ANY government agency that does not respond to official communications within 3 days is violating the Ease of Doing Business and Efficient Government Service Delivery Act or RA 11032.
Anti-Red Tape Authority (ARTA) Director General Ernesto Perez warned.
The period to comply depends upon the nature of the transaction sought for. Simple requests are those that only require ministerial actions from the officer or employee and must be complied within 3 days while complex requests need to be responded to within 7 days.
For applications or requests involving activities which pose danger to public health, public safety, public morals, public policy and highly technical application, the period to comply is not more than 20 days or as determined by the agency concerned, whichever is shorter.
* * *
Do you know of an instance where a government official or government agency simply ignored or refused to respond to your official communication?
Well, then, if you know of one, this is the time to send a letter-complaint to the ARTA office thru Director General Perez so he could act on it.
Let us see how DG Perez will act on it.
Following his appointment, DG Perez assured BBM that he would faithfully discharge the mandate of his office which is to ensure an effective delivery of government services by removing red tape in government offices.
What better way to do that than to right away act on the letter-complaint against government offices or officials who refused to respond to official communications.
* * *
I had a discussion recently with a former top official of the Office of the Ombudsman.
While chomping on our delicious and mouth-watering steak, we were also discussing the pronouncement of Ombudsman Samuel Martirez on “putting brakes” on the publication of anti-graft cases involving government officials until the investigation conducted by the Ombudsman has been completed.
Martirez was referring to the publication of its annual audit reports (AARs) which are not yet complete and therefore, not yet final.
Many things can still happen to an ongoing investigation. Publishing it without waiting for the final result is not only premature, it is also highly dangerous to the honor and reputation of the official concerned.
What normally happens when the AARs are published?
Any published news item will right away generate assumptions or speculation on possible acts of corruption, Martirez explained.
Kurakot na dayon ang tumoy sa estorya bisan kon wa pa mahuman ang gihimong imbestigasyon.
* * *
To better understand this episode, let us dissect first some audit terms commonly used.
Audit Observation Memo (AOM) is a written. notification to the agency head and concerned officer/s. informing of deficiencies noted in the audit of accounts, operations or transactions and requiring comments thereto.
Notice of Disallowance (ND) is the notice embodying the disapproval in audit of a transaction, either in whole or in part and this applies to the audit of disbursements. Essentially, when a government transaction is disallowed, as it is either irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant or illegal, the public funds used for it must be returned to the government by the people who approved of it.
* * *
Now let us ask ourselves.
How many times have we come across news items that are based purely on AOMs and the story is presented as if the official concerned has already been adjudged as kurakot?
I cannot count but I say plenty.
This only goes to show that this is what Ombudsman Martirez is talking about, the official concerned is already crucified on the basis of an AOM which is just a finding of deficiency and still awaiting for comments from the agency concerned.
Pero sa nakabasa sa news article, kurakot na dayon ang opisyal.
* * *
I recounted an incident during a public forum where a COA Commissioner was present.
During the open forum, it seemed that nobody wanted to ask a question so I volunteered.
I asked the COA Commissioner if the issuance of a Notice of Disallowance is discretionary on the part of the Resident Auditor or the COA itself.
He was silent and seemingly unwilling to answer.
So to egg him into answering, I cited a particular example involving a province where the members of the provincial sanggunian procured several service vehicles while the vice governor procured a service vehicle but specifically mentioned a particular brand and specifications.
In the AOM, the Resident Auditor directed the provincial kagawads to justify the procurement while in the case of the procurement by the vice governor, the auditor specified a blatant violation of the Revised Procurement Act and ordered the agency concerned to rectify the illegal and highly questionable procurement.
Klaro kaayo ang binuang kay mogawas nga wala nay bidding kay giklaro man gyod sa vice governor ang brand sa sakyanan nga iyang gusto ug maoy gi-deliver sa supplier.
Despite non-compliance, the procurement has not been disallowed and no Notice of Disallowance was ever issued.
Thus cornered, the COA Commissioner started to answer but before he could finish, I made a clarification if his answer was the answer of the Commission itself or just a personal opinion.
And his answer was, he was just submitting his personal opinion and not the opinion of the Commission itself.
And so I made another observation that Resident Auditors are fond of dishing out opinions, and because of this, there really is no uniform opinion because it became subjective.
Mao nay problema sa COA Sir, I told him in English, why do COA Resident Auditors dish out their own personal opinions and not the official stand of the Commission itself?
Dunay mga opisina nga liberal ang Auditor, duna pod mga opisina nga hilabihan ka istrikto ang Auditor and all these are happening because of the practice of Auditors doing their own personal opinion.
Wa na intawon katubag ang COA Commissioner kay daghan na mang misagbat sa lantugi ug wa na sila kasabot unsaon nila pagtubag.
Well, namatay na lang ang Vice Governor, wa pa gihapon ND nga migawas bisan naguba na lang ang sakyanan nga gigamit niya kanhi.
* * *
When order was restored, I also lamented the fact that the AOM issued by COA Auditors are not final and still subject to corrections or rectifications and yet, they are being used as evidence in graft cases.
Bisan gani ang Notice of Disallowance nga mogawas kay dili pa final because it is still subject for review sa COA. Mahimo pa nga mausab ug mahimo pa nga wagtangon na lang pero ang kaso nga pangurakot nga gisang-at, tua na naglungkaob sa opisina sa Ombudsman. Ang nakapait kay ang opisyal nga gikasohan, sama sa gihukman nga nga kurakot.
In the meantime, the published news article has already wrecked havoc and damage to the personal honor and reputation of the official concerned, apil ang ilang pamilya.
Mabalik pa diay ang kaulaw nga ilang gibati human gi-published ang pagsang-at sa kaso nga pangurakot?
