Citizens’ Action

1. Citizens’ Action Monitoring Public Works Projects

2. C C A G G Concerned Citizens of Abra for Good Government “An aggrupation of men and women coming from the cross-section of Abra society”

3. Origin Origin Namfrel volunteers in Abra after the 1986 snap Presidential elections opted not to disband. They called themselves the Concerned Citizens of Abra for Good Government and committed themselves beyond electoral concerns foremost of which are: • Monitor performance of elected officials and government instrumentalities • Organize communities and help in Citizenship Building • Network and linkage with other organizations to put peoples’ interest in the political agenda • Do advocacy to popularize issues especially through the mass media and help form public opinion

4. Opening for the CCAGG The Aquino administration in 1987 implemented a development package called Community and Employment Development Program (CEDP) under the NEDA. The NEDA-CEDP allotted small projects (farm-to-market roads, health clinics, school buildings, irrigation systems, barangay roads, etc.) to communities and employed the project beneficiaries to augment their income derived from farming. It also tapped NGOs to monitor project implementation. A MOA was signed between NEDA, Ministry of Budget & Management (MBM) and CCAGG.

5. Highlights of the MOA NEDA provided CCAGG • Training on monitoring • Listing of projects, locations, agency implementers, etc. MBM provided • Total project costs and schedule of fund releases for projects

6. The Role of the CCAGG • Monitor project implementation based on guidelines provided by NEDA and MBM; • Furnish regular feedbacks to NEDA and implementing agencies including its recommendations to resolve issues arising from flaws in project implementation. In addition to the above, the CCAGG organized the project beneficiaries, effected the transfer of monitoring technology and involved them in project monitoring. It also used the diocesan radio and print media which aided very much in informing Abreños about the projects and status of implementation. This so thrilled the people for during those times there was that so-called “impenetrable secrecy” about government projects.

7. Reactions to Monitoring CEDP Projects • The people were very happy of their new found participation in enforcing honesty and integrity in the prosecution of projects • The information dissemination on projects being implemented threatened and angered agency implementers • During project monitoring, the government field personnel resented the monitors’ presence and talked down to them • Their arrogance was understandable for never before were they watched and questioned by laymen • Some contractors tried to bribe the CCAGG

8. Monitoring Findings on CEDP • Monitoring activities exposed anomalies in the CEDP projects. For example, projects not yet started or barely begun were reported finished. Certificates of Completion of Projects were prepared and “finished projects” were “turned-over” to local government executives (LGEs). • CCAGG wrote a letter of complaint to the Ministry of Public Works and Highways (MPWH). They sought a meeting with the Ministry’s top officials and requested for impartial investigators to look into the matter. • An audit team came to investigate. Their finding corroborated CCAGG’s reports; • An administrative case was filed against the accused engineers with CCAGG as witnesses;

9. Monitoring Findings on CEDP • CCAGG asked that the hearing of the case be filed outside of Abra Province, away from the clout of the political backers of the accused; • Politicians intervened but the Abrenians were resolute in their decision to put a stop to such anomalies. Concerned groups including the clergy of Abra and the business sector supported the prosecution of the case; • The accused were found guilty and punished accordingly. They were suspended from office for a period ranging from 4 to 9 months without pay. The District Engineer and the Assistant District Engineer can not come back to Abra Engineering District.

10. Monitoring Findings on CEDP • In 1988, President Corazon Aquino gave the CCAGG in Malacañang a Presidential Citation for “Outstanding Community Service” for its valued and distinctive contribution in the implementation of projects under the CEDP. • Shortly after, the MPWH in Region 1 came out with a Memo to its District office in Bangued. The CCAGG monitoring report became a requirement before projects are paid. These represented a moral victory for the Abrenians.

11. Learning and Insights • Graft and corruption drains government resources and enriches a few; • Graft and corruption explains the poverty of the people. Basic social services are denied them thus breeding contempt at government; • The empowered poor break their silence and worked for the common good. • Monitoring forces the issue and accountability in the government.

12. CCAGG turned 18 last February 2004 Monitoring of infrastructures, to this day, is CCAGG’s “signature” activity. It is a deputized NGO of the Regional Project Monitoring & Evaluation System (RPMES) of CAR. Among others, it has effected the following: • A remove and replace order of portions of a 4.6 kilometers in a highway project was slapped to a contractor. Among other things, its sub-base was not properly prepared resulting to inferior foundation, its cement mix was below specifications , and the aggregates used were far bigger than the specified size. Coring test were conducted on 10 random locations along the whole stretch of the 4.6 kilometer road. The core samples were subjected to laboratory test which showed that the strength of the core samples “all miserably failed”. Hence, the “remove and replace” order of the DPWH.

13. CCAGG turned 18 last February 2004 • The vigilance of the CCAGG saved scarce government resource from graft and corruption. One gravelling road project along Abra-Kalinga Road, km. 471 to 476, identified its source of aggregates as 51 kms. away from the project site. The volume of aggregates and the distance of hauling were running into millions of pesos. The CCAGG made a lot of noise, the DPWH investigated the matter and finding the complaint meritorious, it ordered the contractor to extend the road project using the savings realized from the hauling of aggregates. • There were also projects which the CCAGG “rescued” so to speak due to faulty design in collaborative correction of said projects thus saving scarce resource.

14. CCAGG & “Participatory Audit” CCAGG’s unrelenting campaign for honesty, accountability, and transparent governance caught the attention of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) in Manila. A partnership with them developed and through them, with the Commission on Audit (COA). In October 2002, COA and CCAGG signed a MOA to jointly conduct “Participatory Audit”. Participatory Audit aims to enhance transparency and accountability in government audits with the participation of civil society organizations. Participatory audit’s thrust is Value for Money (VFM) to determine the effectiveness and efficiency of the projects on the intended beneficiaries through Social Impact Evaluation. Participatory Audit was pilot tested in Abra Province on 23 road projects of DPWH and community projects of the DENR in the Province of Abra. COA Judged it as “very successful”.

15. CCAGG & “Participatory Audit” Participatory audit was replicated in Mt. Province with the Social Action Development Center (SADC) of the Prelature of the Bontoc – Lagawe and in Samar, and Camarines Norte with the National Urban Poor Assembly (NUPA). COA and CCAGG were permanent audit team members. The participation of civil society organizations in the audit process can help contribute to the attainment of sound fiscal management and good governance. Out of our experience on participatory audit, a book was launched at the COA Central Office on 21 January 2003. This book is envisioned to help in institutionalizing participatory audit.

16. End of Presentation Thank You!!!