Discovery by the WB of anomalous practices in JRSPI have tried to condense the report in the following link. I recommend reading the original link also.
Click on wB loan to supreme court a high risk
The World Bank hascovered questionable procurements and disbursements in the Supreme Court's JRSP(Judicial Reform Support Project). This project was supported by a WB load of 21.9 million USD(930.75 Phil Pesos)! Sus! the project was designed to increase efficiency in the dispensation of justice in the country.
Unsatisfactory rating for Supreme CourtThe WB has rated the judiciary reform program as unsatisfactory and requiring with implementation delays and additional correctional for smooth project closing. Thw peoject consisted mostly of Justices and high court justices visiting the courts in various parts of the country. The JRSP is now a high risk lending case and is demmed unsatisfactory on project management, project procurement and financial management dimensions . The financial statements of the project cannot be even relied upon by the World Bank.
Improprieties and corrupt practices uncovered!Here are some of the things uncovered:
- “diminished existing internal check-and-balance mechanism,”
- purchase of information technology equipment outside of the agreed procurement plan
- practice of borrowing funds from the loan for the justices’ foreign travels, paid to a travel agency owned by lawyer Estelito Mendoza.
- the printing supply of the Court Reporter’s Case Index
- purchase of laptop computers
- speaker’s fee for seminars,
- registration fee of justices attending international conferences
- foreign travels of justices and their staff (including airfare, hotel accommodations and meal allowances).
The World Bank wants a refund of $199,900, covering “70 payments” deemed “ineligible” or unauthorized under the terms of the JRSP.
The World Bank review was triggered by a rise of several withdrawal applications” presented to the World Bank by the tribunal’s Program Management Office (PMO), “which seemed to signal a sudden and significant increase in the disbursement in the latter half of 2011.”
Responses of the Supreme Coourt and Corona defense panel
The Supreme court has not responded to this story but the spokesperson of Corona’s legal team, said:
“not in any way connected to any of the articles of impeachment” against the Chief Justice.
He added that it was the high court as a whole, and not Corona alone, that should respond to the accusation and suspected about the timing of the release of the WB report and simply dismised it as black propaganda.
The most glaring example of mismanagement was the appointment by Corona of one man as
as court administrator, head of the Public Information Office, and chair of the Bids and Awards Committee.
The court administrator was authorized to approve, on Corona’s behalf, payments of up to P200,000 which was later increased to P500,000, the World Bank said.
Such conflict of interest and lack of controls (check and balances) has contributed to the irregular and inappropriate procurement and expenditure decisions.