Part I
Executive Summary
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
Governments around the world consider effective performance management
and reporting systems as a vehicle for enhancing public accountability and
driving the achievement of government outcome. In line with this principle,
the Philippine Government, through the Department of Budget and
Management (DBM) and the National Economic Development Authority
(NEDA), embarked on projects to further strengthen accountability mechanisms
and improve public expenditure management. One of the projects that was
initiated by the DBM for this purpose was the Public Expenditure Management
Improvement Project (PEMIP). The objectives of the PEMIP are as follows:
 To enhance aggregate fiscal discipline;
 To improve resource allocation; and
 To promote operating efficiency at the agency level.
The major components of the PEMIP are as follows:




Medium-Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF);
Agency Performance Measurement System;
Agency Managerial Flexibility; and
Performance Incentives.
The Philippine Government started to introduce the MTEF and the
Organizational Performance Indicator Framework (OPIF) through the FY 2000
National Budget Call. This was refined in the FYs 2001- 2002 budget calls,
with the introduction of periodic assessment of on-going Programs, Activities
and Projects (PAPs). These projects are subjected to the Sector Effectiveness
and Efficiency Review (SEER). The MTEF, OPIF, and SEER constitute the
three pillars of the Government’s public expenditure management reform
program.
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Under the MTEF, the budget will be restructured to cover a number of years to
better support the Government’s development strategy and improve technical
efficiency in the sectors by “providing a more predictable resource environment
for program planning and implementation.”
Hand in hand, the concept of performance indicators was introduced through
OPIF. The indicators were intended to be linked to the organization’s
performance in order to encourage government agencies to allocate and/or
reallocate resources towards high priority PAPs. Under OPIF, the appropriate
final output directly linked with the actual organization performance of the
agencies will be identified and developed. A final output is a good or service
produced or provided by an organization which is consumed or used by an
external client.
Another project of the government which is related to performance reporting is
the Formulation of Performance Indicators and Standards for Development
Administration (FPISDA) Project. This project was undertaken by NEDA in
relation to the paradigm shift in governance which is called “development
administration” covering six areas of concern including, among others, reengineering or streamlining the bureaucracy, privatization and decentralization.
Under the project, NEDA commissioned the Development Academy of the
Philippines (DAP) to formulate performance indicators and standards on the
areas of concern of development administration. These indicators are intended
to monitor and evaluate government’s performance under the new concept of
“development administration”. The ultimate objective of FPISDA is a shift to
performance-based planning, programming and budgeting system.
In line with the government’s efforts to improve public expenditure
management and strengthen accountability, a study on the existing performance
reporting system of selected government agencies was undertaken.
Performance reporting is considered as an integral part of the government’s
accountability framework.
Reporting is the final phase of any activity and the resultant reports are
considered to be the windows of accomplishments.
For this reason,
performance reports to be useful must be credible. Performance reports of
government agencies are used by different sectors. Internal users or the
management use the report to assess and monitor the progress of a particular
activity in relation to its intended outcome. External users are using the reports
for different purposes. The DBM and legislative bodies need performance
reports for budget allocation purposes. The Office of the President uses the
reports for monitoring the performance of the agency officials and as an input in
the President’s State of the Nation Address (SONA).
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The NEDA uses the agency’s reports as basis for assessing the extent of
implementation of socio-economic and development programs of the
government. Other external users of reports are the general public and the
media.
This audit covered the evaluation of existing reporting systems of six (6)
government agencies including the Department of Justice (D0J).
The DOJ, with its mission to “uphold the RULE OF LAW” and ensure the
effective and efficient administration of justice in the country, is the primary
agency mandated to provide the government with a principal law agency. It also
acts as the government’s legal counsel and prosecution arm by administering
the criminal justice system in accordance with the accepted processes
comprising of the investigation of crimes, prosecution of offenders and
administration of the correctional system, implementation of laws on
admission, stay and citizenship of aliens, administration of the titling system,
settlement of land problems involving small land owners and members of
indigenous cultural minorities and provision of legal assistance to indigent
members of society.
The authority and responsibility for the exercise of the powers and discharge of
functions of the DOJ are vested in the Secretary of Justice, who is assisted by
four (4) Undersecretaries and three (3) Assistant Secretaries.
The DOJ is divided into five (5) organizational units composed of:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The National Prosecution Service;
The Legal Staff;
The Technical Staff;
The Administrative Service; and,
The Financial and Management Service
The National Prosecution Service (NPS) is the prosecution arm of the
Department and is the main focus of this audit.
In pursuance of its mandate, the DOJ received appropriations amounting to
P1.719 billion in 2002, and P1.323 billion each year in 2001 and in 2000. Of the
total appropriations for 2002, 60.02% or P1.031 billion was earmarked for the
maintenance and operations of the Prosecution Services, being the major
program component of the DOJ, apportioned as follows:
4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Programs and Activities
Personal Services
Maintenance & Other Operating
Expenses
Total
Amount
% to total
appropriation
P 1,000,605,000
58.196%
31,308,000
P 1,031,913,000
1.821%
60.017%
AUDIT OBJECTIVE
The audit was conducted to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the
performance reporting system of the NPS giving consideration to the
sufficiency of performance indicators and the reliability, relevance, and
completeness of performance information.
AUDIT SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
The audit covered the evaluation of performance reports rendered by six (6)
selected medium-sized government agencies for CYs 2001 and 2002 which
include the DOJ.
The audit focused on the performance reporting system of the prosecution
program implemented by the NPS in the National Capital Region (NCR). The
team evaluated reports covering CYs 2001 and 2002, submitted by selected
City Prosecutors’ Offices (CPOs) of Pasig, Makati, Kalookan, Manila and
Quezon City. These CPOs cover 53% of the total number of complaints
received as of November 2002.
To achieve the audit objective, the team considered the following key criteria
for assessing the effectiveness of the performance reporting system:




Complete and informative reports
Accurate and reliable reports
Timely submission of reports
Sufficiency of performance indicators
5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
During the audit, the team performed the following procedures:
a. Reviewed existing policies and guidelines on reporting of
accomplishments of the NPS
b. Interviewed the Chief State Prosecutor, City Prosecutors
and other key personnel who are directly involved in the
preparation of the report
c. Reviewed accomplishment reports and other relevant
reports prepared by the NPS relative to the investigation
of complaints and prosecution of cases
d. Assessed the sufficiency of performance indicators in
reporting accomplishments
e. Validated the reporting system in place in the NPS and
selected Offices of the City Prosecutors and State
Prosecutors within the NCR
The audit was conducted from November 18, 2002 to March 31, 2003 in
compliance with COA Office Orders Nos. 2002-518 and 2002-518A dated
November 15 and 25, 2002, respectively, and pursuant to COA Memorandum
dated February 13, 2003.
AUDIT CONCLUSION
The existing performance system of the NPS needs improvement to ensure the
generation of reliable, complete and informative reports. This situation is partly
due to insufficient performance indicators to measure the achievement of the
prosecution program’s objectives. In view of this deficiency, the reports could
not be used as bases for assessing the effective disposition of cases. As
required under existing regulations, investigation of cases should be completed
within 60 days.
The team noted that the reports merely enumerate the activities and outputs
accomplished during the period without relating such outputs to the program’s
intended results and outcome. This hinders the conduct of an effective
evaluation of the NPS performance which is geared towards assessing the
achievement of the objective and identifying existing weaknesses affecting the
speedy disposition of cases.
6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Likewise, the consolidated NPS reports could not be relied upon due to the
absence of validation of reports submitted by the Prosecutors. Moreover, the
consolidated reported accomplishments do not reflect the total reported
accomplishments of the Prosecutors.
The audit further disclosed that about 74% of the monthly reports to be
submitted by the Prosecutors from January to November 2002 were not
submitted at all. In such case, the DOJ was not even informed on the activities
being undertaken by the Prosecutors and their effect in the speedy disposition of
cases.
Considering the importance of reports as a source of information for assessing
the impact of government projects and for improving public confidence, the
team recommended measures to address these concerns for consideration by the
DOJ.
MANAGEMENT’S REACTION TO AUDIT OBSERVATIONS
The results of the audit were discussed with the concerned officials and
employees of the DOJ in an exit conference conducted on October 10, 2003.
The DOJ accepted the team’s observations and had taken initial steps to
address these concerns.
7