Hindi prepared! No quick response disaster funds in Tineg, Abra
The municipality of Tineg in Abra failed to set aside 30 percent of its Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Fund (LDRMMF) for its Quick Response Fund (QRF) in times of disaster, state auditors said.
In a 2016 report, the Commission on Audit (COA) said 30 percent of the LDRRMF was not set aside for the Quick Response Fund in violation of Section 21 of Republic Act 10121 or the Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act.
Auditors said the municipality appropriated P5,495,430.35 LDRRMF in its 2015 Annual Budget. But the agency did not apportion thirty percent lump-sum allocation for the Quick Response Fund in the LDRRMF in violation of Section 21 of Republic Act 10121.
Section 21 of the law reads: “Of the amount appropriated for LDRRMF, thirty percent (30%) shall be allocated as Quick Response Fund (QRF) or stand-by fund for relief and recovery programs in order that situation and living conditions of people in the communities or areas stricken by disasters, calamities, epidemics or complex emergencies, may be normalized as quickly as possible.”
This made the agency “not … capable of handling calamities and disasters quickly,” the auditors said.
The COA recommended to the municipal mayor Corinthia Crisologo that the Municipal Disaster Risk Reduction Management Council the mayor heads should allocate 30 percent of LDRRMF for the Quick Response Fund to be utilized during disasters and calamities.
“The 30%-70% allocation should be properly identified in the Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Fund Investment Plan (LDRRMFIP) for proper implementation of projects and monitoring thereof,” the auditors said.
Recommended on other sites
Politiko Main Latest News
North Luzon Latest News
Metro Manila Latest News
Central Luzon Latest News
Bicol Latest News
Visayas Latest News
The comments posted on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of POLITICS.com.ph. We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.