Tuesday, August 16, 2005
P102M contracts not PB-authorized, COA says
By Jeanette P. Malinao Sun.Star Staff Reporter
Citing more than P102 million worth of contracts for 2004 that lack the Provincial Board’s (PB) authorization, the Commission on Audit (COA) told Gov. Gwendolyn Garcia to seek the board’s approval before entering into such deals.
COA also noted a decrease in Capitol’s expenses in 2004, but they also saw several fiscal and operational deficiencies that resulted in unreliable accounts or accounts of “doubtful” validity.
The Commission on Audit (COA), in its report for 2004, also reiterated its disallowance of P4.1 million released to Perdido Lex.
COA’s stand on the P102,092,841 worth of contracts was issued in May last year yet, and PB Member Gabriel Luis Quisum-bing even cited it during a privilege speech he delivered last April on what he called the executive department’s trampling of legislative powers.
Authorization
COA and the board members critical of Garcia’s administration insist that the Local Government Code requires PB authorization before the governor could enter into a contract.
The issue is now pending before the anti-graft office after PB members sought its opinion.
In defending the contracts, specifically for Capitol security and janitorial services, Garcia used the new government procurement law, which considers the annual appropriations ordinance as “prior PB authorization.”
But COA, in the annual report, said the audit observation memorandum on the matter is still pending before its Regional Legal and Adjudication Office.
“Henceforth, the local chief executive must secure a sanggunian resolution authorizing (the contract),” read the report.
In earlier interviews about the issue, Capitol consultant Pablo John Garcia had said Quisum-bing should not take COA’s opinion as the final word on what the law is, because COA has been, in many instances, set aside by the Supreme Court for its wrong interpretation.
Meanwhile, aside from telling the Capitol to correct its records because of some “incorrect” treatment of items in its books, COA also advised the Province to “recall the designation” of its special disbursing officer in charge of spare parts, citing his inefficiency.
The Province posted an income 1.52 percent lower than in 2003. But the COA also reported a total drop of 3.69 percent in its overall spending. The reduction of expenses for personal services was 13.63 percent, while that of the maintenance and operating expenses was 22.8 percent.
Findings
However, COA found that the Province needs to correct the following accounting deficiencies, among others, which render the accounts unreliable:
* Failure to transfer a total of P168,252,982.69 completed public infrastructure projects such as roads, bridges, parks, irrigation canals and waterways to the “registry of public infrastructures.”
The incorrect accounting treatment overstates the item “property, plant and equipment and government equity” by that amount;
* The balance for “property, plant and equipment” differed with inventory reports by P46,015,726. The difference, however, reduced by 11.24 percent from P51,845,573 in 2003 because of the ongoing reconciliation of records.
* A difference of P6.3 million between records in the ledger and that of the inventory, for office supplies, accountable forms, drugs and medicines, medical and other laboratory supplies, spare parts, livestock, gasoline and other supplies;
As for Perdido Lex, it was a financial aid Capitol granted to the organization in 2003 for a computerization program, but authorities found the organization bogus, and its incorporators could not be traced.
It was an issued used against then vice governor and gubernatorial aspirant John Gregory “John-john” Osmeña. The amount came from his discretionary funds and his aide was identified as the one who followed up the accreditation of the organization, appeared in its behalf before a session in Barili, and followed up the release of the check.
Osmeña countered that it was then consultant and now Gov. Gwendolyn Garcia who was behind the transaction. They had traded actions on the issue before the court.
The COA reiterated that this was not a valid transaction as no “documentary proof” was given showing the activities for the supposed program.
“(This) should not have been reflected in the books,” read the report.
(August 16, 2005 issue)
Write letter to the editor.Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board.Click here. |
