Despite COA's questions City Hall to pay election caterer but Gumia stressed she would "sign with objections"

CEBU, Philippines - Even if the Commission on Audit questioned the Cebu City Government for not complying with government rules in its transaction with a catering company for the teachers’ food during the May 2010 elections, City Accountant Marietta Gumia will sign the vouchers and approval of the accountant’s advice for the payment of the catering services.

But Gumia stressed she would affix her signature on the documents, “with objection.”

“The undersigned is respectfully informing you that our action in signing of the vouchers and approval of the accountant’s advice is with objection due to the irregularity of its supporting documents,” Gumia said in her May 13-letter addressed to Mayor Michael Rama.

The Red Carpet Services is demanding payment from City Hall as it has been a year since the purchase. COA had found no sufficient justification for the City to pay over P4 million to the catering company.

Gumia told Rama in writing that her objection is due to the irregularity of the supporting documents, as the COA had cited in its audit memorandum issued to the City Government.

The government auditors found some problems regarding the procurement process, it reportedly did not go through a competitive public bidding as required in the Government Procure-ment Reform Act or Republic Act No. 9184.

The City Treasurer’s Office explained that the request was considered emergency in nature.

City Auditor Eva Cabrera, in an interview with The Freeman, said there was also something irregular about the city’s justification of the transaction.

Cabrera said the City Government submitted its justification but did not even have supporting attach-ments like how it came up with “shopping” instead of bidding.

COA discovered that three suppliers submitted their bids to the city. Two were carenderias while the third was Red Carpet, to which the purchase was awarded.

The COA already waived its right to do a pre-audit of the transaction.

“Dili man gyud mi mo pre-audit niana kay wala man mi naka-inspect. It’s a requirement in the pre-audit nga naay inspection. Mi-submit sila og justification pero wala’y attachment like irregularity of the canvass,” Cabrera said.

On Gumia’s plan to sign with objections, Cabrera said the accounting officer may be spared from liability because of her objections pointed out in the accountant’s advice.

This is provided for under Section 342 of the Local Government Code, she says. The provision states that one has the right to register his objection in writing for acts done upon direction of superior officer or upon participation of other department heads or officers of equivalent rank.

“We hope and pray that no adverse opinion would arise during the COA post audit as nobody ever wanted to assume any liability on that matter,” Gumia said in her letter. – (FREEMAN)