A two-page notice of disallowance against some of the government officials in the city Manila was released by the Commission on Audit last October 29, 2009. The Commission on Audit filed the said notice when they found out that there were deficiencies on the voucher presented by the officials, which concerned the payments for the alleged contracted services of 21 consultants. The said vouchers did not complement the audit prepared by Domingo C. Bocalan Jr., State Auditor IV and that the vouchers were void because the 21 consultants listed in the payroll were inexistent. 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. As a follow up, Lim also noted that he did not sign any contract for the said services nor did he allowed the fictitious consultants to receive any consultation fees or compensations. Lim's claims in his affidavit were backed up by three of his trusted staff. The three office staff who supported the mayor's statement were Rowena Senatin, Helen Natividad and Arturo Mijares.
In their affidavit, the three staff pointed out that the names of the 21 consultants in the payrolls submitted to them were not appointed by the mayor to work in his office. The three also confirmed that the consultants were fictitious. This particular government anomaly is just one of the corrupt practices plaguing Manila's local government. Nonetheless, like any other forms of illegal activities, the transaction was done in order to benefit the people involved.
The anomalous transaction was carried out and consented by 11 officials from the accounting and property division of the local government of Manila. They 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. Their names were confirmed by the affidavit presented by Mayor Alfredo Lim and three of his staff.
Bocolan recommended in the notice of disallowance that the identified perpetrators from the accounting and property division of the city of Manila to refund the full amount of 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 Commission on Audit gave the involved personnel six months in order to appeal the notice addressed to them. Accordingly, if the said individuals were not able to comply, the commission would take the necessary steps in order to enforce the notice.
Mayor Alfredo Lim may have given his words in order to justify the existence of this anomalous transaction; still, it cannot be denied that there is something inconsistent about the whole story. 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. As a follow up, Lim also noted that he did not sign any contract for the said services nor did he allowed the fictitious consultants to receive any consultation fees or compensations. Lim's claims in his affidavit were backed up by three of his trusted staff. The three office staff who supported the mayor's statement were Rowena Senatin, Helen Natividad and Arturo Mijares.
In their affidavit, the three staff pointed out that the names of the 21 consultants in the payrolls submitted to them were not appointed by the mayor to work in his office. The three also confirmed that the consultants were fictitious. This particular government anomaly is just one of the corrupt practices plaguing Manila's local government. Nonetheless, like any other forms of illegal activities, the transaction was done in order to benefit the people involved.
The anomalous transaction was carried out and consented by 11 officials from the accounting and property division of the local government of Manila. They 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. Their names were confirmed by the affidavit presented by Mayor Alfredo Lim and three of his staff.
Bocolan recommended in the notice of disallowance that the identified perpetrators from the accounting and property division of the city of Manila to refund the full amount of 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 Commission on Audit gave the involved personnel six months in order to appeal the notice addressed to them. Accordingly, if the said individuals were not able to comply, the commission would take the necessary steps in order to enforce the notice.
Mayor Alfredo Lim may have given his words in order to justify the existence of this anomalous transaction; still, it cannot be denied that there is something inconsistent about the whole story. 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment