The limits in using pre-audit safeguard | Inquirer Opinion

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.

Article continues after this advertisement

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.

FEATURED STORIES
OPINION

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

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

TAGS: auditing, corruption, government transactions

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

© Copyright 1997-2024 INQUIRER.net | All Rights Reserved

This is an information message

We use cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more here.