Meta PixelAnnual Audit Report 2024 — Municipality of San Jose — Page 68

Page 68 of 103

Page 68
11.1   The Department of Education (DepEd), Department of Budget and Management
       (DBM), and the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) issued
       Joint Circular (JC) No. 1, series of 2017 dated January 19, 2017, to revise the
       guidelines on the use of the SEF. Item 6.1 of the JC guidelines on monitoring,
       transparency, and accountability in the utilization of the SEF.

11.2   Our audit of the allocation and utilization of the SEF in CY 2024 revealed that
       the Municipality was not in compliance with Item 6.1 of the JC due to the
       following deficiencies:

a) The Local School Board (LSB) did not provide the Municipal Budget Officer,
   Municipal Accountant, and Municipal Treasurer with a copy of the approved
   SEF Budget within seven (7) days after its approval.

11.3   Item 6.1 of the Joint Circular mandates that, within seven (7) days after the
       approval of the SEF Budget, the LSB shall provide the Municipal Budget Officer,
       Municipal Accountant, and Municipal Treasurer with a copy of the approved SEF
       Budget. This document serves as the basis for disbursements, certification of fund
       availability, and record-keeping purposes.

11.4   Our review of the SEF Budget confirmed that it was approved by the LSB on
       November 29, 2023. Hence, the Municipal Budget Officer, Municipal
       Accountant, and Municipal Treasurer had to receive the approved SEF Budget by
       December 7, 2023. However, a request made on February 21, 2025, to the Office
       of the LSB Vice Chairperson for a copy of the SEF Budget, stamped as "received"
       by the aforementioned offices, revealed that no such copies exist. This lack of
       documentation prevents us from verifying the date of receipt by the intended
       recipients. Nonetheless, the LSB Vice Chairperson explained that, upon approval
       by the LSB, copies are immediately provided to the recipients due to the closeness
       of their offices, without requiring them to formally acknowledge receipt.

11.5   Having documents stamped as "received" by the recipients serves as a form of
       acknowledgment, ensures accountability, tracks delivery timelines, and mitigates
       disputes regarding receipt. Additionally, it allows verification of compliance with
       relevant regulatory and procedural requirements, such as Section 6.1 of DepEd-
       DBM-DILG Joint Circular No. 1, s. 2017, which aims to promote transparency
       and accountability on the allocation of the SEF Budget.

b) The LSB was unable to submit the quarterly and annual reports on SEF
   utilization to the DepEd Central Office (CO) through the appropriate channels,
   with copies furnished to the local sanggunian, as well as to the Regional Offices
   of the DBM and DILG.




                                                                                             53