Ombudsman Samuel Martires FILE PHOTO
MANILA, Philippines — Ombudsman Samuel Martires has clarified that in his suggestion to stop the publication of initial audit observations, he was referring to the annual audit reports (AARs) and not the audit observation memorandum (AOM) itself.
In a statement on Wednesday sent by the Office of the Ombudsman, Martires said that he wrongly mentioned AOM in his suggestion to Congress last Monday — to remove provisions on the annual budget or the General Appropriations Act (GAA) that require the publication of AOM.
According to him, publishing initial audit observations has led to people accusing government officials of wrongdoing when the issues mentioned by the Commission on Audit (COA) can still be rectified.
“In the recent budget hearing of the Office of the Ombudsman before the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives, the Ombudsman mentioned that the Audit Observation Memorandum ought not to be published when what he meant was the Annual Audit Report,” Martires said.
“The Ombudsman wants to clarify this matter,” he added.
READ: Martires seeks non-publication of COA’s initial audit memo
According to a COA document from 2009, AOM is a “written notification to the agency head and concerned officers” of “deficiencies noted in the audit of accounts, operations or transactions and requiring comments thereto, and/or submission of documentary and other information within a reasonable period.”
An AAR, on the other hand, is the final output of the regular yearly review conducted by a COA auditor assigned to a government agency. But concerned agencies can dispute or comply with the observations contained in the AAR.
In some cases, COA could issue a notice of disallowance where the concerned agency would be required to return the amount of money used for the disallowed project.
Martires, however, noted that there have been instances where government officials only forgot to submit receipts and are called out by COA — but are eventually painted in bad light due to reports in the media.
The Ombudsman clarified, though that they do not want to shield erring and corrupt officials — noting that they believe the Final Audit Report should be published.
“The Ombudsman assures that it is not protecting erring and corrupt government officials and employees with its firm belief that only the Final Audit Report ought to be published and shared with the public since the AAR could still be taken up on appeal before the [COA] en banc and the court,” Martires said.
“The Office of the Ombudsman takes this opportunity in assuaging the valid concerns of the public. The Office is fully committed in pursuing its mandate as protectors of the people by ensuring that its processes are fully aligned with integrity, transparency, and accountability in public service,” he added.
After Martires’ initial statement, several lawmakers issued different views, with those against it insisting that such documents are important for transparency. However, Albay 1st District Rep. Edcel Lagman agreed with Martires’ suggestion, as officials may have been prejudiced when initial audits are being released prematurely.
RELATED STORIES:
Solons split over bid to halt publication of COA audit memo
Ombudsman wants COA memos out of public eye