THE Commission on Audit has affirmed the liability of Marinduque provincial officials behind the disallowed procurement of educational materials worth P8.34 million in 2009.
COA chairperson Gamaliel Cordoba and Commissioners Roland Café Pondoc and Mario Lipana have denied a petition for review filed by the local government officials seeking lifting of the four notices of disallowance (NDs) issued on July 5, 2012.
In its ruling, COA noted the appeal was filed on Nov. 14, 2016, the 277th day since the NDs were served, hence beyond the 180 days allowed under the rules to seek reconsideration.
“Petitioners had already exhausted 124 days when they filed their appeal memorandum before the regional director. Thus, they had 56 days to file a petition for review from receipt of the subject decision. However, petitioners filed their petition only on Nov. 14, 2016 or 153 days after receipt of the decision; thus, the petition was filed out of time,” COA said.
The movants were led by former governor Jose Antonio Carrion who passed away in 2017, a year after filing the petition for review.
Due to the delay in mounting a challenge, the Commission en banc held that having attained finality, the assailed decision may no longer be modified in any respect.
Records showed the transactions involved procurement of CD-ROMs and educational packages which were disallowed in audit for violations of procurement rules, particularly for resorting to direct contracting.
Auditors noted that the Procurement Manual for Local Government Units was not followed including the absence of a survey to determine supply sources; lack of justification for the necessity of undertaking the procurement through direct contracting; and failure to observe requirements such as posting a notice for direct contracting, preparation of request for quotation, conduct of pre-procurement conference and requiring suppliers to post performance security.
Because of these, COA said, the petition would still be dismissed on lack of merit even if it was filed on time.
“Thus, the payment for the procured items was correctly disallowed for being irregular. Acts executed against the provisions of mandatory or prohibitory laws shall be void. Consequently, the payment for the transaction in question constituted an illegal expenditure which made those directly responsible liable,” the COA said.
