COA questions Tudela reward for nabbing illegal fishers

CEBU, Philippines - The Commission on Audit found no legal basis for payments made by the local government of Tudela to police personnel, barangay officials and Bantay Dagat Members for apprehending illegal fishers in the total amount of P108,000 in 2011.

This prompted COA to ask the municipality to submit the Municipal Ordinance authorizing the sharing of rewards between the municipality and the apprehending officers based on the total amount of apprehended goods. Otherwise, this will be disallowed in audit.

COA said this is a violation of paragraph (a), Section 305 of Republic Act No. 7160 and paragraph 3.1 of COA Circular 85-55-A, thus resulted in the irregular disbursements of public funds.

The law provides that, “No money shall be paid out of the local treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation ordinance or law.”

In the post-audit of the financial transactions for calendar year 2011, COA discovered that the Municipality of Tudela gave rewards to the PNP personnel, barangay officials and Bantay Dagat Members for apprehending illegal fishers in March and April 2011 totaling P108,000.00 representing their 60 percent share.

The apprehended illegal fishers were made to pay compromise penalties and the amount collected will be shared with a ratio of 40 percent for the Municipality and 60 percent for the apprehending officers.

COA however, found that the amount actually paid to the apprehending officers exceeded by P10,200 for the month of March 2011.

“The payments made were not supported with Municipal Ordinance or any other legal documents to support said claims,” COA said.

It was also noted that there was no police reports submitted to support the apprehension of illegal fishers in the municipality.

The report noted that only photocopies of Official Receipts (O.Rs) for the collection of the penalties and Acknowledgement Receipt enumerating the claimants for disbursements made on April 27, 2011 in the amount of P78,000 was attached.

The Municipal Accountant reportedly explained that the payment of the 60 percent share was in accordance with Section 56 of Municipal Ordinance No. 1 series of 2006.

But when COA instructed to submit a copy of the said ordinance, the accountant failed to produce the said document as of audit date.

“The payment of the 60% share has no legal basis, thus an irregular disbursement of government funds,” COA concluded. — (FREEMAN)