Just last October 29, 2009, the Commission on Audit filed a two-page notice of disallowance against some of the officials and members of the local government of the city of Manila. The notice was filed following the noted deficiencies on the claims for the payment of consultancy fees of purportedly 21 consultants who were contracted to work for the office of the Mayor. However, based from the results of the audit prepared by Domingo C. Bocalan Jr., State Auditor IV, the submitted vouchers or payrolls for the period covering July1, 2007 to June 30, 2009 for alleged contracted services were void and that the supposed 21 consultants were fictitious employees. Accordingly, the anomalous transaction cost Manila the amount of P5,058,000.00.
The notice of disallowance was filed soon after Mayor Alfredo Lim said in his affidavit that he did not have any knowledge, whatsoever, of the said transaction, and that he never authorized the purported contracted services to take place. The Mayor also added that he never signed any contract related to the purported services nor did he granted the payment for the supposed 21 consultants. Lim's statement were further reinforced by three of his office staff. The three office staff who supported the mayor's statement were Rowena Senatin, Helen Natividad and Arturo Mijares.
The three office staff said in their affidavit that the consultants, whose names appeared in the voucher submitted to them, were never employed by the mayor. Senatin, Natividad and Mijares also confirmed that consultants in the voucher were inexistent. This government anomaly is a clear manifestation of the ongoing corrupt practices in the local government of Manila. Nonetheless, like any other forms of illegal activities, the transaction was done in order to benefit the people involved.
Eleven officials from the accounting and property division of the local government of Manila were named as the persons liable for the said anomalous transaction. The named officials were Pacifico Lagramada, Yolanda Ignacio, Marleen Young, Gloria Quilantang, Vicky Valientes, Erlinda Marteja, Philip Cabalun II, Cherry Chan, Alicia Moscaya, Fritz Noel Borres, and Rodelio Leyson. Subsequently, the aforementioned officials facilitated the payment amounting to P5,058,000.00 among the 21 fictitious consultants, who never rendered actual services. Mayor Alfredo Lim and the affidavit of his staffs attested the involvement of the said personnel.
In the notice submitted by Bocolan, he recommended that the involved personnel from the accounting and property division of the city of Manila to refund the P5,058,000.00. The given amount was the supposed payment for the 21 consultants, who purportedly worked for the office of the mayor. The notice of disallowance given by the Commission on Audit is final and executory under the law, and can only be appealed by the involved participants in the anomalous transaction within six months from the day the notice was filed. Accordingly, if the said individuals were not able to comply, the commission would take the necessary steps in order to enforce the notice.
Although the words of Mayor Alfredo Lim may have served as the justification for the named individuals to be held liable by the Commission on Audit, it appears that there is something wrong with this transaction. The only question that needs to be answered in this incident is how did the transaction came to fruition if Mayor Lim did not approve it in the first place? Although the involved people in this anomalous transaction were already held liable for their corrupt practice, answering this question would somehow shed light to the blind side of the story. This side of the story is something that needs to be clarified to the public.
A notice of disallowance was given by the Commission on Audit against some of the government officials from the city of Manila. The notice was filed following the deficiencies found in the vouchers submitted to the Commission on Audit, which contained the supposed payment for 21 fictitious consultants. This government anomaly had cost the city P5,058,000.00. Mayor Alfredo Lim noted that he did not approve and signed any of the contracts for the said consultation services.
The notice of disallowance was filed soon after Mayor Alfredo Lim said in his affidavit that he did not have any knowledge, whatsoever, of the said transaction, and that he never authorized the purported contracted services to take place. The Mayor also added that he never signed any contract related to the purported services nor did he granted the payment for the supposed 21 consultants. Lim's statement were further reinforced by three of his office staff. The three office staff who supported the mayor's statement were Rowena Senatin, Helen Natividad and Arturo Mijares.
The three office staff said in their affidavit that the consultants, whose names appeared in the voucher submitted to them, were never employed by the mayor. Senatin, Natividad and Mijares also confirmed that consultants in the voucher were inexistent. This government anomaly is a clear manifestation of the ongoing corrupt practices in the local government of Manila. Nonetheless, like any other forms of illegal activities, the transaction was done in order to benefit the people involved.
Eleven officials from the accounting and property division of the local government of Manila were named as the persons liable for the said anomalous transaction. The named officials were Pacifico Lagramada, Yolanda Ignacio, Marleen Young, Gloria Quilantang, Vicky Valientes, Erlinda Marteja, Philip Cabalun II, Cherry Chan, Alicia Moscaya, Fritz Noel Borres, and Rodelio Leyson. Subsequently, the aforementioned officials facilitated the payment amounting to P5,058,000.00 among the 21 fictitious consultants, who never rendered actual services. Mayor Alfredo Lim and the affidavit of his staffs attested the involvement of the said personnel.
In the notice submitted by Bocolan, he recommended that the involved personnel from the accounting and property division of the city of Manila to refund the P5,058,000.00. The given amount was the supposed payment for the 21 consultants, who purportedly worked for the office of the mayor. The notice of disallowance given by the Commission on Audit is final and executory under the law, and can only be appealed by the involved participants in the anomalous transaction within six months from the day the notice was filed. Accordingly, if the said individuals were not able to comply, the commission would take the necessary steps in order to enforce the notice.
Although the words of Mayor Alfredo Lim may have served as the justification for the named individuals to be held liable by the Commission on Audit, it appears that there is something wrong with this transaction. The only question that needs to be answered in this incident is how did the transaction came to fruition if Mayor Lim did not approve it in the first place? Although the involved people in this anomalous transaction were already held liable for their corrupt practice, answering this question would somehow shed light to the blind side of the story. This side of the story is something that needs to be clarified to the public.
A notice of disallowance was given by the Commission on Audit against some of the government officials from the city of Manila. The notice was filed following the deficiencies found in the vouchers submitted to the Commission on Audit, which contained the supposed payment for 21 fictitious consultants. This government anomaly had cost the city P5,058,000.00. Mayor Alfredo Lim noted that he did not approve and signed any of the contracts for the said consultation services.
