The Senate has blamed media’s misinterpretation of published financial information in the Transparency Seal of the Senate of the Philippines as a reason for its failure to post full information of various financial and procurement deals in it.
The Senate leaders made this clear to the Commission on Audit (COA) to justify their non-compliance to the requirements for full information in the Transparency Seal that is aimed at enhancing transparency and enforcing accountability in the legislative chamber.
In its 2019 Senate annual audit report that was released recently, COA underscored the importance of putting complete information about the Senate’s financial dealings in the Transparency Seal posted on the Senate website.
Auditors noted that the Transparency Seal has not been updated since 2015, stressing that this lapse on the part of the Senate “is not in keeping with Section 106 of the General Provisions of the General Appropriations Act for FY 2019” which is aimed at ensuring transparency and enforcing accountability.
“The heads of the agencies and their web administrator or their equivalent shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with this Section,” COA stressed.
Missing information in the Transparency Seal are the approved budgets and corresponding targets, modifications made in the general and specific provisions in the GAA; Annual Procurement Plan and contracts awarded to the winning supplier contractor and consultants and status of implementation, evaluation and assessment reports of programs or projects, among others.
Auditors lamented that the absence of the required information makes the Senate website “not compliant with the government’s advocacy of enhancing transparency and enforcing accountability.”
In response, the Senate explained that the legislative body is a “highly political entity and has peculiar and unique aspects in its functions”, thus making compliance with the transparency requirement “complicated and vulnerable to misinterpretation.”
In the same audit report submitted to Senate President Vicente Sotto III, auditors also observed that the Senate Bids and Awards Committee failed to prepare needed procurement documents for submission to the Government Procurement Policy Board as mandated under Republic Act No. 9184 or the Government Procurement Reform Act.
“The grant of excessive cash advance to Special Disbursing Officers resulted in refunds of P2,209,178.20 which represents 20 percent to 62 percent of respective cash advances granted for various purposes,” COA also noted.
State auditors warned that the grant of excessive cash advances “caused the unnecessary exposure of the government funds to risk of loss through theft or misappropriation.’”
The audit agency also chided accountable officers for failure to liquidate P1.75 million in cash advances as of year end which is required by COA Circular No. 970002.