THE VIEW FROM RIZAL
Dr. Jun Ynares
“Audit” is an emotion-laden word.
We can only commiserate with the leadership of the Department of Health (DOH) and the Commission on Audit (COA). They now appear to be caught in the maelstrom of emotion triggered by this volatile word.
The recent audit report by COA covering the DOH and several other agencies appear to have created undue perceptions that the latter are misusing public funds or have been remiss in their responsibility to safeguard taxpayers’ hard-earned money. It may have evoked unfair impressions that certain agencies are either corrupt or incompetent and, therefore, should not be entrusted with public funds.
We believe COA when it said that such was not the intention of the audit report.
We can only sympathize with the DOH leadership as it protests the apparent effect of the way the audit report may have been handled on its public reputation.
Our view is that the reporting of the outcome of the audit could have been done in a more objective, less impassioned manner.
Having served in several appointive and elective government posts, we have seen the importance of the audit function, and we have appreciated the role of the resident auditor as a valuable partner in good governance.
The fact is – just like the Filipino “lugaw” – the objective audit is essential.
Here’s are what we have appreciated about the objective audit.
First, it is about processes.
Second, it is about eliminating or diminishing risks.
Third, it is about standards of efficiency and transparency.
Fourth, it is about feedback.
The agencies of government use public funds to advance and protect public welfare. Those funds belong to the people. Agencies cannot disburse and utilize them without adhering to sets of prescribed processes. As a general rule, those funds cannot be used for purposes other than those for which they were earmarked.
The processes are intended to remove or, at the very least, minimize the risks that public funds might be abused or misused. They ensure that those funds will be used efficiently. They ensure that the way those funds are used can stand scrutiny.
The resident auditor performs that function of scrutinizing the way public funds are used. As a constitutional body, they perform that function on behalf of the people who, literally and figuratively, “own” those funds.
The objective audit report focuses on how an agency has been faithful in its adherence to the prescribed set of processes. When a particular disbursement of public funds deviates from the prescribed set of processes, it is the responsibility of the resident auditor to mark such deviation, to report it, and to call attention to it. That is what is referred to as “flagging.”
Technically, “flagging” does not mean that an act of corruption or incompetence has been committed by the agency. It simply means that an act of disbursement or funds utilization “deviated” from how they must be done.
The resident auditor usually asks the concerned agency official to explain the “deviation.” If the auditor sees that the “deviation” is within legal bounds, it may allow the action of the agency to “pass in audit.” Otherwise, the resident auditor may “disallow” it. When “disallowed,” the funds may have to be returned to the public coffers.
The objective audit is a big help to an agency. By adhering to the prescribed processes, the agency becomes more efficient and transparent in the use of public funds. The agency learns how to do the processes better each time certain disbursements are “flagged.”
The presence of the resident auditor in an agency is not based on a presumption that government officials are corrupt and must therefore be kept under constant watch. The resident auditor is there to help the agency adhere to the processes and, as a result, be more efficient and transparent in the use of the people’s money.
The recent unfortunate developments involving COA and the DOH may have been triggered by the posting of the annual audit report in the COA website. Some sectors picked up the report and presented it to the public in a less objective manner.
We understand why the COA had to post the report. As we said, it is constitutional body and must therefore “report to the People.”
For the most part, the report was faithful to its form and function: It provided feedback on how agencies adhered to the prescribed processes. What may have caused the unfortunate uproar were the “comments.” For example, the report noted that, in many instances, the DOH “underspent” so-called disaster risk management and mitigation (DRRM) funds. It proceeded to say that “the DRRM funds should have been used to implement programs and activities for health emergency management.”
The comment may have been interpreted by some as a “scolding” or an “insinuation” of incompetence. We do not think so. In expressing such comment, COA was merely expressing a strong view. There was neither accusation nor condemnation.
We wish to assure the DOH leadership that we continue to hold them in high esteem.
We assure COA of our moral support as it performs its constitutional duty of protecting the processes that make sure that the People’s money remains safe and are used to advance their welfare.
*For feedback, please email it to [email protected] or send it to Block 6 Lot 10 Sta. Barbara 1 cor. Bradley St., Mission Hills Subd., Brgy. San Roque, Antipolo City, Rizal.