Intelligence funds

TALISAY City Mayor Johnny V. de los Reyes asked, in his State of the City Address last Monday night, whether it was wrong that he gave away part of his intelligence funds to the poor. He addressed this question to the City Council, whom he accused of slashing those funds. Or it may have been a rhetorical question, because the mayor seems to believe he was wise to spend his intelligence funds on the poor. What’s wrong with that? A lot, as it turns out. Public officials entrusted with confidential and intelligence funds do have some discretion, considering the nature of these funds. But this does not mean they can spend these funds at will. Audit rules do provide some strict limits.

These limits are spelled out in a joint circular issued last Jan. 8, 2015 by the budget, local government, and national defense departments, as well as the Governance Commission for Government-Owned and Controlled Corporations and the Commission on Audit (COA). In it, these agencies said that confidential and intelligence funds must be used mainly for surveillance and intelligence information-gathering activities.

Local governments may use these funds to increase police visibility, provide equipment or other logistical support to law enforcement agencies, and support other activities that prevent crime. These funds may also pay for programs against illegal drugs, illegal gambling, terrorism, insurgency, illegal logging, illegal fishing, smuggling and human trafficking.

The circular allows local governments and other public agencies to use intelligence funds to pay for information, rent or maintain safehouses, and reward informers, among other uses. But these funds cannot be used for allowances, consultancy fees, salaries, construction and “entertainment expenses.”

Neither is confidentiality meant to allow a lack of transparency. Indeed, any use of confidential and intelligence funds must be supported by a resolution approved by two-thirds of the Local Peace and Order Council, the circular states.

Mayor de los Reyes deserves some credit for his candor. He would deserve more if he observes the rules on the use of intelligence funds and stops giving them to the nameless, un-audited poor.