A Citizen Participatory Audit Report...prescribed under DepEd Order No. 64 s. 2017 (Ground Floor) Annex A.2 Compliance with the Architectural, Electrical, Sanitary, Plumbing, and Mechanical/Fire

Republic of the Philippines

COMMISSION ON AUDIT Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City

A Citizen Participatory Audit Report



DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION’S ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL

BUILDINGS AND OTHER FACILITIES IN METRO MANILA

A Citizen Participatory Audit Report

JANUARY 2020

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Citizen Participatory Audit Report

DepEd’s Elementary and Secondary School Buildings and Other Facilities in Metro Manila

Acronyms ..................................................................................................................................... i

Transmittal Letter ........................................................................................................................ 1

Report

1.0 Background ........................................................................................................................... 2

2.0 Audit Focus ........................................................................................................................... 4

3.0 Audit Objectives .................................................................................................................... 5

4.0 Audit Criteria ......................................................................................................................... 6

5.0 Audit Scope and Methodology............................................................................................... 7

6.0 Audit Period ........................................................................................................................ 13

7.0 Audit Team Composition ..................................................................................................... 15

8.0 Audit Results ....................................................................................................................... 16

9.0 Audit Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 51

10.0 Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 53

11.0 Auditee’s Comments ......................................................................................................... 63

12.0 Auditor’s Evaluation and Rejoinder ................................................................................... 67

13.0 Acknowledgement ............................................................................................................ 69

Annexes:

Annex 1: Inspection Data Gathering Tool Annex A.1 Compliance with the Architectural, Electrical, Sanitary, Plumbing, and

Mechanical/Fire Protection Design Standards for school buildings

prescribed under DepEd Order No. 64 s. 2017 (Ground Floor)

Annex A.2 Compliance with the Architectural, Electrical, Sanitary, Plumbing, and


prescribed under DepEd Order No. 64 s. 2017 (Upper Floor)

Annex A.3 Compliance with the Architectural, Electrical, Sanitary, Plumbing, and


prescribed under DepEd Order No. 64 s. 2017 (Single-storey Buildings)

Annex B Compliance with toilet facilities requirements prescribed under

Educational Facilities Manual

Annex C Compliance with architectural facilities and features requirements of

ramps and toilets for Persons with Disability (PWDs) prescribed under

Batas Pambansa (BP) Bilang 344 - Accessibility Law and its

Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRRs)

Annex D Compliance with fire protection system requirements prescribed under

Republic Act (RA) No. 9514 - Fire Code of the Philippines and its IRRs

Annex E Compliance with RA No. 6716 - Rainwater Collector and Springs

Development Law

Annex F Geotagged Photos

Annex 2: Focus Group Discussion Guide

ACRONYMS



BEFF

BFP

Basic Education Facilities Fund

Bureau of Fire Protection

COA Commission on Audit

CPA Citizen Participatory Audit

CSO Civil Society Organization

DepEd Department of Education

DPWH

FGD

IRR

Department of Public Works and Highways

Focus Group Discussion

Implementing Rules and Regulations

LGU Local Government Unit

MOA Memorandum of Agreement

MPSS Minimum Performance Standards and Specifications

NCR

NGS

National Capital Region

National Government Sector

PMO Project Management Office

PWD

RSBP

RWCS

Persons With Disability

Regular School Building Program

Rain Water Collection System

SDO Schools Division Office





March 2, 2020 HON. LEONOR MAGTOLIS BRIONES Secretary Department of Education DepEd Complex, MERALCO Avenue Pasig City Dear Secretary Briones:

Pursuant to Section 2, Article IX-D of the Philippine Constitution and Section 43 of the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines (Presidential Decree No. 1445), Audit Teams were created under Commission on Audit (COA) Office Order No. 2019-027 dated August 28, 2019 to conduct the Citizen Participatory Audit of selected Public Elementary and Secondary School Buildings in Metro Manila.

For this undertaking, we adopted the Citizen Participatory Audit (CPA) technique

in line with the COA’s response to the call of the President of the Philippines for increased transparency and citizen participation in government and invoking COA’s authority granted by the 1987 Constitution “to define the scope of its audit and examination and establish the techniques and methods required therefor.”

We discussed the audit observations and recommendations with the Officials of the Department of Education (DepEd) and Department of Public Works and Highways including the Schools Division Superintendents (SDS’s) of Metro Manila in an exit conference conducted on January 24, 2020. We incorporated their responses/comments in the report where appropriate. The details of the audit are contained in this Audit Report.

We wish to express our gratitude to the SDS’s, School Principals, Teachers, and other concerned personnel of the selected schools in Metro Manila for their cooperation and support extended to the Teams during the audit. Likewise, we will appreciate receiving feedback on the status of implementation of our audit recommendations within 60 days from receipt hereof. Very truly yours,

ELINORE C. LAVILLA Director IV

P a g e | 2



1.0 BACKGROUND

The CPA is a priority program of the Commission on Audit, a broad program that provides, among others, a strategy for reform to uphold the Filipino people’s primordial right to a clean government and the prudent utilization of public resources, founded on the premise that public accountability can prosper only with a vigilant and involved citizenry. It further aims to provide a mechanism for collectively answering questions regarding government’s efficient and effective use of public funds for projects and operational activities. Per Republic Act (RA) No. 9155, DepEd’s goal of basic education is to provide the school age population and young adults with skills, knowledge, and values to become caring, self-reliant, productive and patriotic citizens. To attain this goal, schools should have, among others, adequate school buildings that comply with applicable standards; and, that operate in an environment that is conducive to learning. The DepEd 2010 Education and Facilities Manual was issued to lay down the standards for classrooms and schools buildings. Based on the said Manual, the following general guidelines shall be observed in the design of school buildings:

a. A school building shall be designed in accordance with its functions, needs of its user, and the nature of the environment.

b. In view of scarce resources, a school building shall be conceived for economy in construction, utilization and maintenance.

c. The design approach shall be straightforward, relying upon simplicity of concept in the context of innovation to reflect order and dignity, ensure flexibility in anticipation of educational change, and achieve structural stability.

d. Human dimensions, static and dynamic, specifically with reference to Filipino children and youth, shall be the basis for establishing scale.

e. Aesthetic elements shall be integral to the overall design and even given contemporary treatment, shall derive from historical, traditional or native themes.

f. The use of indigenous or locally produced materials shall be maximized in

conjunction with the application of appropriate construction technology.

g. Provision for mobility of handicapped/disabled persons shall be given due consideration in the design and construction of school buildings and other facilities in accordance with Batas Pambansa (BP) Bilang 344 (Accessibility Law).

P a g e | 3



1.0 BACKGROUND

On December 15, 2017, DepEd Order No. 64 was issued to establish the Minimum Performance Standards and Specifications (MPSS) for DepEd School Buildings, whether single-storey, medium-rise, or high-rise, to guide the DepEd and other stakeholders in the preparation of plans to ensure comfort and safety of the would-be occupants of the school buildings.

P a g e | 4

2.0 AUDIT FOCUS



Following the institutionalization of the CPA in the Commission, the Audit Sectors

identified CPA foci which were selected based on, among other parameters, feedback

from civil society. The National Government Sector (NGS) committed to undertake a CPA

focusing on Public Elementary and Secondary School Buildings in the National Capital

Region (NCR) for Calendar Year 2019. The Assistant Commissioner, NGS, and the

Directors of the NGS, Cluster 5 - Education and Employment and Project Management

Office (PMO), Office of the Chairperson affirmed, in a series of meetings, the selected

audit focus.

Nationwide, there are 78,567 schools under the supervision of the DepEd’s Schools

Division Offices, of which 55,502 are public schools. In this audit, we considered as our

population the 792 public schools in the NCR, from which we selected 158 schools as the

sample using statistical sampling design.

P a g e | 5



3.0 AUDIT OBJECTIVES

We conducted the CPA of public elementary and secondary school buildings with the

following audit objectives:

1. To determine compliance of public elementary and secondary school buildings

with the minimum standards and specifications embodied in existing laws,

rules and regulations (architectural, structural, electrical, fire protection,

sanitary and others), specifically, the following features and subsidiary works:

a. Concrete and smooth finish flooring;

b. Painted walls and ceilings;

c. Long-span and pre-painted roofing;

d. Complete set of windows;

e. Two (2) entrances with doors;

f. Complete electrical wires and fixtures;

g. Chalkboard;

h. Ramps pursuant to BP Bilang 344; and

2. To determine the satisfaction of pupils/students with the classrooms, facilities

(toilets, library, computer room, clinic, etc.); materials/equipment (books,

computer, chairs, electric fans, etc.); and people (teachers, students, principal,

nurse, security guards, etc.)

P a g e | 6



4.0 AUDIT CRITERIA

The guidelines, benchmarks, rules, and regulations used as standards for the inspection

of public elementary and secondary school buildings in the NCR include the following:

1. DepEd Order No. 64, s. 2017 - Establishing the minimum performance

standards and specification for DepEd School Buildings;

2. DepEd Order No. 91, s. 2011 - Kindergarten School Building Project;

3. DepEd Order No. 94, s. 2011 - Guidelines on the Implementation of Basic Educational Facilities Fund (BEFF);

4. DepEd Order No. 28, series of 2014 - Guidelines on the Implementation of the

CY 2014 RSBP;

5. DepEd Order No. 56, series of 2009 - Construction of Water and Hand Washing Facilities;

6. National Building Code;

7. National Structural Code;

8. Philippine Electrical Code;

9. Plumbing, Sanitary, Mechanical and Fire Codes of the Philippine including BP Bilang 344 (provision of ramps);

10. Educational Facilities Manual (CY 2010); and

11. RA No. 6716 - Rainwater Collection System.

The CPA Team is aware that school buildings were designed and constructed following the standards set in laws, rules and regulations applicable at that time. It is however, the contention of the CPA Team that as the DepEd issues new standards, it also proceeds with the improvement of old buildings to likewise comply with the new standards. The results of the audit, in the context of compliance with DepEd Order No. 64, s. 2017, would tend to show the current status of implementation of interventions to ensure the buildings’ safety, adequacy of space and facilities, and conduciveness to learning, among others, regardless of the source of fund for the construction, the implementing entity, and year of design/construction.

P a g e | 7

5.0 AUDIT SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY



The methodology applied started with the initial planning for the identification of schools to be the subject of CPA, followed by the selection of Civil Society Organization (CSO) partners, design, dry-run, and conduct of capacity building activities, engagement with the CSO/citizen-partners, the audit planning activities by the CPA Teams, the execution phase and reporting of the audit results. I. Planning and Designing the CPA Engagement

The following activities were conducted:

1. Selection of the audit focus;

2. Gathering of data on school buildings and organizational set-up of DepEd;

3. Gathering of data on criteria (laws, rules and regulations on design and specifications of school buildings) for the audit and design of survey questionnaires;

4. Preparation of the CPA Calendar/Plan;

5. Preparation of the audit design with concept of the inspection sampling,

including determination of the number of citizen-partners needed;

6. Preparation of the authority for the Assistant Commissioner of NGS to constitute the CPA Team, sign Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), authorize citizen-partners, etc.;

7. Determination of sample schools and transmission of data on the number of

classrooms for the sample schools to NGS;

8. Design of focus-group-discussion (FGD) plan on satisfaction survey;

9. Constitution of the CPA Teams;

10. Preparation of initial audit program, inspection data gathering tool and FGD guide; and

11. Conduct of inspection dry-run in one public school building - San Diego

Elementary School, Quezon City – and enhancement of the Inspection Tool and Instructions.

P a g e | 8




II. Preparing for and Conducting the Exploratory Meeting

Exploratory meetings were conducted with individual CSOs: (1) Caucus of Development NGOs (CODE-NGO), (2) Metro Manila Federation of Persons With Disability, Inc., (3) Unang Hakbang Foundation with its partner Pinagsamang Lakas ng Kabataan, (5) Quezon City Federation of PWDs, Inc.; and, with three individual citizens – retired Auditors who were once part of the DepEd Audit Group. The activities in this step of the CPA process were mostly conducted by the Office that manages the CPA – the PMO, Office of the Chairperson. The activities included in this step of the CPA Process are:

1. Preparation of COA Office Order for the Exploratory Meeting and submission to

the COA Chairperson for approval;

2. Preparation of budget and submission to Risk Management and Budget Office (RMBO) for processing;

3. Identification of possible CSO/citizen-partners;

4. Preparation and sending of invitation letters to citizens/CSOs;

5. Monitoring of responses and determination of number of attendees;

6. Preparation of Program or Activity Outline;

7. Exposure of the Program for comments of the NGS Assistant Commissioner

and NGS-Cluster 5 Directors;

8. Revision of the Program incorporating the comments of NGS; and

9. Preparation of meeting materials (presentation materials, CPA templates, attendance sheets).

III. Preparing for and Conducting the Capacity Building, MOA Signing,

Nominating, Authorizing, Initial Audit Team Planning

These activities comprised:

1. Preparatory Activities

a. Preparation of COA Office Order for the activities for approval of the Chairperson;

P a g e | 9




b. Preparation of the budget and submission to RMBO, PFMS for processing;

c. Identification of possible CSO partners from those who signified their intention during the Exploratory Meeting with their possible nominees;

d. Preparation and sending of invitation letters to citizens/CSO partners;

e. Monitoring responses and determining the number of attendees;

f. Preparation of the Program or Activity Outline;

g. Exposure of the Program for comments of the NGS Assistant Commissioner

and NGS-Cluster 5 Directors;

h. Revision of the Program incorporating the comments of NGS;

i. Preparation of activity materials (presentation materials, CPA templates, attendance sheets);

j. Arrangement of venue and equipment (sound, projector);

k. Arrangement for meals and snacks;

l. Arrangement for photo / video coverage with PIO; and

m. Obtaining of cash advance for citizen-partners’ allowances and supplies/ materials.

2. Conducting the Capacity Building, Signing of the MOA, Nominating,

Authorizing, and Initial Audit Team Planning

a. Capacity building of participating auditors and nominated citizen-partners on the CPA engagement, its purpose and processes, responsibilities of both COA auditors and citizen-partners;

b. Capacity building of participants on the use of tools – geotagging and the like –

for the audit;

c. Capacity building of participants on the use of the inspection data gathering tool and in the conduct of FGD;

P a g e | 10




d. Signing of the MOA by the NGS Assistant Commissioner, Heads of CSOs, and individual citizens;

e. Nomination of capacitated members of CSOs;

f. Authorizing nominated members of CSOs and individual citizens;

g. Acceptance by the participating citizen-partner/auditor of the authority granted as citizen-partner/auditor; and signing the Auditor’s Statement of Independence, Non-Disclosure Statement, and Waiver of Liability.

h. Enhancement of the audit program taking into account the inputs of the citizen-

partners;

i. Discussions of the audit instructions by the assigned Audit Team Leaders to the Audit Team Members.

j. Distribution of CPA Teams’ uniforms and other paraphernalia (t-shirts, caps, umbrellas, identification cards); and

k. Distribution of citizen-partners’ allowances. IV. Conducting the CPA engagement

This involves the following audit activities:

1. Notification of the auditee regarding the CPA engagement;

2. Conduct of Audit Entrance Conference;

3. Conduct of audit fieldwork;

4. Performance of data analysis and consolidation, and preparation and transmittal of Audit Observation Memoranda, as applicable;

5. Preparation, finalization, and collation of audit working papers;

6. Initial evaluation of Management’s Comments; and

7. Conduct of the Audit Exit Conference.

P a g e | 11




V. Writing the CPA Report

For the purpose of this step of the CPA process, a Writeshop was organized and conducted by the PMO where the CPA Teams composed of COA auditors and citizen-partners wrote the narrative CPA Report.

The activities conducted were: 1. Preparatory activities mostly done by the PMO, in collaboration with the Audit

Cluster and the CPA Teams:

a. Preparation of the Office Order; and, approval by the COA Chairperson;

b. Preparation of activity materials (audit working papers) by the CPA Teams;

c. Arranging for logistics (fund support, venue, equipment, meals and snacks, supplies and materials);

d. Obtaining cash advance for citizen-partners’ allowances and procurement of supplies/materials.

2. Conduct of the CPA Report Writeshop where the CPA Report was drafted. It involved the evaluation of further Management’s comments and preparation of Audit Team’s Rejoinder, as applicable; and

3. Review, finalization, and transmittal of the audit report.

P a g e | 12




The CPA activities in photos:

• Developing and Pre-testing the Inspection Data Gathering Tool

• Capacity Building: Pre-testing the Focus Group Discussion Guide

• Signing of the MOA among the COA, CSO Partners, and individual citizens (retired COA auditors); Nomination and Authorization of Citizen-Partners

P a g e | 13

6.0 AUDIT PERIOD



We conducted the CPA planning and fieldwork from September 30 to December 5, 2019

and data processing and analysis, including report-writing from December to February

2020.

Presented below is the timeline and the pictures taken during the conduct of CPA activities:

Activity TIMELINE

Aug. to Sep.

Oct. November December January February

Audit Planning Capacity Building Entrance Conference Audit Execution

Conduct of Ocular Inspection and FGD Processing of Data Gathered Analysis of Results

Preparation of Audit Observation Memoranda

Exit Conference CPA Report Writeshop Finalization of CPA Report

Ocular Inspection of School Buildings (CPA Team 1A) Ocular Inspection of School Buildings (CPA Team 1B)

Ocular Inspection of School Buildings (CPA Team 1C) Ocular Inspection of School Buildings (CPA Team 2A)

Audit Execution

P a g e | 14

6.0 AUDIT PERIOD



Ocular Inspection of School Buildings (CPA Team 2B) Ocular Inspection of School Buildings (CPA Team 2C)

Audit Report Writeshop on the CPA engagement of public elementary and secondary school buildings

Exit Conference

P a g e | 15



7.0 AUDIT TEAM COMPOSITION

Per COA Office Order No. 2019-027 dated August 28, 2019 and COA Office Order No.

2019-027A dated September 3, 2019, the compositions of the Audit Teams are as follows:

A. Commission on Audit

CPA Team 1 (South)

Team Supervisor:

Miguela S. Baon

Team Leader:

Job O. Aguirre, Jr.

Team Members:

1. Abdul Khalid D. Macabuat

2. Jeorge Roman G. Lozano

3. Precious Joy E. Borromeo

4. Gizel Levy E. Trinidad

5. Sittie Aisah S. Sanggacala

6. Juvy C. de Guzman

7. Camille Rose G. Celestial

8. Jones Harvey I. Marquez

CPA Team 2 (North)

Team Supervisor:

Teresita Y. Arlos

Assistant Team Supervisor:

Jemalyn V. Bautista

Team Leader:

Aldrin M. Candelario

Team Members:

1. Eliza Q. Bermudez

2. Asleah M. Mambuay

3. Melanie Julie R. Salazar

4. Mark John G. Bautista

5. Maricas J. Guillermo

6. Jonathan M. Rea

7. Marie Joy S. Castillo

Technical Inspection Team

Teresa Ty-Santiago

Michael Niño A. Chan

Mark John L. Aquino

Mark Ian P. Bonavente

Mark Edison S. Navas

Liene Stephanie L. Nadonga

B. CSO-Partners (with members with authorized Citizen- Partners) and Individual Citizen-Partners

• Caucus of Development NGOs (CODE-NGO)

• Metro Manila Federation of Persons with Disability

• Quezon City Federation of Persons with Disability

• Unang Hakbang Foundation (UHF) with its partner

Pinagsamang Lakas ng Kabataan (PILAK)

• Three (3) retired COA Auditors:

- Julieta T. Escaño, Retired OIC Director III

- Rosalinda A. Andes, Retired SA IV

- Rhodora C. Inoncillo, Retired SA IV

P a g e | 16



8.0 AUDIT RESULTS

On Audit Objective 1:

Compliance of public elementary and secondary school buildings with the minimum standards and specifications embodied in existing laws, rules and regulations (architectural, structural, electrical, fire protection, sanitary and others), specifically, the following features and subsidiary works: (1) Concrete and smooth finish flooring; (2) Painted walls and ceilings; (3) Long-span and pre-painted roofing; (4) Complete set of windows; (5) Two (2) entrances with doors; (6) Complete electrical wires and fixtures; (7) Chalkboard; and (8) Ramps pursuant to BP Bilang 344. The results of inspection of the sample multi-storey school buildings in 158 schools in Metro Manila, and two single-storey school buildings are consolidated as follows:

• Annex A.1 - Ground Floor Multi-Storey Buildings,

• Annex A.2 - Upper Floor Multi-Storey Buildings,

• Annex A.3 - Single-Storey Buildings,

• Annex B - Provision for Toilet,

• Annex C - Accessibility Law,

• Annex D - Fire Protection System, and

• Annex E - Rainwater Collection System. Annex A.1 contains the details of the data gathered pertaining to the ground floor’s architectural standards of the school buildings under DepEd Order No. 64 s. 2017, specifically, on the following aspects per school building: classroom size, windows, doors, ceiling, partitions, corridors, stairways, chalkboard, painting, wall markings, ventilation, illumination, lightings and fixtures, mechanical system/elevator, water piping system and septic vault. Annex A.2 contains the details of the data gathered pertaining to the upper floor’s architectural standards of the school buildings under DepEd Order No. 64 s. 2017, specifically, on the following aspects per school building: classroom size, windows, doors, ceiling, partitions, corridors, stairways, chalkboard, painting, wall markings, ventilation, illumination and lightings and fixtures. Annex A.3 pertains to the data gathered on the two single-storey buildings in Las Piñas North National High School – Gatchalian Annex and Taguig National High School. Inspections were conducted to determine compliance with the architectural standards of the school buildings under DepEd Order No. 64 s. 2017, specifically, on the following aspects per school building: classroom size, windows, doors, paintings, floor, elevation, ceilings, partitions, corridors, chalkboard, wall markings, ventilation, illumination, lighting and fixtures, and roofing.

P a g e | 17



8.0 AUDIT RESULTS

8.1 On Compliance with Architectural, Electrical, Sanitary, Plumbing, and Mechanical/Fire Protection Design Standards for school buildings prescribed under DepEd Order No. 64 s. 2017 (Annexes A.1, A.2, and A.3)

Inspection of the school buildings’ ground floor (Annex A.1) disclosed that:

8.1.1 On the classroom size or width/depth and length

Majority1 or one hundred thirty (130) school buildings or 82.28 percent complied with the width/depth standard, and eighty-nine (89) schools or 56.33 percent complied with the length standard (shown in Table 1a. Ground Floor).

Table 1a. Ground Floor

Requirements Compliant Non-compliant Not Applicable2

No. Percentage No. Percentage No. Percentage

Classroom size Classroom size Width/depth = 7.00 meters measured from the centers of the walls

130 82.28 25 15.82 3 1.90

Length = 9.00 meters measured from the centers of the walls

89 56.33 66 41.77 3 1.90

8.1.2 On the Windows

An average of 120 school buildings or 76.08 percent were compliant with the 10 standards (shown in Table 1b. Ground Floor).

Table 1b. Ground Floor

Requirements Compliant Non-compliant Not Applicable


Windows

1. Bilateral fenestration

136 86.07 19 12.03 3 1.90

2. Operable louver type

100 63.29 55 34.81 3 1.90

3. Transparent or translucent

148 93.67 3 1.90 7 4.43

1 “Majority” pertains to percentage of compliance and non-compliance above 50% 2 “Not applicable” refers to some aspects or information in the data gathering tool that could not be considered as compliant or not compliant with the specifications during inspection by the Audit Teams

P a g e | 18



8.0 AUDIT RESULTS

Table 1b. Ground Floor



4. Allows entry of daylight even if closed

147 93.04 4 2.53 7 4.43

5. Total area of window opening = at least 10.00 square meters

108 68.35 47 29.75 3 1.90

6. Window sill NOT lower than 0.60 meter for single-storey buildings from the finished floor line (FFL)

0 0.00 0 0.00 158 100.00

Window sill NOT higher than 0.90 meter for multi-storey buildings from the finished floor line (FFL)

120 75.95 35 22.15 3 1.90

7. Minimum height of fixed louver or transom window above the operable windows = 0.30 meter

89 56.33 65 41.14 4 2.53

8. Window panels, when opened, must not be an obstruction along the corridor

140 88.61 15 9.49 3 1.90

9. Window metal frames Sturdy enough to withstand vandalism

130 82.28 17 10.76 11 6.96

10. Jalousie holders can withstand vandalism

84 53.16 27 17.09 47 29.75

Average 120 76.08

P a g e | 19



8.0 AUDIT RESULTS

8.1.3 On the Doors

Majority of the school buildings were compliant with nine (9) out of twelve (12) standards (Table 1c. Ground Floor). On the other hand,

• only 13 out of 158 schools (or 8.23%) complied with the requirement on lever-type locksets;

• only 51 (or 32.28%) complied with the requirement on DepEd MPSS Color Scheme – Palmyra green; and

• only 49 (or 31.01%) complied with paint Color Schedule – Temptation.

Table 1c. Ground Floor



Doors

1. Two (2) doors per classroom

142 89.87 13 8.23 3 1.90

2. Swing-out 132 83.55 22 13.92 4 2.53

3. 180 degrees 101 63.93 53 33.54 4 2.53

4. Clear width = 0.90 meter

143 90.51 11 6.96 4 2.53

5. Clear height = 2.10 meters

143 90.51 11 6.96 4 2.53

6. Provided with keyed locksets

144 91.14 11 6.96 3 1.90

7. Provided with lever-type locksets

13 8.23 142 89.87 3 1.90

8. Must withstand normal wear and tear

138 87.34 16 10.13 4 2.53

9. DepEd MPSS Color Scheme – Palmyra green

51 32.28 103 65.19 4 2.53

10. Paint/Color Schedule – Temptation

49 31.01 102 64.56 7 4.43

11. Masonry paint (latex) – Semi-gloss latex

0 0 0 0.00 158 100

12. Paint for wood, metal, etc. – Quick Drying Enamel (QDE) semi-gloss

149 94.31 4 2.53 5 3.16

P a g e | 20



8.0 AUDIT RESULTS

8.1.4 On the Floor Majority of the 158 school buildings complied with four out of the five requirements. On the requirement Elevation increased depending on history of flood level, however, only 45 or 28.48 percent of the schools complied (refer to Table 1d. Ground Floor).

Table 1d. Ground Floor



Floor

1. Of non-skid finish 147 93.03 9 5.70 2 1.27

2. Greyish color 91 57.59 65 41.14 2 1.27

3. Classroom FFL higher than the corridor FFL by 25 millimeters

114 72.15 41 25.95 3 1.90

4. For multi-storey building, floor finish elevation = 325 millimeters or higher than the NGL

103 65.19 40 25.32 15 9.49

5. Elevation increased depending on history of flood level

45 28.48 15 9.49 98 62.03

8.1.5 On the Ceiling

Almost all3 of the 158 school buildings inspected were compliant with the four minimum standards applicable to the ground floor (the fifth standard applies only to upper floors) (Table 1e. Ground Floor).

Table 1e. Ground Floor



Ceiling

1. Height of rooms from FFL to finished ceiling line (FCL) = 2.70 meters or higher

148 93.67 8 5.06 2 1.27

2. DepEd MPSS Color Scheme – White

155 98.10 0 0 3 1.90

3. Paint/Color Schedule – White

154 97.47 1 0.63 3 1.90

3 “Almost all” refers to percentage of compliance and non-compliance above 90%

P a g e | 21



8.0 AUDIT RESULTS

Table 1e. Ground Floor




155 98.10 0 0.00 3 1.90

This requirement applies only to the upper floors:

5. Paint for wood, metal, etc. – QDE semi-gloss

0 0.00 0

0.00 158 100.00

8.1.6 On Partitions

Out of the sample 158 school buildings, 155 or 98.10 percent were compliant with the lone standard. (Table 1f. Ground Floor).

Table 1f. Ground Floor



Partitions

From floor to ceiling 155 98.10 1 0.63 2 1.27

8.1.7 On Corridors Majority of the 158 school buildings were compliant in only two out of the five applicable minimum standards (Table 1g. Ground Floor).

Table 1g. Ground Floor



Corridors

1. For multi-storey building = not less than 2.50 meters

66 41.77 90 56.96 2 1.27

2. With steel railings 80 50.63 69 43.67 9 5.70

3. Height = not less than 1.50 meters

6 3.80 123 77.85 29 18.35


42 26.59 63 39.87 53 33.54


105 66.46 0 0.00 53 33.54


0 0.00 0 0.00 158 100.00

P a g e | 22



8.0 AUDIT RESULTS

8.1.8 On Stairways Majority of the school buildings were compliant with the three minimum standards (Table 1h. Ground Floor).

Table 1h. Ground Floor



Stairways

Concrete 154 97.47 3 1.90 1 0.63

For multi-storey building – concrete stairs = width of not less than 1.50 meters

108 68.36 45 28.48 5 3.16

No. of stairways per building – 2 (two)

107 67.72 48 30.38 3 1.90

8.1.9 On Chalkboard

Majority of the school buildings were compliant with four standards. As regards the fifth standard, only 19 out of 158 schools (or 12.02%) were compliant with the required Mounting Height (Table 1i. Ground Floor).

Table 1i. Ground Floor



Chalkboard

1. Built-in 140 88.61 11 6.96 7 4.43

2. Curved 84 53.16 65 41.14 9 5.70

3. Width = 1.22 meters 141 89.24 3 1.90 14 8.86

4. Height = 4.88 meters 138 87.34 7 4.43 13 8.23

5. Mounting heights and specifications 750 mm for secondary, 650 mm for elementary

19 12.02 126 79.75 13 8.23

8.1.10 On Painting - columns and beams, interior and exterior walls, baseboard and floor finish Majority of the school buildings were compliant with 13 out of 14 standards. However, 137 schools or 86.71 percent were not compliant with the required Color Scheme for baseboard (Table 1j. Ground Floor)

P a g e | 23



8.0 AUDIT RESULTS

Table 1j. Ground Floor



Painting

Columns and beams:

1. DepEd MPSS Color Scheme – Beige (light shade)

97 61.39 57 36.08 4 2.53

2. Paint/Color Schedule – Yellow rain

97 61.39 57 36.08 4 2.53


153 96.83 2 1.27 3 1.90

Interior wall:

4. DepEd MPSS Color Scheme – Beige (lightest shade)

99 62.66 55 34.81 4 2.53

5. Paint/Color Schedule – Bright wonder

97 61.39 57 36.08 4 2.53


155 98.10 0 0.00 3 1.90


0 0 0 0.00 158 100

Baseboard:


17 10.76 137 86.71 4 2.53


155 98.10 0 0 3 1.90


0 0 0 0.00 158 100

Exterior wall:

11. DepEd MPSS Color Scheme – Beige (very light shade)

120 75.95 34 21.52 4 2.53

12. Paint/Color Schedule – Crisp ecru

119 75.32 34 21.52 5 3.16


158 98.73 0 0 2 1.27

Floor finish:

14. DepEd MPSS Color Scheme – Concrete plain cement, non-skid finish (grayish color)

90 56.96 64 40.51 4 2.53

P a g e | 24



8.0 AUDIT RESULTS

8.1.11 On Wall Markings One hundred forty-eight (148) school buildings or 93.67 percent were compliant with the required minimum standard (Table 1k. Ground Floor).

Table 1k. Ground Floor



Wall Markings

Free from any markings 148 93.67 8 5.06 2 1.27

8.1.12 On Ventilation

Majority of the school buildings were compliant with the two required minimum standards (Table 1l. Ground Floor).

Table 1l. Ground Floor



Ventilation

Natural: Supplied by windows and vents

150 94.94 5 3.16 3 1.90

Artificial: Supplied by 2 units oscillating ceiling fans

104 65.82 51 32.28 3 1.90

8.1.13 On Illumination

One hundred forty-six (146) school buildings or 92.40 percent were compliant with the required minimum standard.

Table 1m. Ground Floor



Illumination

Falling at desk or arm rest – with combined artificial and natural lighting

146 92.40 10 6.33 2 1.27

8.1.14 On Lightings and Fixtures Majority of the school buildings were compliant with one out of three required minimum standards.

P a g e | 25



8.0 AUDIT RESULTS

Less than 20 percent complied with the required number of units of fluorescent lamp (double T5 36 watts) and the required number of ceiling outlets for ceiling fans (Table 1n. Ground Floor).

Table 1n. Ground Floor



Lightings and Fixtures

1. Classroom of 7m x 9m or 9m x 7m = 6 units of double T-5 36 watts fluorescent lamp with reflector or minimum of 104 Lumens per Watt (LPW)

27 17.08 129 81.65 2 1.27

2. Duplex convenience outlet of grounding type on each windowless side

129 81.64 27 17.09 2 1.27

3. Two ceiling outlets for ceiling fans for every classroom

30 18.99 125

79.11 3 1.90

8.1.15 On Mechanical system – elevator

Only one school building has a mechanical system-elevator installed and has complied with five out of six minimum standards. The said school building, nevertheless, did not comply with the required installation of fire fighter switch (Table 1o. Ground Floor).

Table 1o. Ground Floor



Mechanical System-Elevator

1. Elevator installed 1 0.63 9 5.70 148 93.67

2. Fire Alarm System 59 37.34 32 20.25 67 42.41

3. Door panel buttons and lights are functional

1 0.63 0 0 157 99.37

4. Maximum Load Capacity is indicated inside the elevator

1 0.63 0 0 157 99.37

5. Emergency button inside the elevator car

1 0.63 0 0 157 99.37

6. “Certificate of Elevator Operation” is updated

1 0.63 0 0 157 99.37

P a g e | 26



8.0 AUDIT RESULTS

8.1.16 On Roughing-ins One hundred fifty-two (152) school buildings or 96.21 percent complied with the required minimum standard. (Table 1p. Ground Floor).

Table 1p. Ground Floor



Roughing-ins

Service entrance = 1.60 meters above natural grade line or 0.30 meter above the established high flood level, whichever is higher

152 96.21 5 3.16 1 0.63

8.1.17 On Waterline Piping System

One hundred fifty-five (155) school buildings or 98.10 percent complied with the required minimum standard (Table 1q. Ground Floor).

Table 1q. Ground Floor



Waterline Piping System

Provide for a waterline service entrance

155 98.10 2 1.27 1 0.63

8.1.18 On Septic Vault

One hundred fifty-seven (157) school buildings or 99.37 percent were compliant with the required minimum standard.

Table 1f. Ground Floor



Septic Vault

Concrete septic tanks used as sanitation solutions – protected from corrosion by coating with approved bituminous coat or other acceptable means

157 99.37 1 0.63 0 0

P a g e | 27



8.0 AUDIT RESULTS

Inspection of the school buildings’ upper floor (Annex A.2) revealed that:

8.1.19 On Classroom size Majority (120 out of 158) of the school buildings complied with the standards on Width/Depth; while, a smaller majority (86 out of 158) complied with the standard on Length, as shown in Table 2a. Upper Floor.

Table 2a. Upper Floor



Classroom size

Width/depth = 7.00 meters measured from the centers of the walls

120 75.95 38 24.05 0 -

Length = 9.00 meters measured from the centers of the walls

86 54.43 72 45.57 0 -

8.1.20 On Windows

Majority of the school buildings were compliant with the ten standards, as shown in Table 2b. Upper Floor.

Table 2b. Upper Floor



Windows

1. Bilateral fenestration 142 89.87 16 10.13 0 -

2. Operable louver type 112 70.89 46 29.11 0 -

3. Transparent or translucent

152 96.20 2 1.27 4 2.53

4. Allows entry of daylight even if closed

151 95.57 3 1.90 4 2.53

5. Total area of window opening = at least 10.00 square meters

108 68.35 50 31.65 0 -

6. Window sill NOT higher than 0.90 meter for multi-storey buildings from the finished floor line (FFL)

96 60.76 62 39.24 0 -

P a g e | 28



8.0 AUDIT RESULTS

Table 2b. Upper Floor



7. Minimum height of fixed louver or transom window above the operable windows = 0.30 meter

91 57.60 28 17.72 39 24.68

8. Window panels, when opened, must not be an obstruction along the corridor

135 85.45 11 6.96 12 7.59

9. Window metal frames sturdy enough to withstand vandalism

132 83.54 17 10.76 9 5.70

10. Jalousie holders withstand vandalism

76 48.10 40 25.32 42 26.58

8.1.21 On Doors

Majority of the school buildings were compliant with eight out of eleven standards. On the other hand, most of the school buildings were not compliant with three standards:

• on lever-type locksets;

• DepEd MPSS Color Scheme – Palmyra Green; and

• Paint/Color Schedule – Temptation (Table 2c. Upper Floor).

Table 2c. Upper Floor



Doors

1. Two (2) doors per classroom

148 93.67 10 6.33 0 -

2. Swing-out 180 degrees 136 86.08 22 13.92 0 -

3. Degrees 104 65.82 54 34.18 0 -

4. Clear width = 0.90 meter

148 93.67 10 6.33 0 -

5. Clear height = 2.10 meters

148 93.67 10 6.33 0 -

6. Provided with keyed locksets

134 84.81 23 14.56 1 0.63

P a g e | 29



8.0 AUDIT RESULTS

Table 2c. Upper Floor



7. Provided with lever-type locksets

7 4.43 150 94.94 1 0.63

8. Must withstand normal wear and tear

141 89.24 16 10.13 1 0.63


46 29.12 111 70.25 1 0.63

10. Paint/Color Schedule – Temptation

46 29.12 111 70.25 1 0.63


157 99.37 0 - 1 0.63

12. Masonry plain (latex) – Semi-gloss latex

0 - 0 - 158 100.00

8.1.22 On Floor

Majority of the school buildings inspected were compliant with all the standards, as shown in Table 2d. Upper Floor.

Table 2d. Upper Floor



Floor

Of non-skid finish 146 92.41 12 7.59 0 -

Greyish color 103 65.19 55 34.81 0 -

Classroom FFL higher than the corridor FFL by 25 millimeters

114 72.15 44 27.85 0 -

8.1.23 On Ceiling Majority of the school buildings inspected were compliant with six out of seven standards. Only 27 school buildings or 17.09 percent complied with the standard Masonry Paint – semi-gloss latex, as shown in Table 2e. Upper Floor.

Table 2e. Upper Floor



Ceiling

1. Drop-type 131 82.91 27 17.09 0 -

P a g e | 30



8.0 AUDIT RESULTS

Table 2e. Upper Floor



2. Height of rooms from FFL to finished ceiling line (FCL) = 2.70 meters or higher

132 83.54 26 16.46 0 -

3. Maintenance access to the ceiling cavity – through the corridor

83 52.53 49 31.01 26 16.46

4. DepEd MPSS Color Scheme – White

158 100.00 0 - 0 -

5. Paint/Color Schedule – White

158 100.00 0 - 0 -


27 17.09 0 - 131 82.91


131 82.91 0 - 27 17.09

8.1.24 On Roofing Sixty-nine (69) and seventy (70) school buildings were compliant with the two standards. On the other hand, 31 and 14 or 19.62 percent and 8.86 percent, respectively, were not compliant in terms of the type of gutter and eaves and measurement of concrete gutter and eaves of 1.10 meters from wall (Table 2f. Upper Floor). Concrete gutter of 57 school buildings and eaves of 75 school buildings were not visible for inspection; hence, could not be measured.

Table 2f. Upper Floor



Roofing

For single-storey building – gutters not included, but properly sloped trench drain on both sides provided

0 - 0 - 158 100.00

For multi-storey building – with concrete gutter and eaves

70 44.30 31 19.62 57 36.08

Gutter and eaves = 1.10 meters from wall

69 43.67 14 8.86 75 47.47

P a g e | 31



8.0 AUDIT RESULTS

8.1.25 On Partitions All of the 158 school buildings or 100% were compliant with the lone standard, as shown in Table 2g. Upper Floor.

Table 2g. Upper Floor



Partitions

From floor to ceiling 158 100.00 0 - 0 -

8.1.26 On Corridors

As shown in Table 2h.Upper Floor, majority of the school buildings were compliant with two out of five standards. The three standards that were not complied with were:

• corridor’s width of 2.50 meters;

• height of railings; and

• painting of railings-DepEd MPSS Color Scheme – Palmyra green.

Table 2h. Upper Floor



Corridors

1. For multi-storey building, width = not less than 2.50 meters

66 41.77 92 58.23 0 -

2. With steel railings 92 58.23 59 37.34 7 4.43

3. Height of steel railings = not less than 1.50 meters

20 12.66 131 82.91 7 4.43


49 31.01 89 56.33 20 12.66


138 87.34 0 - 20 12.66

8.1.27 On Stairways

As shown in Table 2i. Upper Floor, majority of the school buildings were compliant with the three standards.

P a g e | 32



8.0 AUDIT RESULTS

Table 2i. Upper Floor



Stairways

For multi-storey building – concrete stairs =

155 98.10 3 1.90 0 -

Width of not less than 1.50 meters

106 67.09 52 32.91 0 -

No. of stairways per building – 2 (two)

128 81.01 30 18.99 0 -

8.1.28 On Chalkboard

Majority of the school buildings were compliant with four out of five standards. The standard for mounting heights was not complied with (Table 2j. Upper Floor).

Table 2j. Upper Floor



Chalkboard

1. Classroom with built-in chalkboard

148 93.67 9 5.70 1 0.63

2. Classroom with curved chalkboard

88 55.70 69 43.67 1 0.63

3. Measurement = 1.22 meters tall

149 94.30 6 3.80 3 1.90

4. Measurement = 4.88 meters wide

141 89.24 14 8.86 3 1.90

5. Mounting Height: 750mm for secondary

10 6.33 47 29.75 101 63.92

Mounting Height: 650mm for elementary

13 8.23 83 52.53 62 39.24

8.1.29 On Painting – Columns and beams, Interior wall, and Baseboard Table 2k. Upper Floor, shows that majority of the school buildings were compliant with the eight standards, while almost all school buildings did not comply with the standard for Baseboard - painting-beige (lightest shade).

P a g e | 33



8.0 AUDIT RESULTS

Table 2k. Upper Floor



Painting

Columns and beams:

1. DepEd MPSS Color Scheme – Beige (light shade)

110 69.62 48 30.38 0 -

2. Paint/Color Schedule – Yellow rain

110 69.62 48 30.38 0 -


158 100.00 0 - 0 -

Interior wall:


117 74.05 41 25.95 0 -

5. Paint/Color Schedule – Bright wonder

117 74.05 41 25.95 0 -


158 100.00 0 - 0 -

Baseboard:


17 10.76 141 89.24 0 -


157 99.37 1 0.63 0 -


0 - 0 - 158 100.00

8.1.30 On Floor Finish

Majority of the school buildings were compliant with the standard (Table 2l. Upper Floor).

Table 2l. Upper Floor



Floor finish:

DepEd MPSS Color Scheme – Concrete plain cement, non-skid finish (grayish color)

105 66.46 53 33.54 0 -

P a g e | 34



8.0 AUDIT RESULTS

8.1.31 On Wall markings Majority (145 out of 158) of the school buildings inspected were compliant with the standard (Table 2m. Upper Floor).

Table 2m. Upper Floor



Wall Markings

Free from any markings 145 91.77 13 8.23 0 -

8.1.32 On Ventilation

Majority of the school buildings inspected were compliant with the two standards (Table 2n. Upper Floor).

Table 2n.-Upper Floor



Ventilation

Natural: Supplied by windows and vents

156 98.73 2 1.27 0 -

Artificial: Supplied by 2 units oscillating ceiling fans

112 70.89 46 29.11 0 -

8.1.33 On Illumination

Almost all (153 of 158) or 96.84% of the school buildings were compliant with the standard (Table 2o. Upper Floor).

Table 2o. Upper Floor



Illumination

Falling at desk or arm rest – with combined artificial and natural lighting

153 96.84 5 3.16 0 -

8.1.34 On Lightings and Fixtures

Majority of the school buildings were compliant with one standard, while only 30 out of 158 school buildings (18.99%) were compliant with the standard on number of required fluorescent lamps with reflector; and, only 28 out of

P a g e | 35



8.0 AUDIT RESULTS

158 school buildings (17.72%) complied with the standard on two ceiling outlets for ceiling fans for every classroom (Table 2p. Upper Floor).

Table 2p. Upper Floor



Lightings and Fixtures

Classroom of 7m x 9m or 9m x 7m = 6 units of double T-5 36 watts fluorescent lamp with reflector or minimum of 104 LPW

30 18.99 128 81.01 0 -

Duplex convenience outlet of grounding type on each windowless side

128 81.01 30 18.99 0 -

Two ceiling outlets for ceiling fans for every classroom

28 17.72 130 82.28 0 -

As regards the single-storey school buildings,

8.1.35 The one at Las Piñas North National High School – Gatchalian Annex was

only a makeshift classroom constructed to accommodate the growing number of student population; hence, 10 of the 15 minimum requirements under DepEd Order No. 64, s. 2017 were not complied with.

8.1.36 Further, the single-storey building at Taguig National High School, donated

by PhilAm Life Foundation, complied with majority of the minimum standards under said DepEd Order. However, it did not comply with the standards on windows, painting, elevation, chalkboards, wall markings, illumination and lighting and fixtures.

8.2 On Compliance with toilet facilities requirements prescribed under the Educational Facilities Manual (Annex B) Paragraph 2, Section L of the 2010 Education Facilities Manual requires the provision of sanitary facilities in school buildings with the following standards/specifications for toilet facilities:

Every school is required to have toilet facilities within the school premises preferably with the toilet for boys and that for girls located far apart.

P a g e | 36



8.0 AUDIT RESULTS

Inspections conducted disclosed that a number of school buildings did not fully comply with requirements on Sanitary Facilities, specifically with the standards contained in the Toilet Facility requirements of the cited Manual.

Annex B of this Report presents the results of inspections under the aspect of Sanitary facilities in school buildings pursuant to the provisions of the 2010 Education Facilities Manual.

Table 3. Sanitary Facilities below summarizes the results of inspection:

Table 3. Sanitary Facilities

Standards Compliant Non-compliant Not Applicable


Ground Floor

Boy’s Urinal – 1 detached per 50 pupils or 1.00m urinal through per 100 pupils

58 36.71 61 38.61 39 24.68

Boy’s Toilet Seat (Water Closet) – 1 seat per 100 pupils and 1 seat designed for disabled pupils

69 43.67 41 25.95 48 30.38

Girl’s Toilet Seat (Water Closet) - 1 seat per 50 pupils and 1 seat designed for disabled pupils

61 38.60 50 31.65 47 29.75

Lavatory – 1 lavatory to 1 toilet seat

Boys 78 49.37 69 43.67 11 6.96

Girls 65 41.14 85 53.80 8 5.06

Upper Floor

Boy’s Urinal – 1 detached per 50 pupils or 1.00m urinal through per 100 pupils

22 13.92 116 73.42 20 12.66

Boy’s Toilet Seat (Water Closet) – 1 seat per 100 pupils and 1 seat designed for disabled pupils

33 20.89 104 65.82 21 13.29

Girl’s Toilet Seat (Water Closet) - 1 seat per 50 pupils and 1 seat designed for disabled pupils

31 19.62 103 65.19 24 15.19

Lavatory – 1 lavatory to 1 toilet seat

Boys 17 10.76 136 86.08 5 3.16

P a g e | 37



8.0 AUDIT RESULTS

Table 3. Sanitary Facilities

Standards Compliant Non-compliant Not Applicable


Girls 26 16.46 127 80.38 5 3.16

As can be gleaned from the foregoing Table 3, as far as the ground floor is concerned, more than half of the sampled school buildings were able to meet the prescribed ratio under the three standards as follows:

1. Boys’ toilet seat (water closet) – one seat per 100 pupils/students (69 schools as opposed to 41);

2. Girls’ toilet seat (water closet) – one seat per 50 pupils/students (61 schools

as opposed to 50); and

3. Lavatory for boys – one lavatory to one toilet (78 schools as opposed to 70). On the other hand, the toilet facilities located on the upper floor of almost the entire 158 sample school buildings were not compliant with all the prescribed standards. Aside from the instances of noncompliance with the standards, the Audit Teams also observed the following deficiencies during inspection:

8.2.1 Lack of water supply resulting in unsanitary condition and non-

functional toilets

We noticed that the unsanitary condition of the toilet was due to insufficient water supply. In most cases, water supply was only available in the toilets located at the ground floor. In the absence/non-availability of pressure tanks, the lack of water in toilets located in upper floor areas made it hard to maintain their cleanliness, leaving the upper level toilet facilities non-functional. These scenarios were apparent in10 schools.

Other reasons for the lack of water supply were:

1. water supply interruption in the school’s vicinity due to ongoing water

crisis; and

2. lack of provision of big containers for water storage to ensure water availability at all times.

P a g e | 38



8.0 AUDIT RESULTS

8.2.2 Conversion of toilet facility into storage and/or faculty rooms

In 14 school buildings, toilets were converted into storage rooms, wherein various items, such as broken tables, armchairs, various cleaning materials, etc. were kept. In other instances, toilets served as additional faculty rooms.

8.2.3 Inaccessibility and shortage of toilets because of teachers’ exclusive

use and non-provision of toilet facility either in some floor levels or in the entire school building In seven school buildings, students were denied access to toilets as these were for the exclusive use of teachers/school staff. Moreover, some school buildings had no toilet facilities at every floor level, or the entire building had no functioning toilets. Students/pupils have to go to adjacent or another building to use the toilet, which could lead to urinary tract or kidney issues and longer time for the student to be away from the classroom resulting in missed lessons.

8.2.4 Use of common toilets for girls and boys

In nine school buildings, the DepEd did not comply with the requirements that boys and girls should have separate toilets that are located far from each other. In these school buildings, boys and girls shared toilets, thereby increasing the risk of girls/children being molested.

8.3 Compliance with architectural facilities and features requirements of ramps

and toilets for PWDs prescribed under BP Bilang 344 - Accessibility Law and its IRRs (Annex C)

BP Bilang 344 was approved on February 25, 1983. Its IRRs set forth the minimum requirements and standards to make the buildings, facilities, and utilities for public use accessible to disabled persons. In the rules and regulations, school buildings are under Category III, Group C – Educational Institutions, that provides the architectural design requirements on the following:

A – Stairs B – Walkways C – Corridors D – Doors and Entrance E – Washrooms and Toilets F – Lifts/Elevator G – Ramps H – Parking Areas

P a g e | 39



8.0 AUDIT RESULTS

I – Switches, Controls, Buzzers J – Handrails K – Thresholds L – Floor Finishes M – Drinking Fountains N – Public Telephones O – Seating Accommodations

The details of the results of inspection on specific aspects and standards per school are in Annex C of this report. Summary of the results of inspection is as follows: Ramps (Table 3a.): 8.3.1 Out of the 158 school buildings, 104 were provided with ramps at the ground

floor, 98 of which are located near the entrance;

8.3.2 Majority of the ramps are compliant with the five standards pertaining to location near the entrance, maximum length, standard width, diameter of the handrails and non-skid flooring; and

8.3.3 Nine out of the 19 standards prescribed under BP Bilang 144 have high non-

compliance rates, namely: curbs on both sides = 0.1 m high, ramp slope maximum of 1:12 or 8.33 percent, International Symbol of Access (White graphics with United Nations blue background), and warning tactical blocks at the start and at the end of the ramp.

Table 3a: Provisions for PWDs School Building Requirements



Ramps

1. Ramp provided 104 65.82 54 34.18 0 0

2. Location near the entrance

98 62.03 5 3.16 55 34.81

3. Maximum length = 6m; 1.5m landing every 6m (Length 1)

92 58.23 11 6.96 55 34.81

4. Maximum length = 6m; 1.5m landing every 6m (Length 2)

14 8.86 3 1.90 141 89.24

5. Curbs on both sides = 0.1m high

23 14.55 81 51.27 54 34.18

6. Ramp slope maximum of 1:12 or 8.33 (Length 1)

30 18.98 67 42.41 61 38.61

P a g e | 40



8.0 AUDIT RESULTS

Table 3a: Provisions for PWDs School Building Requirements



7. Ramp slope maximum of 1:12 or 8.33 (Length 2)

5 3.16 6 3.80 147 93.04

8. Standard width = 1.2m to 3.0m

78 49.36 26 16.46 54 34.18

9. Handrails are on both sides of the ramp

45 28.48 59 37.34 54 34.18

10. Clearance of 50mm if wall mounted

22 13.92 9 5.70 127 80.38

11. Two sets of handrails; Diameter between 30-50mm

74 46.84 29 18.35 55 34.81

12. Lower handrail Height = 0.7m

57 36.08 46 29.11 55 34.81

13. Upper handrail Height = 0.9m

59 37.34 44 27.85 55 34.81

14. Handrail extension at the start and at the end of handrails = 0.3m

25 15.82 78 49.37 55 34.81

15. Non-skid flooring 103 65.19 1 0.63 54 34.18

16. Level Area Standard length = 1.8m at the start

55 34.81 27 17.09 76 48.10

17. Level Area Standard length = 1.8m at the end

30 18.99 25 15.82 103 65.19

18. International Symbol of Access (White graphics with United Nations blue background)

13 8.23 91 57.59 54 34.18

19. Warning tactical blocks at the start and at the end of the ramp

0 0 104 65.82 54 34.18

Toilet (Table 3b.):

8.3.4 As presented in Table 3b, 99 school buildings (or 62.66%) do not have

toilets for PWDs, contrary to the requirement of the Accessibility Law; and

8.3.5 In schools found with toilets for PWDs, majority of the school buildings did not comply with all the standards. The compliance rates ranged from a low of 2 school buildings (or 1.27%) to a high of only 59 school buildings (or 37.34%).

P a g e | 41



8.0 AUDIT RESULTS

Table 3b: Provisions for PWDs School Building Requirements



Toilets for PWDs

1. Toilet for PWD provided 59 37.34 99 62.66 0 0

2. Signage mounted 1.50m on center from FFL International Symbol of Access (ISA)

14 8.86 66 41.77 78 49.37

3. ISA in shape of Equilateral triangle for Men

3 1.90 53 33.54 102 64.56

4. ISA in the shape of a Circle for Women

2 1.27 53 33.54 103 65.19

5. Door swing-out 30 18.99 31 19.62 97 61.39

6. Clear opening = 0.8m 53 33.54 7 4.43 98 62.03

7. Permit easy passage of wheelchair (1.50 meter turning space)

27 17.08 33 20.89 98 62.03

8. Lavatory = 0.80m high 40 25.32 17 10.76 101 63.92

9. Knee space = 0.60m - 0.70m

29 18.35 16 10.13 113 71.52

10. Lever-type faucet 26 16.46 31 19.62 101 63.92

11. Tilted Mirror 5 3.17 52 32.91 101 63.92

12. Toilet flooring of non-slippery surface materials even when wet.

59 37.34 0 0 99 62.66

13. Toilet Cubicle Clear Dimension:

Length=1.70m

20 12.66 39 24.68 99 62.66

14. Toilet Cubicle Clear Dimension: Width=1.80m

15 9.49 41 25.95 102 64.56

15. Toilet Bowl elevation from the floor = 45mm-50mm

6 3.80 52 32.91 100 63.29

16. Center of the toilet bowl to the face of adjacent wall = 0.40m

39 24.68 20 12.66 99 62.66

17. Vertical or Climbing bars from the front tip of the toilet bowl = 0.3m

9 5.70 36 22.78 113 71.52

18. Climbing bars Length = not exceeding 750mm

16 10.13 24 15.19 118 74.68

P a g e | 42



8.0 AUDIT RESULTS

Table 3b: Provisions for PWDs School Building Requirements



19. Climbing bars Height = not exceeding 750mm

11 6.96 25 15.82 122 77.22

20. Grab Bar distance from the floor = 0.8m

17 10.76 18 11.39 123 77.85

21. One (1) movable grab bar (Outrigger)

2 1.27 35 22.15 121 76.58

8.3.6 Some requirements provided in the said law were not considered in the

DepEd Order No. 64, s. 2017 as it only specified the requirements for ramp slope, floor finish, and signage; and

8.3.7 The architectural facilities and feature requirements of ramps and toilets for PWDs are located only on the ground floor. These facilities were not present on the upper floors of the school buildings.

8.4 Compliance with fire protection system requirements prescribed under RA No.

9514 - Fire Code of the Philippines and its IRR (Annex D)

RA No. 9514, also known as the “Revised Fire Code of the Philippines of 2008” approved on December 19, 2008, prescribes the standards on fire safety, prevention and suppression. Among the provisions of the said law is the installation of fire protection system in establishments including those of educational institutions.

Annex D of this Report shows the results of inspection on the fire protection system of the 158 schools buildings. The said Annex contains data on three aspects, namely: Illumination, Fire Protection, and Sprinkler System. Each aspect has its own standards that must be complied with pursuant to the said RA and its IRRs.

Table 4 below presents the summary of the results of inspection of the fire protection system of the school buildings:

Table 4. Provisions for Fire Protection System



Illumination:

Fire Exit 110 69.62 48 30.38 0 0.00

Emergency Light for Fire Exits

55 34.81 103 65.19 0 0.00

Stairs well-lighted 131 82.91 26 16.46 1 0.63

P a g e | 43



8.0 AUDIT RESULTS

Table 4. Provisions for Fire Protection System



Fire Protection:

Fire Alarm System 88 55.70 70 44.30 0 0.00

Extinguishers 109 68.99 49 31.01 0 0.00

Sprinkler System:

Sprinkler System 11 6.96 147 93.04 0 0.00

Standpipe System 34 21.52 124 78.48 0 0.00

Pressure and Gravity Tanks

68 43.04 90 56.96 0 0.00

Hose Boxes/Reels 40 25.32 117 74.05 1 0.63

Based on the preceding Table, we observed that:

8.4.1. On Illumination, majority of the school buildings inspected complied with two

of the three standards - provision of fire exit and well-lighted stairs. On the other hand, 103 school buildings or 65.19 percent did not comply with the standard on provision of emergency light in the fire exits.

8.4.2. On Fire Protection, majority of the school buildings complied with the two standards.

8.4.3. On the standards for Sprinkler System, majority of the school buildings did

not have these requirements. Further, we have also observed the following:

8.4.4. The fire alarm systems at the school buildings of Elpidio Quirino High School

(SDO Manila) and Kabayanan Elementary School (SDO San Juan City) were defective.

8.4.5. The fire extinguishers in seven school buildings were already expired (SDO

San Juan City - 1; SDO Pasig City - 2; SDO Taguig City and Pateros - 3; SDO Quezon City - 1).

8.5 Compliance with RA No. 6716 - Rainwater Collector and Springs Development

Law (Annex E)

Rain Water Collection System (RWCS) is a technology that collects and stores rainwater for various uses. The non-potable water collected can be used to irrigate landscaping in the urban area. In the case of densely populated areas, like Metro Manila, the water can be used to flush toilets, water gardens, laundry clothes and

P a g e | 44



8.0 AUDIT RESULTS

cleaning the households, buildings and school facilities, to significantly reduce and save the amount of fresh water consumption. RA No. 6716 and paragraph (e) of DepEd Order No. 64, s. 2017 promote water conservation to address urban flooding and diminishing water supply from the concrete water reservoirs (La Mesa and Angat Dams) that cater to Metro Manila and nearby provinces because of climate change. DepEd Order No. 64, s. 2017 paragraph (e), Section VIII provides that:

The storm drainage system must be sized in consideration of the rainfall intensities, slope and roof areas of the school buildings. Provision shall be made for the future installation of rainwater collection system in compliance with RA No. 6716, An Act Providing for the construction of Water Wells, Rainwater Collectors, Development of Springs and Rehabilitation of existing Water Wells in all Barangays in the Philippines.

Inspections disclosed that a total of 92 schools or 58.23 percent did not have the required RWCS.

On Audit Objective 2:

To determine the satisfaction of pupils/students with the classrooms, facilities

(toilets, library, computer room, clinic, etc.); materials/equipment (books,

computer, chairs, electric fans, etc.); and people (teachers, students, principal,

nurse, security guards, etc.)

Aside from conducting ocular inspections, the CPA Teams also facilitated Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) among 20 selected pupils/students in 73 schools out of the 158 sampled schools. FGD is a qualitative research technique consisting of a structured discussion and used to obtain in-depth information from these groups of students from similar backgrounds or experiences to discuss freely and openly a specific topic of interest. The FGDs were conducted to methodically determine the level of satisfaction of pupils/students on the following:

a. Classrooms b. Facilities (toilets, library, computer room, clinic, etc.) c. Materials/Equipment (books, computer, chairs, electric fan, etc.) d. People (teachers, students, principal, nurse, security guards, etc.)

P a g e | 45



8.0 AUDIT RESULTS

The pupils/students were also asked to draw their dream school to give the CPA Teams and the readers of the CPA Report an insight on the “wishes” of the pupils/students. Unang Hakbang Foundation, one of the CSOs who joined this year’s CPA engagement, assisted the CPA Teams in formulating the guidelines, activities, and questions that were used in conducting the FGD, which was participated in by 20 students per school consisting of ten girls and ten boys aged 10 to 17 years old. The CPA Teams presented the FGD Guidelines to DepEd officials who were present during the Audit Entrance Conference. Their comments were considered in enhancing the FGD Guidelines. The CPA Teams also secured permission beforehand by sending consent forms to the parents and pupils/students through the School Principals. During the activity, citizen partners and auditors facilitated interesting activities to obtain feedback, opinions, and solutions from the participants, being the primary end-users of the school buildings and other facilities. 8.6 On the satisfaction of pupils/students with the classrooms

Shown in Table 5a are the top 3 (in terms of number of responses) positive and negative feedback of the pupils/students on the classrooms:

Table 5a. Results of Focus Group Discussions

CLASSROOMS

POSITIVE FEEDBACK English Translation NEGATIVE FEEDBACK

English Translation

Malawak na espasyo na sapat sa bilang ng mga mag-aaral

Wide space which is enough for the number of learners

Kakulangan / kaliitan ng classroom

Inadequate number/space of classrooms

Maaliwalas at maayos na classrooms

Cozy and orderly classrooms

Mainit na silid-aralan dahil kulang sa ventilation

Hot classroom temperature due to inadequate ventilation

Napananatiling malinis ang mga classrooms

Cleanliness of classrooms is maintained

Maruming classrooms

Dirty classrooms

Although there were school buildings with spacious, cozy, orderly, and clean classrooms; there were also school buildings with inadequate classroom space, hot room temperature, and dirty.

P a g e | 46



8.0 AUDIT RESULTS

8.7 On the satisfaction of pupils/students with the facilities (toilet, library, computer room, clinic, etc.) Shown in Table 5b below are the top 3 (in terms of number of responses) positive and negative feedback of the pupils/students on the facilities:

Table 5b. Results of Focus Group Discussions

FACILITIES (toilet, library, computer room, clinic, etc.)

POSITIVE FEEDBACK

English Translation NEGATIVE FEEDBACK

English Translation

May library at mga libro na nagagamit ng mga mag-aaral

There is a library for the learners to use

Marumi at mabahong palikuran

Dirty and stinky comfort room

May mga computer rooms na nagagamit ng mga bata

There are computer rooms for children to use

Ang clinic minsan ay walang gamot

The clinic has no supply of medicines sometimes

Maayos na canteen na may abot-kaya at masustansyang bilihin

Orderly canteen with affordable and nutritious food

Masikip o maliit na canteen

Narrow/small canteen

The presence of a library with books which students can use, computer rooms that the children can use, and orderly canteens with affordable and nutritious food ranked highest in the positive feedback; while, dirty and stinky toilets, clinics with no supply of medicines, and narrow/small canteens ranked highest in the negative feedback.

8.8 On the satisfaction of pupils/students with the materials/equipment (books, computer, chairs, electric fan, etc.) Shown in Table 5c below are the top 3 (in terms of number of responses) positive and negative feedback of the pupils/students on the materials/equipment:

Table 5c. Results of Focus Group Discussions

MATERIALS/EQUIPMENT (books, computer, chairs, electric fan, etc.)

POSITIVE FEEDBACK


English Translation

Maayos at malinis ang mga libro

The books are neat and clean

May mga sira at punit ang mga libro

The books are worn and torn

Sapat na bilang ng electric fan upang mapanatili kaming komportable

Sufficient numbers of electric fans to keep us comfortable

Hindi maayos ang mga electric fan

The electric fans are not working properly

P a g e | 47



8.0 AUDIT RESULTS

Table 5c. Results of Focus Group Discussions

MATERIALS/EQUIPMENT (books, computer, chairs, electric fan, etc.)

POSITIVE FEEDBACK


English Translation

Maayos at sapat na bilang ng mga upuan

Nice and sufficient numbers of chairs

Sira ang mga upuan

Broken/damaged chairs

From the responses, there are schools that are able to provide neat and clean books, sufficient number of electric fans, and nice and sufficient number of chairs. There are also schools that provide materials/equipment on the other end of the spectrum – worn and torn books, electric fans that are not working properly, and broken/damaged chairs. 8.9 On the satisfaction of pupils/students with the people (teachers, students,

principal, nurse, security guards, etc.)

Shown in Table 5d below are the top 3 (in terms of number of responses) positive and negative feedback of the pupils/students on the people in school:

Table 5d. Results of Focus Group Discussions

PEOPLE (teachers, students, principal, nurse, security guards, etc.)

POSITIVE FEEDBACK


English Translation

Magagaling at considerate na mga guro

Excellent and considerate teachers

Kawalan ng disiplina ng mga mag aaral

Lack of discipline among students

Responsible at concerned na principal

Responsible and concerned principal

Pambu”bully” ng mga mag aaral

The act of bullying by learners

Mabait at palakaibigan na mga kamag-aral

Kind and friendly classmates

Masungit at mahigpit na security guard

Grumpy and strict security guard

While principals are generally viewed as responsible and concerned; teachers are likewise viewed as excellent and considerate; and, some classmates are kind and friendly; there were feedback of undisciplined students and even of bullying done by other pupils/students. Ther

Documents

A Citizen Participatory Audit Report...prescribed under DepEd Order No. 64 s. 2017 (Ground Floor) Annex A.2 Compliance with the Architectural, Electrical, Sanitary, Plumbing, and Mechanical/Fire