The limits in using pre-audit safeguard
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: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of INQUIRER.net. We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.
To subscribe to the Philippine Daily Inquirer newspaper in the Philippines, call +63 2 896-6000 for Metro Manila and Metro Cebu or email your subscription request here.
Factual errors? Contact the Philippine Daily Inquirer's day desk. Believe this article violates journalistic ethics? Contact the Inquirer's Reader's Advocate. Or write The Readers' Advocate:
c/o Philippine Daily Inquirer Chino Roces Avenue corner Yague and Mascardo Streets, Makati City,Metro Manila, Philippines Or fax nos. +63 2 8974793 to 94