Outgoing Cebu City Mayor Michael Rama urges the city government not to delay the construction of the Cebu City Medical Center during a press conference yesterday. (CDN PHOTO/LITO TECSON)
CEBU City Hall officials, led by former Mayor Michael Rama, have filed an appeal to the Commission on Audit (COA) for its earlier disallowance on the city’s grant of incentives to barangay officials in 2015.
In their recently submitted appeal, the former city officials said that the auditors who issued the Notice of Disallowance (ND) for the barangay incentives were not able to provide enough evidence and factual bases for their decision.
They also want the COA to reverse the disallowance.
“The Notices of Disallowance came in ambush at the height of the election fever of 2016. It is unfair for the city officials to be slapped this time with a disallowance over a transaction that has never been disallowed since 2012,” they said in their appeal.
The officials also pointed out that there were never any Audit Observation Memorandum (AOM) regarding the incentive since 2012.
They said that AOMs should first be issued to give the officials a chance to address the matter before a disallowance which orders officials to return the money they received.
A total of around P80 million worth of incentives for barangay captains, councilmen, secretaries and treasurers were given by the city last year.
COA auditors Maria Daisy Bercede and Cymbeline Celia Chiong-Uy disallowed the grant, which was included in the city’s annual budget ordinance for 2015, because they said the amount was placed under maintenance and other operating expenditures (MOOE) account instead of the personal services (PS) account.
Although the former city officials said this was okayed by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) 7 in their review, they could have easily addressed this if they received AOMs from COA beforehand.
Aside from Rama, those who appealed the disallowance included former city accountant Mark Rosell Salomon and city budget officer Marietta Gumia.
“The proper action or recourse of the appellees should have been the issuance of an Audit Observation Memorandum for the appellants to clarify and explain their side before Notices of Disallowance would have been issued. In this case, due process has not been observed,” they said.