REP. France Castro (PL, ACT) yesterday opposed Ombudsman Samuel Martires’ call against the publication of the Commission on Audit’s (COA) audit observations, saying the practice should continue “because it is just one of the very few ways that the public can check if their hard-earned money is being used properly and above board.”
Like the publication of the statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN) of government officials, Castro said the publication of AOM informs the public if “officials enriched themselves while in office.”
“The publication of the AOM and the SALN are mechanisms for transparency and accountability for public officials. Doing away with it is like giving unscrupulous government officials carte blanche on the people’s money,” Castro said.
Last Monday, Martires urged lawmakers during the House budget hearing to remove from the General Appropriations Act (GAA) or the annual national budget the COA requirement to publish its audit observations, saying it causes public “confusion” because the Office of the Ombudsman is accused of accepting bribes when cases are eventually dismissed for lack of merit.
Martires, who was appointed to the position in 2018 by then-President Rodrigo Duterte, lamented that when his office dismisses complaints stemming from COA reports for lack of merit, the Office of the Ombudsman easily gets pilloried in public.
Another opposition lawmaker, Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman said he understands where the Ombudsman is coming from because “this memo is not final and executory.
“I agree with the Ombudsman that Section 94 of the 2024 General Appropriations Bill on the publication of COA’s audit observation memorandum should be deleted because this memo is not final and executory,” he said in a statement.
Lagman said the publication of audit observations “would impress in the public mind the culpability of an agency or official when the memorandum is still subject to reconciliation and rectification.”
In 2021, Martires even proposed penalties for “making commentaries” on the SALN of government officials and employees.
Under the Ombudsman’s Memorandum Circular No. 1., a copy of the SALN may be given only to an official or his duly authorized representative through a court order for a pending case and if the request was made by the Ombudsman’s Field Investigation Office/Bureau/Unit (FIO/FIB/FIU) “for the purpose of conducting a fact-finding investigation.”
Because of this, the public effectively loses access to the officials’ SALNs since the media has been excluded from the list of those who may be granted access through formal requests.
Castro said she was “appalled” by Martires’ admission before the House committee on appropriations that he himself had not liquidated his confidential funds since he assumed office in 2018.
She noted that based on records, the Ombudsman incurred P88.7 million in confidential expenses from 2018-2022.
Martires told the budget hearing that there is no need to submit receipts to the COA because the submission of a certification that Confidential Funds (CF) were spent for investigation purposes would suffice.
Castro, however, said COA’s Joint Circular 2015-01 (“Guidelines on the Entitlement, Release, Use, Reporting and Audit of Confidential and/or Intelligence Funds”) mandates strict reporting requirements on the use of Confidential Funds.
This includes: “Disbursements from CF shall be supported with documentary evidence of payment, among others, which shall be submitted to the ICFAU in a sealed envelope signed by the SDO.”
ICFAU is the Intelligence and Confidential Fund Audit Unit, the Special Commission on Audit unit in charge of auditing CF and IF. The SDO (Special Disbursing Officer) is the Head of the Agency or their designated employee accountable for and in charge of the disbursement of the CF.
Furthermore, Castro said receipts and other documentary evidence of payments are part of the requirements in support of certifications and liquidation reports to be submitted to COA as proof that the agency’s CF was used as intended under the law.
“Mere issuance of a certification without details and supporting documents does not suffice,” said Castro. “Since he took office in 2018, Ombudsman Martires has spent P88,778,000 in confidential funds. We are appalled that, by his own admission, he has not properly liquidated this huge amount in accordance with the procedures required by law.”
Castro noted that for 2023, the Ombudsman has an appropriation of P31,000,000 for confidential funds while it is proposing an increase to P51.468 million in 2024.
She also pointed out that the Joint Circular states that: “Failure of the AO (Accountable Officer) to liquidate any public funds for which he is accountable, upon demand by any duly authorized officer, shall be prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or property to personal use and benefit.”
The militant lawmaker said such casual admission before the committee on appropriations by the Ombudsman himself, “sends the message that, in his view, he can do so with impunity.
“This is truly alarming considering that the Ombudsman himself who is supposed to guard against abuse and corruption of government officials himself does not liquidate his confidential funds and says that it is impossible to do so because of the confidential nature of the funds. This is an unacceptable justification since the JC itself provides the special audit procedures precisely in order to address such operational security concerns. If Ombudsman Martires did indeed fail to properly liquidate his P88.7 million in confidential funds in the past five years, Castro said, “then COA needs to do some explaining.
“Have they ever flagged his self-admitted failure to comply? If they have not and simply let this pass, then the so-called auditing safeguards are a sham and high officials entrusted with Confidential Funds can abuse these with impunity,” she said. “If the Ombudsman can openly flout the legal requirement on Confidential Funds, then how about the other agencies that also have them?”
