Mayors and governors have a statutory duty to convert the Special Education Fund (SEF) into real learning gains, yet too often treat the fund as a ledger item rather than a covenant with children. This opinion piece indicts local executives for lax allocation, indifferent disbursement, and perfunctory auditing that betray legal mandates and public trust.
The Department of Budget and Management revised interagency guidelines to clarify the purpose and expand allowable uses of the SEF, but implementation remains uneven across jurisdictions. Decisive leadership must make flexibility a consistent practice.
Local practices reveal a worrying gap between policy and execution. The 2020 joint circular titled “DepEd-DBM-DILG Joint Circular No. 2, s. 2020” supplements earlier guidance on using the SEF. Issued by the Department of Education, the Department of Budget and Management, and the Department of the Interior and Local Government, the circular clarifies permissible expenses. It seeks to strengthen planning, monitoring, and reporting.
Many local school boards still receive funds without the strategic plans required by the guidelines. Mayors and governors are responsible for enforcing compliance, yet enforcement often fails. This raises a pressing question: why does this happen?
A legislative push to broaden the SEF’s scope reflects nationwide recognition of unmet needs and the political obligation of local leaders to act promptly rather than show indifference. Political rhetoric cannot replace legal responsibility.
The fund’s legal basis rests on local taxation and statutory allocations that require local executives to prioritize education in budgeting and transfers to local school boards. Failure to honor these fiscal commitments constitutes a breach of public trust.
Local Government Units in the Philippines must allocate 1% of their Internal Revenue Allotment to the SEF. The Local Government Code of 1991 (Republic Act No. 7160) requires provinces, cities, and municipalities to set aside this portion for education. The fund supplements public schools’ annual budgets, covering maintenance, operations, and approved expenses such as literacy programs, instructional materials, and teacher support.
It is also important to note that the SEF is derived from an additional one percent levy on real property tax, allocated directly to the Local School Board for education-related expenses. In provinces, the one percent real property tax is split evenly between the province and the municipalities within its jurisdiction. In cities, the entire collection goes to the city’s SEF.
Too often, mayors and governors treat the SEF as discretionary padding. Budgets include line items that satisfy auditors but do not align with measurable literacy outcomes. This educationalist observes procurement lists that favor visible assets over sustained instructional support. Such choices reflect a failure in governance.
Delays in disbursement compound the problem. Funds arrive late or in installments, disrupting program continuity. Teachers and remedial programs struggle when cash flow is unpredictable. Timely release of funds is a managerial responsibility.
Accounting practices frequently emphasize appearance over purpose. Reports arrive with receipts and signatures but lack outcome measures, baseline data, or independent verification. Auditors check boxes while actual learning remains untracked. Auditing must evolve into educational assurance rather than mere compliance.
The political economy of local governance explains part of the inertia. Mayors and governors face competing pressures and short electoral cycles. Some prioritize optics over results and favor ribbon cuttings over the slow work of improving learning. Short-term politics should not determine long-term progress.
Procurement patterns reveal priorities. Recurring choices betray intent:
Infrastructure before instruction
Hardware before assessment
Visibility before verification.
Each choice signals a misalignment between spending and the evidence on what improves teaching, learning, and literacy.
Reform requires three commitments from local executives: enforce the joint circular, tie disbursements to performance metrics, and invite independent community audits. These commitments are fiduciary duties.
This educationalist insists that mayors and governors be publicly held accountable for the allocation, timely disbursement, and rigorous auditing of the SEF, with every peso traceable to explicit literacy and inclusion outcomes. Accountability must include transparent performance indicators, independent audits that assess impact and compliance, and community oversight that translates financial reports into verifiable classroom realities. When leaders treat the fund as a covenant to children and prioritize substantive investment over image, the return on public trust will appear in rising reading proficiency, shrinking learning gaps, and genuinely inclusive classrooms.
One of the ultimate measures of political leadership in the LGUs will be the youth who read intelligently, who progress steadily, and who critically understand and analyze how their LGUs have long betrayed them by failing to allocate, utilize, and audit their Special Education Fund in accordance with the law and in a transparent manner.
