The limits in using pre-audit safeguard

SHARES:

10:21 PM November 26th, 2012

Recommended
November 26th, 2012 10:21 PM

I agree with Sancho Caceres (Inquirer, 10/24/12)—“pre-audit is the best way to safeguard people’s money.” However, pre-audit is not a 100-percent guarantee that there will be no anomalies in government transactions. I can cite two instances where corruption can occur even in a pre-audit regime:

1. When the auditors are in connivance with the wrongdoers.

2. The auditors assigned are incompetent.

We have heard of Commission on Audit auditors in cahoots with “bad guys,” and non-CPAs being employed by the COA simply because of their political connections. Besides, if the pre-audit would be required in all government transactions, there would be a slowdown in doing business with the government.

I suggest a compromise: Clarify which transactions would  require pre-audit and those that would allow post-audit.

—BERNARDO V. PERALTA, CPA, retired professor and reviewer in auditing, Jones Avenue, Cebu City

Disclaimer: Comments do not represent the views of INQUIRER.net. We reserve the right to exclude comments which are inconsistent with our editorial standards. FULL DISCLAIMER
For feedback, complaints, or inquiries, contact us.