books through “Trust Liabilities-DRRMF.”
72.3. The audit team received the Schedule of Donations with supporting
documents for the relief operations for Typhoon Odette and identified at
least ₱6.601 million cash donations received from different sources, and
expenses of ₱357,418.00.
72.5. However, despite the receipt of cash and in-kind donations, none of these
were recorded in the books of accounts.
72.6. As part of the PEZA’s relief operations for Typhoon Odette Victims in the
Visayas and Mindanao, with the AFP and PAF, PEZA received voluminous
calls from PEZA-registered developers / operators and business enterprises
offering to contribute relief goods.
72.8. It was gathered that the lack of time together with the cumbersome
documents required to immediately facilitate a separate account solely
dedicated for the relief funds and relentless calls from registered business
enterprises may have played a critical role to just use the inactive personal
account of the PEZA employee.
72.9. Audit noted that the documentation supporting the disbursements of the
donations received were insufficient, there was lack of coordination
between Management, Finance Group and other concerned departments;
and we noted the improper discharge of functions and mishandling of funds.
72.12. Reports on Relief Operations submitted to the Audit Team were also not
detailed enough to establish the actual amount disbursed, nor the in-kind
donations received and distributed to the intended beneficiaries.
72.13. Furthermore, the receipt and release of cash donations were not properly
monitored, as evidenced by the search for missing Cavite Economic Zone
cash donation of ₱175,630. The then DDG-FA stated that this sum was
traced to have been endorsed to the previous Director General and her
Executive Assistant.
72.14. Even the cash donation of ₱60,000 by the LSERV Corporation, as financial
aid to its employees detailed in PEZA, was not properly handled to be
enjoyed by LSERV employees. Through inquiry, we learned that the
LSERV Supervisor received on August 6, 2021 a cash donation in a sealed
brown envelope and turned over the same to the PASG Group Manager who
was also the OIC DDG-FA at that time. We also learned that the ₱60,000
donation is still in the custody of the latter at the time the AQM was issued.
72.15. After remaining in the custody of the then OIC DDG-FA for more than a
year, the sum of ₱60,000 was returned to LSERV Corporation. This was
personally picked up by LSERV's HR coordinator on September 27, 2022,
witnessed by Personnel Services Division and the LSERV supervisor.
D. Fund Transfers
73.4. The fund downloaded to these IAs were intended to alleviate the lives of
the families affected and/or restore the needed facilities in the affected
communities in the earliest possible time after the onslaught of the disasters.
However, after two to five years from the occurrence of such calamities, the
project remained uncompleted; thereby, depriving the intended users of the
much-needed benefits that could have been derived therefrom.
74. Non-submission and/or delayed submission of DOH, OCD and OVP of the
required monthly and annual reports on the receipt and utilization of the
DRRMF allocation from the GAA and/or donations received from local and/or
foreign sources to the Office of the Auditor as prescribed under Section 22(d)
of R.A 10121 and COA Circular No. 2014-002 precluded the conduct of the
timely audit and validation of the funds’ utilization.
74.1. Section V.A.1 of COA Circular No. 2014-002 dated April 15, 2014
provides:
74.2. However, DOH and OCD have not submitted the required monthly and
annual reports to their respective audit team; thereby, precluding the
conduct of the timely audit and validation of the utilization of the funds
received.
74.3. While OVP did not submit the required reports on time, with delay ranging
from four to 101 days.
75. The OCD did not submit the consolidated monthly and annual reports on the
receipt and utilization of the DRRM fund and/or donations received from local
and/or foreign sources by all NGAs, GOCCs and LGUs, contrary to Section
V.A.2 of COA Circular No. 2014-002 dated April 15, 2014.
75.2. However, OCD was not able to submit the consolidated monthly and annual
reports, contrary to the above-provision. Transparency and accountability
in the use of disaster funds are considerably important to the donors,
stakeholders and the public. Availability of information in the receipt and
utilization of NDRRMF and donations will show the whole picture on how
the funds were used.
75.3. The non-submission of the above-cited reports precluded the audit team to
compare and validate the data reported by various agency audit teams in the
presentation of the overall picture of the situation of DRRMF. The
Consolidated Report on the Audit of DRRM Funds will guide the
stakeholders to perform better in addressing disaster risk reduction
management.
75.4. The Auditors recommended that the Management instruct the Head,
DRRM Fund Management Division to prepare and submit the
required consolidated monthly and annual reports in the soonest
possible time; and make a representation to the Council on actions to
be taken to enforce the timely submission of these reports among its
member-agencies.
76. The OVP did not post the required reports in the receipt and utilization of
DRRMF in its website contrary to Section V.C of COA Circular No. 2014-002.
76.1. Section V.C of COA Circular No. 2014-002 dated April 15, 2014 states that:
76.2. However, audit noted that OVP did not post the required reports on the
receipt and utilization of DRRMF in its website contrary to the above
provision. As such, stakeholders, as well as local and foreign donors were
not properly informed on the status of the fund entrusted to these agencies.
76.3. The Auditors recommended that the Management publish the updated
information on NDRRMF in the OVP official website and ensure
regular posting of the same.
F. Allocation of LDRRMF
77. Allocation of not less than five percent of the estimated revenue from regular
sources for LDRRMF as required under Section 21 of RA No. 10121 was not
met by 15 LGUs.
77.1. Section 21 of RA No. 10121 provides that the LDRRMF amounting to not
less than five percent of the estimated revenue from regular sources shall be
set aside to support disaster risk management activities such as, but not
limited to the pre-disaster preparedness programs including training,
purchase of disaster response and rescue equipment, supplies and
medicines, for post-disaster activities, and payment of premiums on
calamity insurance.
77.2. However, audit noted that funds of 15 LGUs were not able to meet the
required allocation under Section 21 of RA No. 10121. Details are presented
in Annex D.
78. Two hundred eighteen LGUs did not optimally utilize the allotment under the
LDRRMF with low utilization rate ranging from 1.02 to 73.72 percent,
contrary to the purposes and intents of the RA No. 10121; thus, defeating the
objectives of strengthening the capacity to build disaster-resilient communities
and to enhance disaster preparedness at all levels.
78.1. Section 21 of RA No. 10121 provides that the LDRRMF shall cover the 30
percent lump-sum allocation for QRF and the seventy percent allocation for
disaster prevention and mitigation, preparedness, response, rehabilitation
and recovery (Mitigation Fund).
78.2. However, it was noted that 218 LGUs were not able to optimally utilize its
LDRRMF, with low utilization rate ranging from 1.02 to 73.72 percent.
Summary of LGUs’ utilization rate is presented in Table 17 while the details
are presented in Annex E.
Table 17: LGUs with Low Utilization Rate of LDRRMF
LDRRMF
Region
No. of LGUs* Utilization Rate
NCR 8 5.62 to 60%
CAR 11 9.74 to 66%
I 8 6.16 to 66%
II 31 12.68 to 70.15%
III 6 43.55 to 66.53%
IV-A 16 9.66 to 60.12%
IV-B 20 4.26 to 68%
V 27 10.74 to 68.35%
VI 22 4.30 to 73.72%
VII 15 1.02 to 70.41%
VIII 21 7.05 to 70.20%
IX 9 15.62 to 70%
X 4 42 to 57%
XI 5 34.13 to 60%
XII 4 6.27 to 25.26%
XIII 11 10.50 to 69.92%
Total 218 1.02 to 73.72%
* Including 40 LGUs with similar observation but percentage not specified.
78.3. The low utilization of the LDRRMF defeated the objectives of RA No.
10121 on strengthening the capacity to build disaster-resilient communities
and to enhance disaster preparedness at all levels.
79. Funds of 204 LGUs, amounting to at least ₱1.346 billion, were utilized for the
purpose other than those allowed for the implementation of disaster programs
and activities, in violation of Section 3 of COA Circular No. 2012-002 dated
September 11, 2012 and NDRRMC-DBM-DILG Joint Memorandum Circular
(JMC) No. 2013-1 dated March 25, 2013.
79.1. Section 3 of COA Circular No. 2012-002 states that the LDRRMF shall be
used to support disaster risk management activities such as, but not limited
to the following:
79.2. Item 5.0 of the NDRRMC-DBM-DILG JMC No. 2013-1 identifies sample
eligible PPAs, to which the LDRRMF can be used.
79.3. However, audit noted that funds of 204 LGUs, amounting to at least ₱1.346
billion, were utilized for the purpose other than those allowed for the
implementation of disaster programs and activities in violation of
aforementioned provisions.
79.5. Charging of expenditures which are not allowed under pertinent regulations
adversely affects the availability of the LDRRMF for disaster-related
activities.
80.1. Various disbursements in 56 LGUs were not duly supported with complete
and/or sufficient supporting documents, casting doubt on the validity and
propriety of transactions. List of LGUs is presented in Annex G.
81. Various deficiencies and/or deviations were noted in the procurement of goods
and services needed in the implementation of DRRM PPAs by 66 LGUs
contrary to the provisions of RA No. 9184 and its Implementing Rules and
Regulations.
81.1. R.A. No. 9184 is promulgated in line with the commitment of the
Government to promote good governance and its effort to adhere to the
principles of transparency, accountability, equity, efficiency and economy
in its procurement process.
81.2. However, audit noted that various deficiencies and/or deviations were noted
in the procurement of goods and services by 66 LGUs. Detailed list of LGUs
shown in Annex H.
82. Various PPAs contained in the LDRRMP of 164 LGUs were not implemented,
contrary to Section 21 of RA No. 10121 and Section 6.2 of Section 6.2 of
NDRRMC-DBM-DILG Joint Memorandum Circular No. 2013-1; thus,
impeding the efficient use of fund for disaster mitigation, response and
rehabilitation to the disadvantage of the public.
82.3. However, it was noted that various disaster-related PPAs of 158 LGUs
totaling ₱3.542 billion were not implemented. Additionally, 6 PPAs of
82.4. Due to the circumstances mentioned above, the aim to strengthen the
capacity of the LGUs to build a disaster resilient community and enhance
disaster preparedness and response at all levels may not be fully achieved.
83. No Local Ordinance creating the Local Disaster Risk Reduction and
Management Office (LDRRMO) including the required staffing/personnel
was enacted in nine LGUs in violation of Section 12 of RA No. 10121; while
LDRRMOs enacted in 63 LGUs were not fully capacitated/staffed; thus,
hindering the capacity of the LGUs to deliver efficiently and effectively the
83.2. However, it was noted that 54 LGUs did not enacted/created the LDRRMO
contrary to the above provisions. On the other hand, while there was an
LDRRMO created in nine LGUs, compositions and structure of the office
were not fully capacitated to carry out the mandated duties such as: (a)
Administration and Training, (b) Research and Planning and (c) Operations
and Warning. Details are shown in Annex J.
b. Fill up the mandatory position for the three staff of each LDRRMO
to handle the administration, training, research and planning, and
operations and warning functions/services, to provide adequate
support to DRRM activities.
84. The utilization of the LDRRMF in 21 LGUs amounting to not less than
₱103.03 million could not be judiciously evaluated due to the deficiencies in
the details of the Local Disaster Risk Reduction Management Fund
Investment Plan (LDRRMFIP) and/or lack of Local Sanggunian resolution
declaring a State of Calamity.
84.1. Section 5.1.2 of COA Circular No. 2012-002 provides that LDRRMFIP
shall be prepared annually, it shall present the 30 percent allocation for QRF
in lump-sum and the allocation for disaster mitigation, prevention and
preparedness with details as to projects and activities to be funded. The
LDRRMFIP shall also include under a separate caption, the list of projects
and activities charged to the unexpended LDRRMF of previous years. A
84.2. Likewise, Section 5.1.3 of COA Circular 2012-002, provides that the release
and use of the LDRRMF shall be supported by a Local Sanggunian
Resolution and the declaration of state of calamity for the QRF; and the for
projects and activities listed in the approved plan as incorporated in the local
development plan and annual work plan and financial plan.
84.3. However, it was noted that the LDRRMFIP of 21 LGUs were deficient, not
updated or not responsive to the AIP. It was also noted that various
disbursements were made out of the QRF without a supporting approved
Local Sanggunian Resolution and the Declaration of State of Calamity,
contrary to the above provisions. Details are presented in Annex K.
84.4. The Auditors recommended that LCE direct the DRRMO to submit
the LDRRMFIP showing the allocation of LDRRMF for both current
and the unexpended balance of the fund for prior years and ensure that
the use and release of QRF is supported with Local Sanggunian
Resolution.
85. Cash donations received by six LGUs from other government agencies and
other sources totaling at least ₱69.236 million remained unutilized due to
LGUs’ inability to timely identify the appropriate programs, projects and
activities to be undertaken, contrary to Section 5.2.4 of COA Circular No.
2012-002.
85.1. Section 5.2.4 of COA Circular No. 2012-002 provides that funds received
from various sources shall be utilized in accordance with the purpose of the
grant. In the absence of a specific purpose, the fund shall be used for
purposes provided in the LDRRMFIP.
85.2. However, it was noted that cash donations received by six LGUs from three
regions totaling ₱69.236 million remained unutilized as of year-end, as
shown in Table 20.
Table 20: LGUs with Unutilized Cash Donations Received
Unutilized
Region LGU
Cash Donations
III Province of Pampanga ₱ 3,822,219.15
VI Province of Iloilo 7,492,000.00
VIII Macrohon, Southern Leyte 230,000.00
85.3. The fund remained unutilized due to LGUs’ inability to timely identify the
appropriate PPAs to be undertaken, contrary to Section 5.2.4 of COA
Circular No. 2012-002.
85.4. The Auditors recommended that the Management ensure the full
utilization of cash donations for their intended purposes through
proper and timely identification, formulation and implementation of
appropriate PPAs to be sourced therefrom and regular monitoring of
the available funds in the Registry of Cash Donations and Utilization.
J.1. Unexpended QRF and LDRRMF-MOOE Not Transferred to Special Trust Fund
86. The unexpended balances of the QRF and LDRRMF-MOOE of 172 LGUs,
totaling to at least ₱624.622 million, were not transferred to the Special Trust
Fund (STF) contrary to Section 5.1.10 of COA Circular No. 2012-002; thus,
opens opportunity for the LGU to use it for activities other than those which
support disaster risk reduction and management.
86.3. Table 21 summarizes the 172 LGUs with unexpended LDRRMF not
transferred to the Trust Fund Account, including those who have similar
observations but the unexpended balances were not indicated. Details are
presented in Annex L.
87.1. Section 5.1.11 of COA Circular No. 2012-002 provides that all unexpended/
unobligated balance of the LDRRMF for Capital Outlay (CO) shall be made
continuing in the General Fund books until the projects funded therefore are
completed and any savings shall be available for use in the disaster risk
reduction and management activities as provided in the LDRRMFIP.
J.3. PY Unutilized Balances of More Than 5 Years Not Reverted to General Fund
88. Unutilized balances of LDRRMF under the STF for CY 2016 and below of 58
LGUs, totaling at least ₱176.572 million, were not transferred to the General
Fund (GF) contrary to COA Circular No. 2012-002 dated September 12, 2012,
hindering the provision of funds to support current disaster risk management
activities.
88.1. Section 5.1.13 of COA Circular No. 2012-002 states that any unutilized
amount for five years shall be reverted back to the unappropriated surplus
of the General Fund and shall be made available for other social services
after subsequent enactment by the Local Sanggunian.
88.2. However, audit noted that the unutilized balances of LDRRMF under the
STF of 58 LGUs totaling to at least ₱176.572 million were not reverted back
to unappropriated surplus of the GF after exceeding the five-year validity
period contrary to the above-provision. The list of the concerned LGUs is
summarized in Table 23. Details are presented in Annex N.
Table 23: LGUs who Failed to Revert Unutilized funds of Five Years
Region No. of LGUs* Total Per Region
CAR 1 ₱ 2,397,383.56
I 6 12,613,579.86
88.3. Due to the afore-said circumstances, the said amount was not made
available for other social programs, projects and activities of the concerned
LGUs.
88.4. The Auditors recommended that the Management revert to the GF the
unexpended balance of LDRRMF beyond the five-year period, to be
made available for other social services, in conformity with Section
5.1.13 of COA Circular No. 2012-002.
J.4. PPAs for the PY’s Unexpended Balances Not Included in the LDRRMFIP
89. LDRRMFIP of 172 LGUs did not include the PPAs charged to the unexpended
balances of LDRRMF under Trust Liabilities account which is not in
conformity with Sections 4.4 and 5.1.2 of COA Circular No. 2012-002; hence,
validity of the transaction made could not be ascertained.
89.1. Section 4.4 of COA Circular No. 2012-002 provides that the LDRRMCs
shall decide on the use of the unexpended balance of the LDRRMF which
shall be incorporated in the LDRRMFIP.
89.2. While, Section 5.1.2 of COA Circular No. 2012-002 provides that the
LDRRMFIP shall also include, under a separate caption, the list of projects
and activities charged to the unexpended LDRRMF of previous years.
89.3. However, audit noted that LDRRMFIP of 172 LGUs did not indicate the
list of activities and projects charged to the unexpended LDRRMF of
previous years as required under afore-cited provision. As such, the
monitoring of utilization of the previous years’ LDRRMF could not be
undertaken, and the validity of the expenditures charged against the fund
could not be ascertained. Details are presented in Annex O.
90. Three hundred five (305) LGUs failed to prepare and submit the required: a)
Annual LDRRMP; b) Annual LDRRMFIP; c) Registry of Appropriations,
Allotments and Obligations (RAAO) for QRF, MOOE and CO; d) Report on
Sources and Utilization of DRRMF; and e) Summary/List of Donations
Received, Distributed and Balances, causing difficulty in the evaluation of the
LDRRMF utilization.
90.2. As such, various regulations were issued, mandating the preparation and
submission of various financial reports and availability of information in
the receipt of DRRM funds, as well as disaster relief aid/donations in cash
and in-kind. This includes the following:
90.3. However, audit noted that 305 LGUs were not able to prepare and/or submit
some, if not all, of the afore-cited reports within the prescribed period,
90.4. The Auditors recommended that Management prepare and submit the
required financial reports within the prescribed deadline to ensure the
availability of information on the receipt of DRRM funds, as well as
disaster relief aid/donations in cash and in-kind, to all stakeholders.
91.2. Item 5.1.16 of COA Circular No. 2012-002 states that the amount and
details of the unexpended balance of LDRRMF shall be discussed in the
Notes to the Financial Statements.
92. Subsidiary Ledgers were not maintained in 60 LGUs for transfers of agency’s
unutilized DRRMF to the special trust fund by year of transfer, receipts of
NDRRMF by transferring agency, DRRMF from other LGUs by LGU and
other sources by donor in violation of Item 5.1.12 of COA Circular 2012-002.
92.2. However, it was noted that 60 LGUs did not maintain a separate SL account
as prescribed in the above provision. Non-maintenance of a separate SL
account cast doubt on the reliability and propriety of the utilization of the
fund.
92.3. Table 25 summarizes the 60 LGUs which did not maintain a separate SL,
including those who have similar observations but the amount was not
indicated. Details are presented in Annex S.
93.1. Items IV and V of COA Circular No. 2014-002 enumerated the accounting
and reporting guidelines in the receipt and utilization of DRRM funds.
Among which are the following:
• The cash donations shall be: (a) acknowledged through the issuance of
Official Receipt; (b) deposited with an authorized government
depository bank (AGDB) 3 under a separate bank account for DRRM
Funds (DRRMF); and (c) entered in the Cash Receipts Record by the
designated Collecting Officer.
• The Accounting Unit shall prepare and maintain PPE Ledger Cards and
Supplies Ledger Cards for all PPE and relief goods procured out of cash
donations. For check and balance, the Property and Supply Unit shall
maintain Property Cards and Stock Cards.
• The monthly RSMI shall be prepared by the Property and Supply Unit
based on the RIS, using the formats in Appendices 59 and 50,
respectively, Volume II, MNGAS. The Report shall be submitted to the
Accounting Unit for recording in the books of accounts.
• Distribution lists of welfare goods for distribution and food supplies for
consumption totaling ₱58,860,229.00 remained unsupported and the
corresponding Summary of Supplies and Materials Issued (SSMI)
together with the Requisition and Issue Slips (RIS)
93.5. The Auditors recommended that the LCE direct the responsible offices
to strictly adhere in the accounting and reporting guidelines prescribed
under COA Circular 2014-002 to ensure the transparency, reliability
and availability of information on the receipt and utilization of DRRM
funds.
94. Status on the Implementation of Prior Years’ Audit Recommendations were gathered
from the AARs of 10 NGAs and four GOCCs submitted and published on the COA
website, along with the 763 LGUs included in the region-wide consolidated
significant audit observations and recommendations submitted by the OAC-LGAS,
of this Commission. Summary of the status is presented below:
VI. Acknowledgement
96. We wish to express our appreciation to the auditors of various national, corporate
and local government audit teams that provided the financial data and audit
observations on the DRRM Funds in their respective audited agencies and to the
management and staff of the Office of Civil Defense for their cooperation and
assistance.
97. We request that appropriate actions be taken on the various audit recommendations
consolidated in this Report.
Status of
Reference Observations Recommendations Management Action
Implementation
NGAs & GOCCs
A. NDRRM – Related Programs and Projects
A.1 Slow Implementation of NDRRM-Related Programs and Projects
Consolidated Slow implementation of various NDRRM The Auditors recommended
Report on the funded programs/projects deprived the the following course of action:
Audit of intended beneficiaries of the benefits that
DRRM could be derived therefrom. NHA:
Funds pg. 52
- 55 On Uncompleted HUs
Status of
Reference Observations Recommendations Management Action
Implementation
resolve the issues/problems The total number of
contributing to the delayed delayed projects in CY
construction/completion, 2021 was also 63, with 43
and to promote effective remained delayed as at CY
and more synchronized 2022. Six (6) completed,
planning and five (5) physically
implementation of projects; completed and on-going,
and nine (9) terminated.
Status of
Reference Observations Recommendations Management Action
Implementation
immediate completion of
the housing units;
Status of
Reference Observations Recommendations Management Action
Implementation
the unrecouped advances, if
warranted; and
LWUA:
Status of
Reference Observations Recommendations Management Action
Implementation
restore the normal supply of
potable water.
DSWD:
DPWH:
Status of
Reference Observations Recommendations Management Action
Implementation
Status of
Reference Observations Recommendations Management Action
Implementation
NCIP:
b. Require the concerned NCIP GAA 2021 was fully Fully Implemented
offices and the Budget utilized. Strengthened the
Officer to submit a Disaster Preparedness and
justification on why the Management Program
disaster risk reduction and (DPMP).
climate change adaptation
and mitigation were not
incorporated on their PPAs
nor identified and tagged in
the OSBP any climate
change-related
expenditures of the Agency;
Status of
Reference Observations Recommendations Management Action
Implementation
PPAs, and ARs related to
disaster risk reduction and
climate change adaptation;
and
Status of
Reference Observations Recommendations Management Action
Implementation
shall comply with the release of payments for the
requirements stated in MSP lot acquisition.
Circular No. 19-001; and
Status of
Reference Observations Recommendations Management Action
Implementation
c. Ensure that all projects for Not Implemented
implementation, including
CBIA projects, are within
the total allotments released
by the DBM.
Status of
Reference Observations Recommendations Management Action
Implementation
that they may have derived from the and procured its own and
financial assistance. requested that the funds be
b. Remit to the BTr the utilized for other Not implemented
unutilized funds if there are school/office equipment or
no plans to use such facilities. The DRRMS
donated funds for the facilitate the endorsement
Typhoon Yolanda and of the said request for
Marawi Siege victims. approval of concerned
officials.
Status of
Reference Observations Recommendations Management Action
Implementation
them in one place so it can
be immediately located and
to prevent loss; (ii) prepare
and maintain Registry of
Donated Relief Goods for
each kind of relief goods
using the prescribed format
in Annex G of COA
Circular No. 2014-002; and
(iii) start using the
suggested formats of COA
Circular No. 2014-002 for
the receipt and issuance of
donated relief goods; and
Status of
Reference Observations Recommendations Management Action
Implementation
Funds pg. 62 fund transfers under the Task Force a. Strictly enforce/ adhere to The Department commits Not Implemented
- 63 Bangon Marawi (TFBM). the provisions of COA continued adherence to the
Circular No. 94-103 and COA rules on fund
comply with the terms and transfer.
conditions of the MOAs on
the liquidation of FTs;
Status of
Reference Observations Recommendations Management Action
Implementation
end for the fund transferred to four CHEDROs with the reporting
CHEDROs for the rehabilitation of requirements.
buildings damaged by Typhoon Yolanda.
Status of
Reference Observations Recommendations Management Action
Implementation
submission of these reports
among its member-agencies.
Status of
Reference Observations Recommendations Management Action
Implementation
Funds pg. 67 NDRRM fund received, to
- 68 ensure proper accounting and
monitoring of all funds, and
systematic recording of fund
distribution.
LGUs
F. Allocation of LDRRMF
F.1 Insufficient Allocation for LDRRMF
Consolidated Allocation of not less than five percent of The Auditors recommended No information was Partially Implemented
Report on the the estimated revenue from regular that Management strictly indicated as to the actions
Audit of sources for LDRRMF as required under observe the allocation of five taken by the management.
DRRM Section 21 of RA No. 10121 was not met percent of the estimated However, out of the 22
Funds pg. 68 by 22 LGUs. revenue from regular sources LGUs, nine LGUs have
for LDRRM to support disaster implemented the audit
risk management activities recommendations, three
pursuant to Section 21 of RA were partially
No. 10121. implemented and one was
not implemented. On the
other hand, nine LGUS did
not submit report. Details
are presented in Annex U.
G. Utilization of LDRRMF
G.1 Low Utilization of LDRRMF
Consolidated One hundred forty-eight LGUs did not The Auditors recommended No information was Partially Implemented
Report on the optimally utilize the allotment under the that Management optimize the indicated as to the actions
Audit of LDRRMF with low utilization rate utilization of its LDRRMF, taken by the management.
DRRM ranging from 0.80 to 74.30 percent, and Mitigation Fund, to lessen However, out of the 148
Status of
Reference Observations Recommendations Management Action
Implementation
Funds pg. 68 contrary to the purposes and intents of the the socio-economic and LGUs, 35 LGUs have
- 69 RA No. 10121; thus, defeating the environmental impacts of implemented the audit
objectives of strengthening the capacity to disasters in the community and recommendations, 32 were
build disaster-resilient communities and disaster risks, including partially implemented and
to enhance disaster preparedness at all projected climate risks, and to 24 were not implemented.
levels. enhance disaster preparedness On the other hand, 57
and response capabilities of the LGUS did not submit
community. report. Details are
presented in Annex U.
Status of
Reference Observations Recommendations Management Action
Implementation
DRRM Funds for verification, and LGUs, eight LGUs have
pg. 71 henceforth, ensure that claims implemented the audit
are duly supported with recommendations, six
complete and proper were partially
documentation before implemented and three
processing claims for payment were not implemented. On
to establish the validity, the other hand, 34 LGUS
regularity and propriety of the did not submit report.
disbursements. Details are presented in
Annex U.
Status of
Reference Observations Recommendations Management Action
Implementation
Consolidated No Local Ordinance creating the Local The Auditors recommended No information was Partially Implemented
Report on the Disaster Risk Reduction and Management that the concerned LGUs: indicated as to the actions
Audit of Office (LDRRMO) including the required a. Justify the absence of local taken by the management.
DRRM Funds staffing/personnel was enacted in six ordinance creating the However, out of the 66
pg. 73 - 74 LGUs in violation of Section 12 of RA LDRRM Office; and LGUs, nine LGUs have
No. 10121; while LDRRMOs enacted in implemented the audit
60 LGUs were not fully b. Fill up the mandatory recommendations, 13 were
capacitated/staffed; thus, hindering the position for the three staff partially implemented and
capacity of the LGUs to deliver efficiently of each LDRRMO to 12 were not implemented.
and effectively the necessary services to handle the administration, On the other hand, 32
ensure the safety of its constituents in the training, research and LGUS did not submit
event of disaster, calamity, and other planning, and operations report. Details are
fortuitous events. and warning presented in Annex U.
functions/services, to
provide adequate support to
DRRM activities.
Status of
Reference Observations Recommendations Management Action
Implementation
of Cash Donations and submit report. Details are
Utilization. presented in Annex U.
J. Prior Years’ Unexpended Balances of the LDRRMF
J.1 Unexpended QRF and LDRRMF-MOOE Not Transferred to Special Trust Fund
Consolidated The unexpended balances of the QRF and The Auditors recommended No information was Partially Implemented
Report on the LDRRMF-MOOE of 147 LGUs, totaling that Management transfer the indicated as to the actions
Audit of to at least ₱614.972 million, were not unutilized prior year balances taken by the management.
DRRM Funds transferred to the Special Trust Fund (within five years) of the QRF However, out of the 147
pg. 75 - 76 (STF) contrary to Section 5.1.10 of COA and LDRRMF-MOOE to the LGUs, 56 LGUs have
Circular No. 2012-002; thus, opens STF pursuant to COA Circular implemented the audit
opportunity for the LGU to use it for No. 2012-002. recommendations, 13 were
activities other than those which support partially implemented and
disaster risk reduction and management. 22 were not implemented.
On the other hand, 56
LGUS did not submit
report. Details are
presented in Annex U.
Status of
Reference Observations Recommendations Management Action
Implementation
books until the projects funded other hand, 10 LGUS did
therefore are completed and not submit report. Details
any savings shall be made are presented in Annex U.
available for use in the disaster
risk reduction and
management activities as
provided in the LDRRMFIP
subject to the local budgeting
process.
J.3 PY Unutilized Balances of More Than 5 Years Not Reverted to General Fund
Consolidated Unutilized balances of LDRRMF under The Auditors recommended No information was Partially Implemented
Report on the the STF for CY 2016 and below of 41 that the Management revert to indicated as to the actions
Audit of LGUs, totaling at least ₱88.713 million, the GF the unexpended taken by the management.
DRRM Funds were not transferred to the General Fund balance of LDRRMF beyond However, out of the 41
pg. 77 - 78 (GF) contrary to COA Circular No. 2012- the five-year period, to be LGUs, 20 LGUs have
002 dated September 12, 2012, hindering made available for other social implemented the audit
the provision of funds to support current services, in conformity with recommendations, three
disaster risk management activities. Section 5.1.13 of COA were partially
Circular No. 2012-002. implemented and three
were not implemented. On
the other hand, 15 LGUS
did not submit report.
Details are presented in
Annex U.
J.4 PPAs for the PY’s Unexpended Balances Not Included in the LDRRMFIP
Consolidated LDRRMFIP of 53 LGUs did not include The Auditors recommended No information was Partially Implemented
Report on the the PPAs charged to the unexpended that the Management include indicated as to the actions
Audit of balances of LDRRMF under Trust in their plans the utilization of taken by the management.
Status of
Reference Observations Recommendations Management Action
Implementation
DRRM Funds Liabilities account which is not in the unexpended LDRRM Fund However, out of the 53
pg. 78 conformity with Sections 4.4 and 5.1.2 of balances from prior years, and LGUs, 15 LGUs have
COA Circular No. 2012-002; hence, specify the list of PPAs to be implemented the audit
validity of the transaction made could not charged against the recommendations, six
be ascertained. unexpended LDRRMF of were partially
previous years in its implemented and 14 were
LDRRMFIP prior to the not implemented. On the
utilization of the same pursuant other hand, 18 LGUS did
to the provisions of COA not submit report. Details
Circular No. 2012-002. are presented in Annex U.
Status of
Reference Observations Recommendations Management Action
Implementation
L. Accounting and Financial Disclosures
L.1 Non-Disclosure in the Notes to FS
Consolidated Disclosure requirements prescribed in The Auditors recommended Current Year LDRRMF
Report on the COA Circular No. 2014-002 related to that Management direct the
Audit of DRRM Funds were not presented in the accountants to fully disclose No information was Partially Implemented
DRRM Funds Notes to Financial Statements of eight the receipts of utilization of indicated as to the actions
pg. 79 - 80 LGUs; thus, the related information on the LDRRMF to adequately taken by the management.
utilization and disbursements of the said provide relevant information in However, out of the eight
funds were not properly disclosed in the Financial Statements. LGUs, one LGU has
public. Moreover, information on the implemented the audit
amount and details of the unexpended recommendations, another
balance of LDRRMF of 554 LGUs one was partially
totaling to at least ₱1.403 billion were not implemented and none
adequately disclosed in the Notes to the was not implemented. On
Financial Statements as prescribed under the other hand, six LGUS
Item 5.1.16 of COA No. 2012-002. did not submit report.
Details are presented in
Annex U.
Status of
Reference Observations Recommendations Management Action
Implementation
and four was not
implemented. On the other
hand, 48 LGUS did not
submit report. Details are
presented in Annex U.
FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS
NGAs GOCCs
1 Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) 1 AFP Retirement and Separation
Benefits System (AFPRSBS)
2 Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) 2 Al-Amanah Islamic Investment Bank
of the Philippines (AIIBP)
3 Armed Forces of the Philippines - General 3 Boy Scouts of the Philippines
Headquarters (AFP-GHQ) (BSOP)
4 Armed Forces of the Philippines 4 Center for International Trade
Commissary Exchange Service (AFP-CES) Expositions and Missions (CITEM)
5 Board of Investments (BOI) 5 Civil Aviation Authority of the
Philippines (CAAP)
6 Bureau of Broadcast Services (BBS) 6 Credit Information Corporation (CIC)
7 Bureau of Communication Services (BCS) 7 Cultural Center of the Philippines
(CCP)
8 Bureau of Corrections (BuCor) 8 DBP Data Center, Inc (DCI)
9 Bureau of Customs (BOC) 9 DBP Leasing Corporation (DBPLC)
10 Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP) 10 Development Academy of the
Philippines (DAP)
11 Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources 11 Development Bank of the Philippines
(BFAR) (DBP)
12 Bureau of Immigration (BI) 12 Duty Free Philippines Corporation
(DFPC)
13 Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) 13 Employees’ Compensation
Commission (ECC)
14 Bureau of Jail Management and Penology 14 Government Service Insurance
(BJMP) System (GSIS)
15 Bureau of Local Government Finance 15 Home Development Mutual Fund
(BLGF) (HDMF)
16 Bureau of Treasury (BTr) 16 Intercontinental Broadcasting
Corporation (IBC)
17 Bureau of Treasury-National Government 17 Laguna Lake Development Authority
(BTr-NG) (LLDA)
18 Bureau of Treasury-Proper (BTr) 18 Landbank Countryside Development
Foundation, Inc. (LBP-CDFI)
19 Career Executive Service Board (CESB) 19 Landbank of the Philippines (LBP)
20 Central Board of Assessment Appeals 20 LBP Insurance Brokerage, Inc. (LBP-
(CBAA) IBI)
21 Civil Service Commission (CSC) 21 LBP Leasing and Finance
Corporation (LBP-LFC)
22 Commission on Audit (COA) 22 LBP Resources and Development
Corporation (LBP-RDC)
23 Commission on Elections (COMELEC) 23 Local Water Utilities Administration
(LWUA)
24 Commission on Higher Education (CHED) 24 Lung Center of the Philippines (LCP)
25 Commission on Human Rights (CHR) 25 Manila International Airport
Authority (MIAA)
LGUs
Region Provinces Cities Municipalities Total
NCR 17 1 18
CAR 6 2 75 83
Region I 4 9 115 128
Region II 5 4 87 96
Region III 7 11 116 134
Region IV-A 5 20 122 147
Region IV-B 5 2 62 69
Region V 6 7 106 119
Region VI 6 16 117 139
Region VII 3 16 116 135
Region VIII 6 7 132 145
Region IX 3 4 67 74
Region X 5 9 70 84
Region XI 5 6 43 54
Region XII 4 4 45 53
Region XIII 5 6 67 78
BARMM 5 4 96 105
Grand Total 80 144 1,437 1,661
NGAs GOCCs
1 Department of Budget and Management 1 National Housing Authority (NHA)
(DBM)
2 Department of Education (DepEd) 2 Local Water Utilities Administration
(LWUA)
3 Department of Health (DOH) 3 Philippine Health Insurance Corporation
(PHIC)
4 Department of Public Works and Highways 4 National Electrification Administration
(DPWH) (NEA)
5 Department of Social Welfare and 5 Social Housing Finance Corporation
Development (DSWD) (SHFC)
6 Office of Civil Defense (OCD)
7 Office of the Vice President (OVP)
8 Philippine Information Agency (PIA)
8 NGAs 5 GOCCs
LGUs
Region Provinces Cities Municipalities Total
NCR 7 1 8
CAR 1 46 47
Region I 1 5 37 43
Region II 4 2 54 60
Region III 7 14 2 23
Region IV-A 2 10 73 85
Region IV-B 2 1 41 44
Region V 6 5 78 89
Region VI 6 8 76 90
Region VII 2 10 67 79
Region VIII 5 5 110 120
Region IX 2 2 41 45
Region X 2 5 32 39
Region XI 4 4 31 39
Region XII 1 10 11
Region XIII 4 47 51
BARMM 2 1 37 40
Grand Total 49 81 783 913
NGAs GOCCs
1 Commission on Higher Education (CHED) 1 Local Water Utilities Administration
(LWUA)
2 Department of Agriculture (DA) 2 National Electrification Administration
(NEA)
3 Department of Education (DepEd) 3 National Housing Authority (NHA)
4 Department of Health (DOH)
5 Department of Human Settlement and Urban 4 Social Housing Finance Corporation
Development (DHSUD) (SHFC)
6 Department of Public Works and Highways
(DPWH)
7 Department of Social Welfare and Development
(DSWD)
8 Department of Tourism (DOT)
9 National Commission on Indigenous People
(NCIP)
10 Office of Civil Defense (OCD)
10 NGAs 4 GOCCs
LGUs
Region Provinces Cities Municipalities Total
NCR 8 8
CAR 2 45 47
Region I 2 4 55 61
Region II 1 2 61 64
Region III 5 10 81 96
Region IV-A 3 8 65 76
Region IV-B 4 2 47 53
Region V 3 7 38 48
Region VI 5 2 53 60
Region VII 2 7 52 61
Region VIII 1 1 2
Region IX 2 4 47 53
Region X 2 2 40 44
Region XI 4 4 8
Region XII 2 2 14 18
Region XIII 4 4 36 44
BARMM 11 11
Grand Total 42 76 645 763
Sultan Naga Dimaporo, Lanao del Norte 1,979,379.00 11,547,371.00 8,085,160.00 5,441,590.00 - - - -
Tubod, Lanao del Norte 1,650,163.00 14,501,946.00 8,279,046.00 7,873,063.00
Sub-total 309,518,098.31 705,408,148.92 508,933,296.74 505,992,950.49 20,292,734.88 30,553,131.75 34,981,885.72 15,863,980.91
Total Region X 1,697,499,313.80 1,919,597,861.53 1,537,274,897.72 2,079,822,277.61 194,254,365.93 37,784,182.19 65,958,302.27 166,080,245.85
Region XI
Provinces
Province of Davao de Oro 3,546,360.72 136,641,801.86 83,485,238.74 56,702,923.84 18,475,788.87 2,630,199.86 9,606,746.60 11,499,242.13
Province of Davao del Norte 41,344,065.44 147,578,481.19 100,437,178.59 88,485,368.04 - - - -
Province of Davao del Sur 64,747,596.18 103,575,330.00 71,228,110.58 97,094,815.60 18,833,246.23 17,844,680.36 17,587,460.00 19,090,466.59
Province of Davao Oriental 5,478,975.11 138,400,000.00 82,920,668.02 60,958,307.09 - - - -
Province of Davao Occidental 39,015,717.45 205,262,565.44 112,735,322.85 131,542,960.04 200,000.00 - - 200,000.00
Subtotal 154,132,714.90 731,458,178.49 450,806,518.78 434,784,374.61 37,509,035.10 20,474,880.22 27,194,206.60 30,789,708.72
Cities
City of Tagum 7,815,774.90 110,894,305.50 79,005,445.54 39,704,634.86 18,606,548.05 - 1,892,129.75 16,714,418.30
City of Panabo 16,872,487.77 76,628,247.43 39,278,254.14 54,222,481.06 - 7,851,889.73 - 7,851,889.73
Island Garden City of Samal 76,189,023.80 10,372,295.45 53,931,793.39 32,629,525.86 620,000.00 - 350,000.00 270,000.00
City of Digos 37,287,057.59 69,304,028.35 51,362,575.71 55,228,510.23 1,965,018.48 - - 1,965,018.48
City of Mati 1,810,629.76 90,284,206.86 79,936,873.47 12,157,963.15 6,429,712.90 - 2,750,754.02 3,678,958.88
City of Davao 393,727,483.02 618,919,582.00 168,129,440.25 844,517,624.77 312,876,782.79 510,000.00 102,527,391.90 210,859,390.89
Total Cities 533,702,456.84 976,402,665.59 471,644,382.50 1,038,460,739.93 340,498,062.22 8,361,889.73 107,520,275.67 241,339,676.28
Municipalities
Municipality of Mawab 4,868,569.20 10,761,317.00 11,962,748.99 3,667,137.21 1,099,238.74 2,300,597.70 2,631,080.22 768,756.22
Municipality of Monkayo 1,519,378.28 27,912,970.00 26,700,484.35 2,731,863.93 8,279,327.40 - 4,201,162.46 4,078,164.94
Municipality of Montevista 2,667,221.89 13,398,000.00 7,228,887.22 8,836,334.67 2,280,122.13 2,667,221.89 3,414,041.40 1,533,302.62
Municipality of Nabunturan 6,361,028.46 21,771,879.30 10,555,537.50 17,577,370.26 7,438,712.13 9,681,261.80 4,214,489.74 12,905,484.19
Municipality of Compostela 4,500,000.00 20,608,563.00 12,082,880.58 13,025,682.42 3,388,437.62 12,724,691.71 4,473,400.82 11,639,728.51
Municipality of Laak 6,880,000.00 24,258,981.40 12,573,075.26 18,565,906.14 71,184.47 4,883,578.17 1,827,712.00 3,127,050.64
Municipality of Maragusan 783,759.18 18,515,003.53 15,521,019.83 3,777,742.88 921,130.26 2,219,009.20 1,995,082.64 1,145,056.82
Municipality of New Bataan 1,630,344.85 17,627,238.00 13,488,188.82 5,769,394.03 5,253,081.87 1,987,098.30 2,033,281.75 5,206,898.42
Municipality of Mabini 3,723,955.86 14,426,857.30 13,105,679.66 5,045,133.50 6,314,845.68 3,602,075.86 3,886,630.00 6,030,291.54
Municipality of Maco 1,287,020.59 25,614,168.41 25,169,564.00 1,731,625.00 848,380.59 3,170,249.17 1,150,305.00 2,868,324.76
Municipality of Pantukan 12,274,119.25 25,963,455.10 25,660,002.88 12,577,571.47 19,266,642.82 15,330,541.37 1,586,101.78 33,011,082.41
Municipality of Asuncion 124,376.19 15,494,402.84 15,410,196.05 208,582.98 - - - -
Municipality of Kapalong 7,814,247.22 26,069,913.00 15,112,904.73 18,771,255.49 - - - -
Municipality of San Isidro 3,509,500.51 8,613,788.50 6,342,590.09 5,780,698.92 - - - -
Municipality of Talaingod 1,152,424.89 15,468,888.75 14,306,318.88 2,314,994.76 - - - -
Municipality of Dujali 6,467,787.62 9,209,321.97 12,032,972.71 3,644,136.88 - - - -
Municipality of Carmen 3,363,073.59 18,853,650.00 19,167,415.55 3,049,308.04 - - - -
Municipality of Sto. Tomas 20,101,635.72 32,532,346.68 29,351,663.54 23,282,318.86 - - - -
Municipality of New Corella 3,965,046.26 17,510,583.31 14,230,049.99 7,245,579.58 - - - -
Municipality of Kiblawan 5,299,908.00 14,539,601.13 12,463,243.91 7,376,265.22 - - - -
Municipality of Padada 1,107,944.32 10,676,683.51 3,759,395.75 8,025,232.08 81,374.70 - - 81,374.70
Municipality of Hagonoy 4,615,691.15 18,797,170.70 15,813,979.10 7,598,882.75 150,264.50 98.60 150,165.90
Percentage of
Region Count LGU
Implementation
II 16 Piat, Cagayan 48.99%
II 17 Kasibu, Nueva Vizcaya 49.05%
II 18 Sta. Teresita, Cagayan 49.29%
II 19 Quezon, Nueva Vizcaya 49.55%
II 20 Solano, Nueva Vizcaya 49.89%
II 21 Abulug, Cagayan 52.12%
II 22 Calayan, Cagayan 52.68%
II 23 Dupax del Norte, Nueva Vizcaya 63.93%
II 24 Tuguegarao City, Cagayan 65.14%
II 25 Cabbaroguis, Quirino 66.33%
II 26 Aurora, Isabela 67.78%
II 27 Gamu, Isabela 70.15%
II 28 Jones, Isabela
II 29 San Agustin, Isabela
II 30 San Mariano, Isabela
II 31 Province of Quirino
Subtotal 31
III 1 Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija 43.55%
III 2 Province of Pampanga 46.50%
III 3 City of San Fernando, Pampanga 55.94%
III 4 Science City of Muñoz, Nueva Ecija 66.53%
III 5 City of Malolos, Bulacan
III 6 City of San Jose, Nueva Ecija
Subtotal 6
IV-A 1 Cuenca, Batangas 9.66%
IV-A 2 Majayjay, Laguna 16.98%
IV-A 3 Luisiana, Laguna 22.41%
IV-A 4 Antipolo City, Rizal 26.92%
IV-A 5 Nagcarlan, Laguna 29.70%
IV-A 6 Indang, Cavite 29.90%
IV-A 7 General E. Aguinaldo, Cavite 33.17%
IV-A 8 Padre Garcia, Batangas 36.47%
IV-A 9 Rosario, Batangas 43.00%
IV-A 10 Cabuyao City, Laguna 51.51%
IV-A 11 Alitagtag, Batangas 53.57%
IV-A 12 Tagaytay City, Cavite 54.09%
IV-A 13 Paete, Laguna 54.53%
Percentage of
Region Count LGU
Implementation
IV-A 14 Pila, Laguna 55.70%
IV-A 15 Pangil, Laguna 60.12%
IV-A 16 Pakil, Laguna
Subtotal 16
IV-B 1 San Jose, Occidental Mindoro 4.26%
IV-B 2 Boac, Marinduque 14.88%
IV-B 3 Paluan, Occidental Mindoro 16.99%
IV-B 4 Roxas. Oriental Mindoro 19.00%
IV-B 5 Sta. Cruz, Occidental Mindoro 21.80%
IV-B 6 Bongabong, Oriental Mindoro 22.00%
IV-B 7 Sta. Cruz, Marinduque 26.15%
IV-B 8 Mogpog, Marinduque 27.16%
IV-B 9 Abra de Ilog, Occidental Mindoro 38.04%
IV-B 10 Looc, Occidental Mindoro 38.48%
IV-B 11 Mansalay, Oriental Mindoro 39.00%
IV-B 12 Gasan, Marinduque 45.27%
IV-B 13 Pinamalayan. Oriental Mindoro 46.00%
IV-B 14 Calintaan, Occidental Mindoro 52.62%
IV-B 15 Torrijos, Marinduque 57.85%
IV-B 16 Bulalacao, Oriental Mindoro 68.00%
IV-B 17 Calatrava, Marinduque
IV-B 18 Calatrava, Romblon
IV-B 19 Concepcion, Romblon
IV-B 20 Palawan Province
Subtotal 20
V 1 Labo, Camarines Norte 10.74%
V 2 Gubat, Sorsogon 17.34%
V 3 San Vicente, Camarines Norte 20.70%
V 4 Daraga, Albay 20.94%
V 5 Uson, Masbate 22.10%
V 6 Placer, Masbate 26.25%
V 7 San Fernando, Camarines Sur 30.86%
V 8 Prieto Diaz, Sorsogon 31.60%
V 9 Rapu-Rapu, Albay 33.81%
V 10 Sta. Magdalena, Sorsogon 35.40%
V 11 Minalabac, Camarines Sur 39.00%
V 12 Vinzons, Camarines Norte 42.65%
V 13 Pandan, Catanduanes 44.42%
V 14 Nabua, Camarines Sur 45.00%
V 15 Milaor, Camarines Sur 46.00%
V 16 Bula, Camarines Sur 47.00%
V 17 Sagnay, Camarines Sur 48.95%
Percentage of
Region Count LGU
Implementation
V 18 City of Tobaco, Albay 49.00%
V 19 Jovellar, Albay 50.06%
V 20 Bulan, Sorsogon 52.39%
V 21 Magallanes, Sorsogon 54.54%
V 22 Caramoran, Catanduanes 55.99%
V 23 Bacacay, Albay 57.00%
V 24 Castilla, Sorsogon 66.00%
V 25 San Andres, Catanduanes 68.35%
V 26 Monreal, Masbate
V 27 San Jacinto, Masbate
Subtotal 27
VI 1 Estancia, Iloilo North 4.30%
VI 2 Igbaras, Iloilo South 11.57%
VI 3 Sapian, Capiz 29.41%
VI 4 Calinog, Iloilo South 31.00%
VI 5 Roxas City, 31.28%
VI 6 Dumalag, Capiz 44.15%
VI 7 Valderrama, Antique 53.60%
VI 8 Belison, Antique 63.47%
VI 9 Tapaz, Capiz 65.56%
VI 10 Patnongon, Antique 68.80%
VI 11 Sibalom, Antique 73.72%
VI 12 Buruanga, Aklan
VI 13 Lezo, Aklan
VI 14 Malay, Aklan
VI 15 Ajuy, Iloilo North
VI 16 Banate, Iloilo North
VI 17 Batad, Iloilo North
VI 18 Lemery, Iloilo North
VI 19 Sara, Iloilo North
VI 20 Toboso, Negros Occidental
VI 21 Moises, Padilla, Negros Occidental
VI 22 Province of Negros Occidental
Subtotal 22
VII 1 Province of Negros Oriental 1.02%
VII 2 Argao, Cebu 6.91%
VII 3 Sierra Bullones, Bohol 7.77%
VII 4 Basay, Cebu 8.00%
VII 5 Santander, Cebu 12.00%
VII 6 Balilihan, Bohol 21.41%
VII 7 Corella, Bohol 21.53%
VII 8 Lapu-Lapu City 23.00%
Percentage of
Region Count LGU
Implementation
VII 9 Aloguinsan, Cebu 32.00%
VII 10 Cebu City 36.81%
VII 11 Pinamungajan, Cebu 43.00%
VII 12 Inabanga, Bohol 51.00%
VII 13 Pilar, Cebu 51.70%
VII 14 Tudela, Cebu 70.41%
VII 15 Duero, Bohol
Subtotal 15
VIII 1 Sta. Fe, Leyte 7.05%
VIII 2 Babatngon, Leyte 9.60%
VIII 3 Tabontabon, Leyte 19.17%
VIII 4 Abuyog, Leyte 21.26%
VIII 5 Jaro, Leyte 21.33%
VIII 6 Burauen, Leyte 22.76%
VIII 7 Hinabangan, Samar 31.68%
VIII 8 Malitbog, Southern Leyte 35.65%
VIII 9 Baybay City, Leyte 38.00%
VIII 10 Alangalang, Leyte 44.17%
VIII 11 Mahaplag, Leyte 48.52%
VIII 12 Silvino, Lubos 54.49%
VIII 13 San Juan, Southern Leyte 58.05%
VIII 14 Limasawa, Southern Leyte 62.00%
VIII 15 Mapanas, Northern Samar 70.20%
VIII 16 Arteche, Eastern Samar
VIII 17 Guiuan, Eastern Samar
VIII 18 Albuera, Leyte
VIII 19 Laoang, Northern Samar
VIII 20 Catbalogan City, Samar
VIII 21 Talalora, Samar
Subtotal 21
IX 1 Malaybalay, Bukidnon 15.62%
IX 2 Josefina, Zamboanga del Sur 18.64%
IX 3 City of Dipolog, Zamboanga del Norte 43.94%
IX 4 Aurora, Zamboanga del Sur 46.00%
IX 5 La Libertad, Zamboanga del Norte 49.02%
IX 6 Mahayag, Zamboanga del Sur 61.02%
IX 7 Dumingag, Zamboanga del Sur 62.71%
IX 8 Sominot, Zamboanga del Sur 70.00%
IX 9 Tigbao, Zamboanga del Sur
Subtotal 9
X 1 Concepcion, Misamis Occidental 42.00%
X 2 Lopez Jaena, Misamis Occidental 57.00%
Percentage of
Region Count LGU
Implementation
X 3 Calamba, Misamis Occidental 57.00%
X 4 Province of Misamis Occidental
Subtotal 4
XI 1 Laak, Davao de Oro 34.13%
XI 2 Province of Davao del Norte 54.39%
XI 3 New Bataan, Davao de Oro 58.58%
XI 4 City of Panabo, Davao del Norte 60.00%
XI 5 City of Digos, Davao del Sur
Subtotal 5
XII 1 Buenavista, Agusan del Norte 6.27%
XII 2 Province of Zamboanga del Sur 25.26%
XII 3 Matalam, Cotabato
XII 4 Tulunan, Cotabato
Subtotal 4
XIII 1 Sta. Monica, Surigao del Norte 10.50%
XIII 2 Dapa, Surigao del Norte 12.49%
XIII 3 Province of Agusan del Sur 22.78%
XIII 4 Surigao City, Surigao del Norte 34.13%
XIII 5 Gigaquit, Surigao del Norte 34.89%
XIII 6 San Benito, Surigao del Norte 35.82%
XIII 7 San Isidro, Surigao del Norte 39.34%
XIII 8 Santiago, Agusan del Norte 40.63%
XIII 9 Bayugan City, Agusan del Sur 69.92%
XIII 10 Cabadbaran City, Agusan del Norte
XIII 11 Libjo, Province of Dinagat Islands
Subtotal 11
Grand Total 218
Unsupported Disbursements
Region Count LGU
NCR 1 Navotas City
Subtotal 1
CAR 1 La Paz, Abra
Subtotal 1
II 1 San Isidro, Isabela
II 2 Saguday, Quirino
Subtotal 2
III 1 Malolos City, Bulacan
III 2 Gapan City, Nueva Ecija
III 3 City of Tarlac, Tarlac
III 4 Province of Aurora
III 5 Province of Zambales
Subtotal 5
IV-A 1 Lian, Batangas
IV-A 2 Nasugbu, Batangas
IV-A 3 Imus City, Cavite
IV-A 4 Noveleta, Cavite
IV-A 5 Angono, Rizal
IV-A 6 Jalajala, Rizal
IV-A 7 Morong, Rizal
Subtotal 7
IV-B 1 Mamburao, Occidental Mindoro
IV-B 2 Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro
IV-B 3 Puerto Galera, Oriental Mindoro
IV-B 4 Victoria, Oriental Mindoro
IV-B 5 Odiongan, Romblon
Subtotal 5
V 1 Baao, Camarines Sur
V 2 Baras, Catanduanes
Subtotal 2
VI 1 Lambunao, Iloilo South
VI 2 Santa Barbara, Iloilo South
VI 3 San Enrique, Negros Occidental
VI 4 Roxas City
Subtotal 4
VII 1 Anda, Bohol
VII 2 Batuan, Bohol
VII 3 Mabini, Bohol
VII 4 Pilar, Bohol
VII 5 San Miguel, Bohol
VII 6 Mandaue City, Cebu
Subtotal 6
VIII 1 Abuyog, Leyte
VIII 2 Bato, Leyte
VIII 3 Javier, Leyte
VIII 4 Leyte, Leyte
No Established Local
LGUs with Understaffed Disaster Risk Reduction
Region LGUs
LDRRMO and Management Office
(LDRRMO)
NCR Pateros x
Subtotal 1 0 1
CAR Boliney, Abra x
CAR Bucay, Abra x
Subtotal 2 0 2
II Bagabag, Nueva Vizcaya x
Subtotal 1 1 0
IV-A Padre Garcia, Batangas x
IV-A Rosario, Batangas x
IV-A Sta. Teresita, Batangas x
IV-A San Mateo, Rizal x
IV-A Tanay, Rizal x
Subtotal 5 3 2
V Pamplona, Camarines Sur x
V Cawayan, Masbate x
V Esperanza, Masbate x
V Donsol, Sorsogon x
Subtotal 4 2 2
VI Barbaza, Antique x
VI Belison, Antique x
VI San Remegio, Antique x
VI Guimbal, Iloilo South x
VI Leganes, Iloilo South x
VI Leon, Iloilo South x
VI Bacolod City, Negros Occidental x
Subtotal 7 1 6
VII Clarin, Bohol x
VII Cortes, Bohol x
VII Loay, Bohol x
VII Panglao, Bohol x
VII San Isidro, Bohol x
VII Alegria, Cebu x
VII Badian, Cebu x
VII Basay, Cebu x
VII Daanbantayan, Cebu x
VII Madrilejos, Cebu x
VII Malabuyoc, Cebu x
VII Medellin, Cebu x
VII Poro, Cebu x
VII Samboan, Cebu x
VII San Remegio, Cebu x
VII Santa Fe, Cebu x
VII Santander, Cebu x
VII Tabogon, Cebu x
VII Tabuelan, Cebu x
VII Tuburan, Cebu x
VII Amlan, Negros Oriental x
VII Sta. Catalina, Negros Oriental x
Subtotal 22 2 20
VIII Balangkayan, Eastern Samar x
VIII Talalora, Samar x
Subtotal 2 0 2
IX Labason, Zamboanga del Norte x
IX Liloy, Zamboanga del Norte x
IX Manukan, Zamboanga del Norte x
IX Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte x
No Established Local
LGUs with Understaffed Disaster Risk Reduction
Region LGUs
LDRRMO and Management Office
(LDRRMO)
IX Josefina, Zamboanga del Sur x
IX Mahayag, Zamboanga del Sur x
Subtotal 6 0 6
X Kapatagan, Lanao del Norte x
X Province of Lanao del Norte x
Subtotal 2 0 2
XIII Alegria, Surigao del Norte x
XIII Bacuag, Surigao del Norte x
XIII Claver, Surigao del Norte x
XIII Malimono, Surigao del Norte x
XIII San Francisco, Surigao del Norte x
XIII Sison, Surigao del Norte x
XIII Cagwait, Surigao del Sur x
XIII Cantilan, Surigao del Sur x
XIII Carrascal, Surigao del Sur x
XIII Lanuza, Surigao del Sur x
XIII Marihatag, Surigao del Sur x
Subtotal 11 0 11
Grand Total 63 9 54
Summary/
Report on List of
RAAO for
Sources and Donations
Region Count LGU LDRRMP LDRRMFIP QRF, MOOE
Utilization of Received,
and CO
DRRMF Distributed
and Balances
IV-A 61 Lobo, Batangas X X
IV-A 62 Padre Garcia, Batangas X
IV-A 63 Rosario, Batangas X
IV-A 64 San Jose, Batangas X
IV-A 65 San Juan, Batangas X
IV-A 66 Sta. Teresita, Batangas X X
IV-A 67 Taal, Batangas X
IV-A 68 Talisay, Batangas X
IV-A 69 Taysan, Batangas X
IV-A 70 Tanza, Cavite X
IV-A 71 Nagcarlan, Laguna X
IV-A 72 Paete, Laguna X
IV-A 73 Siniloan, Laguna X X X
IV-A 74 Jomalig, Quezon X
IV-A 75 Lucban, Quezon X
IV-A 76 Macalelon, Quezon X X
IV-A 77 Patnanungan, Quezon X
IV-A 78 San Andres, Quezon X
IV-A 79 Angono, Rizal X
IV-A 80 Cardona, Rizal X
IV-A 81 Rizal, Rizal X
IV-A 82 Rodriguez, Rizal X X
IV-A 83 Teresa, Rizal X
IV-B 84 Calatrava, Marinduque X
IV-B 85 Ferrol, Marinduque X
IV-B 86 Gasan, Marinduque X
IV-B 87 Mogpog, Marinduque X
IV-B 88 Torrijos, Marinduque X
IV-B 89 Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro X
IV-B 90 Roxas, Oriental Mindoro X
IV-B 91 Socorro, Oriental Mindoro X
IV-B 92 Victoria, Oriental Mindoro X
IV-B 93 Ferrol, Romblon X
IV-B 94 Romblon, Romblon X
IV-B 95 San Fernando, Romblon X
V 96 Bacacay, Albay X X
V 97 Rapu-Rapu, Albay X
V 98 Sto. Domingo, Albay X X
V 99 City of Naga, Camarines Sur X
V 100 Gainza, Camarines Sur X X
V 101 Pili, Camarines Sur X
V 102 Balud, Masbate X
V 103 Claveria, Masbate X
V 104 Milagros, Masbate X X
V 105 Monreal, Masbate X
V 106 San Fernando, Masbate X
V 107 San Jacinto, Masbate X X
V 108 Uson, Masbate X
V 109 Sta. Magdalena, Sorsogon X
V 110 City of Masbate X
V 111 Province of Albay X X
V 112 Province of Camarines Sur X
V 113 Province of Masbate X
V 114 Province of Sorsogon X
VI 115 Banga, Aklan X
VI 116 Buruanga, Aklan X
VI 117 Ibajay, Aklan X
VI 118 Lezo, Aklan X
VI 119 Makato, Aklan X
VI 120 Malay, Aklan X X
VI 121 Tangalan, Aklan X
VI 122 Laua-an, Antique X
VI 123 Ivisan, Capiz X
VI 124 Pilar, Capiz X
Summary/
Report on List of
RAAO for
Sources and Donations
Region Count LGU LDRRMP LDRRMFIP QRF, MOOE
Utilization of Received,
and CO
DRRMF Distributed
and Balances
VI 125 Pres. Roxas, Capiz X
VI 126 Sapian, Capiz X
VI 127 Sigma, Capiz X
VI 128 Tapaz, Capiz X
VI 129 Buenavista, Guimaras X
VI 130 San Lorenzo, Guimaras X
VI 131 Sibunag, Guimaras X
VI 132 Ajuy, Iloilo North X X
VI 133 Balasan, Iloilo North X
VI 134 Banate, Iloilo North X
VI 135 Batad, Iloilo North X
VI 136 Carles, Iloilo North X
VI 137 Concepcion, Iloilo North X
VI 138 Lemery, Iloilo North X
VI 139 San Dionisio, Iloilo North X
VI 140 Calinog, Iloilo South X
VI 141 Igbaras, Iloilo South X X
VI 142 Lambunao, Iloilo South X X
VI 143 Mina, Iloilo South X
VI 144 Pavia, Iloilo South X
VI 145 Escalante City, Negros Occidental X
VI 146 Isabela, Negros Occidental X
VI 147 Province of Capiz X
VI 148 Province of Iloilo X
VII 149 Alburquerque, Bohol X X
VII 150 Alicia, Bohol X
VII 151 Bien Unido, Bohol X X
VII 152 Catigbian, Bohol X X
VII 153 Cortes, Bohol X
VII 154 Dauis, Bohol X X
VII 155 Getafe, Bohol X
VII 156 Guindulman, Bohol X
VII 157 Inabanga, Bohol X X
VII 158 Loay, Bohol X
VII 159 Pres. Carlos P. Garcia, Bohol X
VII 160 Alcoy, Cebu X
VII 161 Alegria, Cebu X
VII 162 Aloguinsan, Cebu X
VII 163 Boljoon, Cebu X X
VII 164 Consolacion, Cebu X
VII 165 Cordova, Cebu X
VII 166 Dalaguete, Cebu X
VII 167 Dumanjug, Cebu X X
VII 168 Lapu-Lapu City, Cebu X
VII 169 Liloan, Cebu X
VII 170 Malabuyoc, Cebu X X
VII 171 Oslob, Cebu X
VII 172 Pilar, Cebu X
VII 173 Pinamungajan, Cebu X
VII 174 Talisay City, Cebu X X
VII 175 Toledo City, Cebu X X
VII 176 Tudela, Cebu X
VII 177 Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental X
VII 178 Calbayog City, Samar X X
VII 179 Province of Cebu X
VII 180 Province of Negros Oriental X
VIII 181 Arteche, Eastern Samar X
VIII 182 Balangiga, Eastern Samar X X
VIII 183 Balangkayan, Eastern Samar X X
VIII 184 Dolores, Eastern Samar X
VIII 185 Giporlos, Eastern Samar X X
VIII 186 Maydolong, Eastern Samar X
VIII 187 San Policarpio, Eastern Samar X
VIII 188 Abuyog, Leyte X
Summary/
Report on List of
RAAO for
Sources and Donations
Region Count LGU LDRRMP LDRRMFIP QRF, MOOE
Utilization of Received,
and CO
DRRMF Distributed
and Balances
VIII 189 Almeria, Leyte X
VIII 190 Biliran, Leyte X
VIII 191 Burauen, Leyte X
VIII 192 Cabucgayan, Leyte X
VIII 193 Caibiran, Leyte X
VIII 194 Calubian, Leyte X
VIII 195 Culaba, Leyte X X
VIII 196 Inopacan, Leyte X X
VIII 197 Javier, Leyte X
VIII 198 Kawayan, Leyte X
VIII 199 Leyte, Leyte X
VIII 200 Mahaplag, Leyte X
VIII 201 Maripipi, Leyte X
VIII 202 Matag-ob, Leyte X X
VIII 203 Naval, Leyte X X
VIII 204 San Isidro, Leyte X
VIII 205 Tabango, Leyte X
VIII 206 Villaba, Leyte X
VIII 207 Allen, Northern Samar X
VIII 208 Catubig, Northern Samar X
VIII 209 Lope De Vega, Northern Samar X
VIII 210 Rosario, Northern Samar X
VIII 211 San Roque, Northern Samar X
VIII 212 Basey, Samar X
VIII 213 Catbalogan City, Samar X
VIII 214 Gandara, Samar X
VIII 215 Jiabong, Samar X
VIII 216 Matuguinao, Samar X
VIII 217 Pagsanghan, Samar X
VIII 218 San Jose de Buan, Samar X
VIII 219 San Sebastian, Samar X
VIII 220 San Sebastian, Samar X
VIII 221 San Sebastian, Samar X
VIII 222 Sta. Margarita, Samar X X X
VIII 223 Tagapul-an, Samar X
VIII 224 Villareal, Samar X
VIII 225 Zumarraga, Samar X
VIII 226 Anahawan, Southern Leyte X
VIII 227 San Francisco, Southern Leyte X
VIII 228 San Ricardo, Southern Leyte X
VIII 229 Sogod, Southern Leyte X
VIII 230 Province of Biliran X
IX 231 City of Dipolog, Zamboanga del Norte X
IX 232 Gutalac, Zamboanga del Norte X
IX 233 La Libertad, Zamboanga del Norte X
IX 234 Labason, Zamboanga del Norte X
IX 235 Liloy, Zamboanga del Norte X
IX 236 Sibuco, Zamboanga del Norte X
IX 237 Aurora, Zamboanga del Sur X
IX 238 Dinas, Zamboanga del Sur X
IX 239 Dumingag, Zamboanga del Sur X X
IX 240 Guipos, Zamboanga del Sur X
IX 241 Josefina, Zamboanga del Sur X
IX 242 Mahayag, Zamboanga del Sur X
IX 243 San Miguel, Zamboanga del Sur X
IX 244 Tabina, Zamboanga del Sur X
IX 245 Tukuran, Zamboanga del Sur X
IX 246 Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay X
IX 247 Naga, Zamboanga Sibugay X
X 248 Dangcagan, Bukidnon X
X 249 Iligan City, Lanao del Norte X
X 250 Munai, Lanao del Norte X
X 251 Pantao Ragat, Lanao del Norte X X X
X 252 Pantar, Lanao del Norte X X
Summary/
Report on List of
RAAO for
Sources and Donations
Region Count LGU LDRRMP LDRRMFIP QRF, MOOE
Utilization of Received,
and CO
DRRMF Distributed
and Balances
X 253 Tubod, Lanao del Norte X
X 254 Gitagum, Misamis Oriental X X
X 255 Libertad, Misamis Oriental X X
X 256 Aloran, Misamis Occidental X
X 257 Clarin, Misamis Occidental X
X 258 Don Victoriano, Misamis Occidental X
X 259 Panaon, Misamis Occidental X
X 260 Aloran, Misamis Occidental X
X 261 Oroquieta City, Misamis Occidental X
XI 262 Montevista, Davao de Oro X
XI 263 City of Panabo, Davao del Norte X X
XI 264 City of Tagum, Davao del Norte X
XI 265 Kiblawan, Davao del Sur X
XI 266 Province of Davao del Sur X
XI 267 Province of Davao Oriental X
XII 268 Carmen, Cotabato X
XII 269 Kabacan, Cotabato X
XII 270 Midsayap, Cotabato X
XII 271 Pikit, Cotabato X
XII 272 Arakan, North Cotabato X
XIII 273 La Paz, Agusan del Sur X
XIII 274 Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur X
XIII 275 Pilar, Surigao del Norte X
XIII 276 Socorro, Surigao del Norte X
XIII 277 Bayabas, Surigao del Sur X
XIII 278 Surigao City, Surigao del Norte X
BARMM 279 Akbar, Basilan X X
BARMM 280 Albarka, Basilan X X
BARMM 281 Hadji Muhtamad, Basilan X X
BARMM 282 Maluso, Basilan X
BARMM 283 Tabuan-Lasa, Basilan X X
BARMM 284 Ungkaya Pukan, Basilan X
BARMM 285 Muhammad Ajul, Bsilan X X
BARMM 286 Amai Manabilang (Bumbaran), Lanao del Sur X
BARMM 287 Bacolod Kalawi, Lanao del Sur X
BARMM 288 Buadipuso Buntong, Lanao del Sur X X
BARMM 289 Bubong, Lanao del Sur X
BARMM 290 Butig, Lanao del Sur X
BARMM 291 Kapatagan, Lanao del Sur X
BARMM 292 Lumbaca Unayan, Lanao del Sur X
BARMM 293 Lumbatan, Lanao del Sur X
BARMM 294 Madalum, Lanao del Sur X
BARMM 295 Madamba, Lanao del Sur X
BARMM 296 Marantao, Lanao del Sur X X
BARMM 297 Mulondo, Lanao del Sur X X
BARMM 298 Saguiaran, Lanao del Sur X X
BARMM 299 Lugus, Sulu X
BARMM 300 Luuk, Sulu X
BARMM 301 Panamao, Sulu X
BARMM 302 Pandami, Sulu X
BARMM 303 Panglima Estino, Sulu X
BARMM 304 Panglima Tahil, Sulu X
BARMM 305 Tapul, Sulu X
Total 4 101 32 210 21
Accounting Reporting
Region Count LGU
Guidelines Guidelines
VIII 10 Hinundayan, Southern Leyte X
VIII 11 Limasawa, Southern Leyte X
VIII 12 Padre Burgos, Southern Leyte X
VIII 13 San Francisco, Southern Leyte X X
VIII 14 San Ricardo, Southern Leyte X
VIII 15 St. Bernard, Southern Leyte X
VIII 16 Maasin City, Southern Leyte X
VIII 17 Province of Eastern Samar X
Subtotal 17 15 4
X 1 Valencia City, Bukidnon X
X 2 Alubijid, Misamis Oriental X
X 3 Oroquieta City, Misamis Occidental X
Subtotal 3 3 0
XI 1 Magsaysay, Davao del Sur X
XI 2 Banaybanay, Davao Oriental X
XI 3 Generoso, Davao Oriental X
XI 4 Lupon, Davao Oriental X
XI 5 San Isidro, Davao Oriental X
Subtotal 5 5 0
XIII 1 Butuan City, Agusan del Norte X
XIII 2 Dinagat, PDI X X
XIII 3 Libjo, PDI X
XIII 4 Tubajon, PDI X
XIII 5 Mainit, Surigao del X
XIII 6 Surigao City, Surigao del Norte X X
XIII 7 Province of Surigao del Norte X
Subtotal 7 7 2
BARMM 1 Akbar, Basilan X
BARMM 2 Hadji Muhtamad, Basilan X
BARMM 3 Lamitan City, Basilan X
Subtotal 3 0 3
Grand Total 63 51 17
Status of Implementation
Region LGU No.
FI PI NI No Report Submitted
NCR Muntinlupa City 1
CAR Danglas, Abra 2
Asipulo, Ifugao 3
II Enrile, Cagayan 4
Gattaran, Cagayan 5
Luna, Isabela 6
San Mateo, Isabela 7
Echague, Isabela 8
III Mabalacat City, Pampanga 9
Gabaldon, Nueva Ecija 10
Magalang, Pampanga 11
General Mamerto Natividad, NE 12
Malolos City, Bulacan 13
IV-A Talisay, Batangas 14
IV-B Calintaan, Occ. Mindoro 15
Victoria, Oriental Mindoro 16
VI Roxas City, Capiz 17
XII Matalam, Cotabato 18
M'lang, Province of Cotabato 19
Tulunan, Province of Cotabato 20
XIII Bislig City, Surigao del Sur 21
Bunawan, Agusan del Sur 22
Total 22 9 3 1 9
Status of Implementation
Region LGU No.
FI PI NI No Report Submitted
NCR Las Piñas City 1
Malabon City 2
CAR Danglas, Abra 3
Luba, Abra 4
Atok, Benguet 5
Bakun, Benguet 6
Bokod, Benguet 7
Buguias, Benguet 8
Itogon, Benguet 9
Kabayan, Benguet 10
Kibungan, Benguet 11
La Trinidad, Benguet 12
Sablan, Benguet 13
Tuba, Benguet 14
Mayoyao, Ifugao 15
Tanudan, Kalinga 16
Unsupported Disbursements
Validity and propriety of disbursements in 51 LGUs could not be ascertained The Auditors recommended that the Management immediately submit the
due to absence or non-submission of complete and/or sufficient supporting lacking supporting documents for verification, and henceforth, ensure that
documents. claims are duly supported with complete and proper documentation before
processing claims for payment to establish the validity, regularity and
propriety of the disbursements.
Status of Implementation
Region LGU No.
FI PI NI No Report Submitted
CAR La Paz, Abra 1
I San Carlos City, Pangasinan 2
II San Mateo, Isabela 3
Calayan, Cagayan 4
Diadi, Nueva Vizcaya 5
III Bagac, Bataan 6
Orani, Bataan 7
San Miguel, Bulacan 8
Cabiao, Nueva Ecija 9
Peñaranda, Nueva Ecija 10
San Isidro, Nueva Ecija 11
Santa Rosa, Nueva Ecija 12
San Jose, Tarlac 13
Province of Zambales 14
Unimplemented PPAs
Various PPAs contained in the LDRRMP of 87 LGUs were not implemented, The Auditors recommended that Management cause the timely
contrary to Section 21 of RA No. 10121 and Section 6.2 of Section 6.2 of implementation of all programmed projects under DRRM program, and
NDRRMC-DBM-DILG Joint Memorandum Circular No. 2013-1; thus, other PPAs, in accordance with the respective appropriation ordinance,
impeding the efficient use of fund for disaster mitigation, response and LDRRMP and AIP, in order to lessen the socio-economic and
rehabilitation to the disadvantage of the public. environmental impacts of disasters in the community and disaster risks,
including projected climate risks, and to enhance disaster preparedness and
response capabilities of the community.
Status of Implementation
Region LGU No.
FI PI NI No Report Submitted
NCR City of Muntinlupa 1
Quezon City 2
San Juan City 3
Taguig City 4
CAR Province of Benguet 5
Bontoc, Mountain Province 6
Tadian, Mountain Province 7
Hingyon, Ifugao 8
Kiangan, Ifugao 9
Baguio City, Benguet 10
Banaue, Ifugao 11
I Agoo, La Union 12
City of San Fernando, La Union 13
Asingan, Pangasinan 14
Pugo, La Union 15
II Sanchez Mira, Cagayan 16
Status of Implementation
Region LGU No.
FI PI NI No Report Submitted
No Established Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Office (LDRRMO)
II Enrile, Cagayan 1
IV-A San Narciso, Quezon 2
Unisan, Quezon 3
IV-B Araceli, Palawan 4
Dumaran, Palawan 5
VI Patnongon, Antique 6
LGUs with Understaffed LDRRMO
I Asingan, Pangasinan 1
Burgos, Pangasinan 2
Dasol, Pangasinan 3
II Cabatuan, Isabela 4
Luna, Isabela 5
San Mateo, Isabela 6
III Dilasag, Aurora 7
Dinalungan, Aurora 8
Dipaculao, Aurora 9
San Luis, Aurora 10
Samal, Bataan 11
Orani, Bataan 12
Abucay, Bataan 13
Balagtas, Bulacan 14
Subic, Zambales 15
Castillejos, Zambales 16
San Felipe, Zambales 17
IV-A Calaca, Batangas 18
Calauag, Quezon 19
San Francisco, Quezon 20
V Batuan, Masbate 21
Mandaon, Masbate 22
San Jacinto, Masbate 23
San Pascual, Masbate 24
Uson, Masbate 25
Donsol, Sorsogon 26
Gubat, Sorsogon 27
VI Lemery, Iloilo 28
San Rafael, Iloilo 29
Guimbal, Iloilo 30
Alimodia, Iloilo 31
Alimodian, Iloilo 32
Leon, Iloilo 33
San Miguel, Iloilo 34
VII Cebu City 35
Duero, Bohol 36
Balilihan, Bohol 37
San Isidro, Bohol 38
PPAs for the PY’s Unexpended Balances Not Included in the LDRRMFIP
LDRRMFIP of 53 LGUs did not include the PPAs charged to the The Auditors recommended that the Management include in their plans the
unexpended balances of LDRRMF under Trust Liabilities account which is utilization of the unexpended LDRRM Fund balances from prior years, and
not in conformity with Sections 4.4 and 5.1.2 of COA Circular No. 2012- specify the list of PPAs to be charged against the unexpended LDRRMF of
002; hence, validity of the transaction made could not be ascertained. previous years in its LDRRMFIP prior to the utilization of the same
pursuant to the provisions of COA Circular No. 2012-002.