IF ONE listened close enough to the sudden outpouring of complaints against the work of the Commission on Audit, the surprising thing that would stand out is that all the grousing has little to do with the quality of the output of the government bean-counters but the process by which they are doing it.
While defending the 2024 budget of his office before the House last Monday, Ombudsman Samuel Martires found time to air his grievance at the provision in the budget bill requiring government auditors to issue an audit observation memorandum (AOM) when there are questions about a government agency’s spending.
The Ombudsman said it is unfair that something as benign as an overlooked official receipt can already daub a government project or a program with a hint of corruption — and by extension the officials of an implementing agency.
Pitching in his own observations, Leyte Rep. Richard Gomez said the same audit memo can be weaponized by political opponents to besmirch the reputation of an elected official.
Clearly, neither ascribed anything wrong in the work of the state auditors — only in the perception that the AOM is feared to create.
For the record, the COA does not make the AOM public. It is not accessible to journalists covering the agency or curious citizens but is issued directly to the audited agency for officials to clarify issues, particularly questions on the validity or regularity of expenditures.
While portions of the AOM may be mentioned in the Annual Audit report of an agency from time to time, it is part of due process to put on record the justification submitted by the management of the audited agency.
Now the COA has the unenviable job of justifying why its function of safeguarding the taxpayers’ money is causing discomfort to a few government officials.
