COA’s role in intel funds audit merely ministerial

This is in reaction to the news article titled “6th plunder case filed vs GMA, 8 others over PCSO intel funds.” (Inquirer, 2/27/11) I think that the complainants are probably misinformed, even assuming they are motivated by good faith in including former Commission on Audit (COA) chair Reynaldo Villar as respondent.

From what I gathered, liquidation vouchers on cash advances drawn from the intelligence funds of government agencies—be they national, local or corporate—are verified or audited by a committee composed of COA lawyers and certified public accountants designated by the COA chair. In auditing intelligence and confidential funds, including the issuance of corresponding credit advices, this committee is guided by the applicable provisions of COA Circular No. 92-385 (dated Oct. 1, 1992) and COA Circular No. 2003-003 (dated July 30, 2003). This practice or system is transparent, although restricted within the office of the COA chairman to avoid information leak that may jeopardize the strict confidentiality of intelligence operations, as well as to avert endangering the lives and safety of government agents and employees.

The grant to the disbursing officers of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office of cash advances taken from the intelligence funds is purely a management function, hence, understandably beyond the power and control of the COA or its chairman.

The abovementioned COA circulars are quite self-explanatory, particularly with respect to expenses incurred in intelligence operations. Any disbursement from the confidential and/or intelligence fund shall be accounted for solely on the certification of the head of the agency or by the officer in charge of the intelligence, confidential or national security mission.

Very clearly, the granting, use and liquidation of intelligence funds of the PCSO rest on the approving and certifying officials of the agency. Given the peculiarity of the financial transactions involving government intelligence funds, it can be seen that the role of COA or its chairman is merely ministerial and limited—within the contextual provisions of the circulars.

Ergo, there is no rhyme or reason to include Villar in the charge sheet for plunder. Rather than alienate the COA or its chairman and state auditors, the complainants are well-advised to make them dependable allies in their fight against the multi-headed hydra of graft and corruption.

—SANCHO “SONNY” CACERES,

retired state auditor and

former editor, Ariva Newsletter,

COA Regional Office 4, QC