8.3.2. No documents were presented to prove that the Pakyaw labor was drawn from
the project vicinity or that the Pakyaw labor groups belonged to Barangay
Associations contiguous to the project site;
8.3.3. There was no documentation indicating that the Municipality appointed a
Project Facilitator to assist in forming the Pakyaw Group and preparing the
Pakyaw Contracts. Similarly, there was no evidence of meetings conducted
or convened by the PF, in coordination with the Barangay Chairperson or
officials, to facilitate the formation of the Pakyaw Groups; and
8.3.4. It appears that the Group Leader functions solely as the signatory and the
payment recipient on behalf of the group. Item 4.6 of the aforementioned
guidelines requires that Pakyaw workers organize into groups and elect a
Group Leader from among themselves.
8.4. The above-noted deficiencies were not in accordance with the provisions of
Appendix 1 of the 2016 Revised IRR of RA No. 9184, casting doubt on the legality
of the disbursements.
8.5. We recommended and Management agreed to ensure strict compliance with the
guidelines and provisions of R.A. No. 9184 and its Revised IRR in implementing
infrastructure projects by the administration and submit the following:
8.5.1. The updated APP approved by the Municipal Mayor and the BAC
resolution justifying any changes in the original mode of procurement or
the omission of the infrastructure projects undertaken by the
administration from the APP;
8.5.2. A clearer copy of the laborers’ identification cards;
8.5.3. The name of the Project Facilitator per project and the related
documents that would prove his/her appointment as such, duly approved
by the Municipal Mayor; and
8.5.4. Relevant documents for the formation of the Pakyaw Group showing
that the barangay leaders and the community were actively involved.
48
