Go questions accuracy of DSWD beneficiaries

SEN. Bong Go expressed reservations regarding the Department of Social Welfare and Development's (DSWD) budget during the Senate Committee on Finance deliberations on September 16.

Go particularly questioned the accuracy and effectiveness of the department's efforts in verifying the beneficiaries of their social programs.

As one of the vice chairmen of the Senate Finance Committee, he inquired whether the DSWD's programs adequately address the needs of their intended beneficiaries, particularly the impoverished and vulnerable, ensuring prompt assistance to help them overcome poverty, crises and economic challenges.

«I want to express my support to the Department of Social Welfare and Development programs, which play a crucial role in uplifting the lives of the marginalized and vulnerable sectors in our society,» Go said.

But he pointed out that DSWD must ensure that these programs and assistance reach those who need government attention the most. One of the significant points Go raised was regarding the Assistance to Individuals in Crisis Situation (AICS) program

He questioned the department on adequately utilizing the budget and removing unnecessary hardships for individuals seeking aid. Go shifted the discussion to issues with cash availability, particularly in disaster-stricken areas, where immediate assistance is critical.

«How about your cash situation now? We've often heard that there's no cash in certain areas… many regions without cash. But there's cash in regions unaffected by typhoons,» he pointed out.

In response, DSWD Secretary Rex Gatchalian said that the lack of cash availability in certain areas was not due to a shortage of funds but rather the absence of Special Disbursing Officers (SDOs).

He clarified that these officers, who are responsible for withdrawing and distributing cash, are limited by the department's plantilla positions.

Gatchalian assured the committee that the department is working to address these issues and that funds will be available in disaster-stricken areas.

Another critical point Go raised was the follow-up on the validated list of beneficiaries from the previous year's hearing, specifically those affected by the