14.7 However, the Municipal Government implemented a monetary incentive scheme,
which is inconsistent with the above provisions. Section 26, Article 9 of
Resolution No. 2008-057 dated February 19, 2008, enacting the “Integrated and
Ecological Solid Waste Management of Sta. Catalina”, provides an incentive
program to sustain the implementation of the Solid Waste Management (SWM)
Plan, which includes the following:
14.7.1 For enforcers – under the anti-littering ordinance, 25 percent of the
penalty paid/collected will be given to the apprehending enforcer/s
whether regular, auxiliary, or volunteer;
14.7.2 Awards, citations, recognition, and commendations;
14.7.3 Cash prizes to winners of Clean and Green and related contests; and
14.7.4 Rationalized environmental management fee
14.8 It is emphasized that the incentive program outlined in the Act applies to
individuals or entities that have implemented exceptional and innovative projects,
technologies, processes, or activities in reuse, recycling, and waste reduction. The
allocation of a 25 percent monetary incentive to apprehending officers is not
included in the incentive schemes specified in the Act. Apart from that, this is
contrary to the ultimate goal of the incentive program provided in RA 9003, as
amended, which is to promote and encourage initiatives and innovations to reduce
solid waste.
14.9 Upon inquiry with the Accounting Office, it was revealed that the enforcer
responsible for issuing tickets for violations such as littering and non-segregation
of solid waste was employed under a Job Order (JO) arrangement.
14.10 We also refer Management to Sec. 12 of RA No. 6758, otherwise known as the
Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989, which expressly states
that all allowances are deemed included in the standardized salary except for
those specifically enumerated in the provision, including those which may be
determined by the Department of Budget and Management. It clarified that no
additional allowance shall be granted unless these are specifically authorized by
law. It shall be noted that the provision of a 25 percent incentive to the enforcer
could be deemed an additional benefit to its employees and, therefore, subject to
Sec. 12 of RA 6758. Moreover, it is emphasized that under Section 7.5 of COA
and DBM Joint Circular No. 2, dated October 20, 2020, the services of the JO
workers are not creditable as government services. Therefore, they do not qualify
for the benefits that regular employees receive.
14.11 Due to the foregoing, the allocation of incentives may result in the misuse of
public funds, diverting resources away from programs aimed at promoting waste
reduction, recycling, and reuse. Offering incentives to enforcers instead of
supporting projects that align with the Act’s objectives compromises the overall
goals of reducing waste and promoting sustainability. Finally, the misdirected
incentive scheme may discourage LGUs, enterprises, and private entities from
49
