Sunday, October 23, 2016
opinion / Inquirer Opinion
  • share this

The limits in using pre-audit safeguard

/ 10:21 PM November 26, 2012

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

TAGS: auditing, corruption, government transactions, pre-auditing
For feedback, complaints, or inquiries, contact us.

© Copyright 1997-2016 | All Rights Reserved