Sa huling bahagi ng diskusyon sa APP, tingnan natin ang mga probisyon sa pagpapanatili ng plano sa pagggasta at kung paano maire-relate ang APP sa Annual Budget.
7.4. Updating of the individual PPMPs and the consolidated APP for each procuring entity shall be undertaken every six (6) months or as often as may be required by the Head of the Procuring Entity. The updating of the PPMPs shall be the responsibility of the respective end-user units of the Procuring Entities, while the consolidation of these PPMPs into an APP shall be lodged with the BAC Secretariat, subject to approval of the Head of the Procuring Entity.
7.5. The ABC as reflected in the APP or PPMP shall be at all times consistent with the appropriations for the project authorized in the GAA, continuing, and automatic appropriations, the corporate budget, and the appropriation ordinance, as the case may be. For NGAs, to facilitate the immediate implementation of projects even pending approval of the GAA, the ABC shall be based on the budget levels under the proposed national budget submitted by the President to Congress.
Malinaw na ang pagsusumite ng pagbabago sa procurement ay magsisimula sa end-user o sa departamento na nagangailangan bumili o gumasta. Maaring gawin ito ng dalawang beses isang taon o mas madalas pa depende sa pangangailangan. Ang mga nabago sa PPMP ay dadalhin sa BAC Secretariat upang isama sa komposisyon ng pagsususog ng APP.
Sa mga pamahalaang lokal, ang Annual Budget ay nararapat magmula sa ordinansa na ipapasa ng Sanggunian. Lahat ng mga paggasta na nasa Annual Budget ay dapat nasa APP rin. Kung may paglilinaw, paghahati, o anumang uri ng pagbabago sa budget dapat itama ang APP. Ang proseso ng procurement ay dapat magsimula sa pagtatapos ng resolusyon ng BAC at ng Sanggunian (kung kakailanganin pa).
Silipin natin ang isang Supreme Court decision na may malaking implikasyon lalo na sa mga Local Government Units:
There has always been the issue of whether or not a prior Sanggunian authorization is required before any Local Chief Executive (LCE) could validly enter into procurement contracts (as R.A. 9184 is silent on the matter).
Despite DILG Opinion No. 9 s. 2006, one reason why the issue persists is due, perhaps, to the fact that it is only an opinion and it was rendered on a particular case of a province, which municipalities/cities may find inapplicable to them under the provisions of the Local Government Code.
Most of us are, probably, unaware of the Supreme Court decision in the Province of Cebu (another province, but, don’t worry, the decision is of general application to LGUs in GR. No. 175527 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/175527.htm), the pertinent decision of which on the subject matter is quoted below:
“In cases, for instance, where the local government unit operates under an annual as opposed to a re-enacted budget, it should be acknowledged that the appropriation passed by the sanggunian may validly serve as the authorization required under Sec. 22(c) of R.A. No. 7160. After all, an appropriation is an authorization made by ordinance, directing the payment of goods and services from local government funds under specified conditions or for specific purposes. The appropriation covers the expenditures which are to be made by the local government unit, such as current operating expenditures and capital outlays.
“The question of whether a sanggunian authorization separate from the appropriation ordinance is required should be resolved depending on the particular circumstances of the case. Resort to the appropriation ordinance is necessary in order to determine if there is a provision therein which specifically covers the expense to be incurred or the contract to be entered into. Should the appropriation ordinance, for instance, already contain in sufficient detail the project and cost of a capital outlay such that all that the local chief executive needs to do after undergoing the requisite public bidding is to execute the contract, no further authorization is required, the appropriation ordinance already being sufficient.
“On the other hand, should the appropriation ordinance describe the projects in generic terms such as “infrastructure projects,” “inter-municipal waterworks, drainage and sewerage, flood control, and irrigation systems projects,” “reclamation projects” or “roads and bridges,” there is an obvious need for a covering contract for every specific project that in turn requires approval by the sanggunian. Specific sanggunianapproval may also be required for the purchase of goods and services which are neither specified in the appropriation ordinance nor encompassed within the regular personal services and maintenance operating expenses.”
From the above-quoted decision, the following are clear:
- If the LGU operates on an Annual/Supplemental budget, not on a re-enacted budget, the appropriation passed by the Sanggunian may validly serve as the authorization under Sec. 22.c of R.A. 7160 PROVIDED that the appropriation ordinance already contain in sufficient detail the project and the cost of a capital outlay such that all the LCE needs to do after the requisite public bidding is to execute the contract;
- If, however, the appropriation ordinance describe the project(s) in generic terms, there is a need for a covering contract for every specific project which, in turn, would require approval by the sanggunian;
- Specific sanggunian approval may also be required for the purchase of goods and services which are neither specified in the appropriation ordinance not encompassed within the regular personal services and MOOE.
The last bulleted item would be something that needs further clarification (maybe by the GPPB) because it could be interpreted in a number of ways, the effect of which could derail procurement of goods and services.