The day of infamy (1)

“Keen political observers, learned men of the academe, finance, accounting and law practitioners, including judges and even justices of the graft court have expressed their disdain for matters involving double jeopardy for the repetition by the CoA commissioner of issues that had been previously settled by jurisprudence.

The beginning of the end for the Commission on Audit, or CoA, as a collegial body began on 5 April 2011.

Retired and senior state auditors came to this conclusion based on their research and observations: “The track record of the CoA chairperson and commissioner was marked by partiality and absolute subservience to the President from the time of their appointment on 5 April 2011 until the end of their term.”

“They violated Section 127 of PD 1445 for their repeated unjustified failure to comply with the requirements imposed by the Code “to respect, protect and preserve the independence of CoA” (Section 126); “to maintain complete independence, impartiality and objectivity… in the performance of their duties” (Section 54); and to present in the audit report “factual matters accurately, completely and fairly” (Section 54).

Massive amounts of public funds in the trillions of pesos were lost, never to be recovered because the crop of the Commissioner Proper we had were not earnestly concerned about the best interests of the public but about their best interests and those of their friends.

The CoA as a collegial body is messy, corrupt and dilatory.

In the dancing hall, it takes two to tango. In the Commission Proper, it takes three with a high fee.

The Commission Proper backlog of more than 5,000 unacted on and unresolved appeals is solid, visible, and incontrovertible evidence of the betrayal of the public trust and graft.

Sometimes, the price demanded by CoA facilitators is prohibitive, in addition to being uncertain, they say.

Senior Presidential Legal Counsel Juan Ponce Enrile is right in saying, “Set aside the 1987 Constitution; return to the 1935 Constitution.”

One senior retired State Auditor V added one recommendation to stop the Commission Proper in its corrupt ways: Divest CoA of its quasijudicial power.

The State may divest the Commission on Audit of its judicial power and return it to its former status under the 1935 Constitution, as the General Auditing Office or GAO. Under GAO, the auditor had no quasijudicial power.

Quasi-judicial power refers to a process conducted by an administrative or executive official or organization that is similar to a court proceeding, e.g. a hearing conducted by the CoA Commission Proper. A court may review the decision arising from a quasijudicial proceeding.

Under Section 2, Article X of the 1935 Constitution, “It shall be the duty of the Auditor General to bring to the attention of the proper administrative officer the expenditure of funds or property which in his opinion are irregular, unnecessary, excessive, or extravagant. He shall also perform such other functions as may be prescribed by law.”

Keen political observers, learned men of the academe, finance, accounting and law practitioners, including judges and even justices of the graft court have expressed their disdain for matters involving double jeopardy, for the repetition by the CoA commissioner of issues that had been previously settled by jurisprudence.

These experts in their fields had discussed in public fora the numerous failures of CoA in the performance of its constitutional duty as a collegial body, “where it takes three to tango,” instead of only two, with only the claimant and one auditor to get paid quickly — and where it takes too long and expensive to settle a claim.

For example, under the collegial body system, even in the audit of the Priority Development Assistance Fund, no less than the Supreme Court had noted CoA’s inutility. According to the Court, “Grace Pulido Tan has been chairman of the Commission on Audit since 2011, but she could not explain why given the fact that the alleged misuse of the PDAF has been going on for a long time, CoA had failed to look into the matter.”

“Massive amounts of public funds in the trillions of pesos were lost, never to be recovered because the crop of the Commissioner Proper we had were not earnestly concerned about the best interests of the public but for their best interests and those of their friends.

(To be continued)