Malabon LGU refutes COA findings
THE Malabon local government unit (LGU) has denied allegations that it failed to account for P37.6 million in expenditures flagged by the Commission on Audit (COA) in its annual audit report for 2023.
The issue gained attention on March 31 after a news article claimed that the city government failed to submit key documents—including payroll records, daily time reports, and project proposals—for transactions covered by disbursement vouchers. The report further suggested that this failure constituted a violation of Section 7.1.1 of COA Circular No. 2009-006.
In response, the city government clarified that the report could be misleading, as it implies fund mismanagement by labeling the amount as “undocumented.” It explained that all supporting documents for projects were already submitted to the COA since 2023 and there are no issues of non-compliance with the agency’s requirements.
“Agad po nating inimbestigahan ang nasabing isyu na ito at sinigurong kumpleto at handa ang mga dokumento na ating ipinasa sa COA. At ngayon, masasabi po nating wala pong isyu ng pagkabigo sa pagpasa ng kaukulang dokumento para sa mga naging proyekto ng pamahalaang lungsod noong 2023,” City Administrator Dr. Alexander Rosete said.
“Ang mga lokal na pamahalaan po ay binibigyan ng COA ng oras upang makumpleto ang mga dokumentong sumusuporta sa paggamit ng pondo—kung kailanganin man matapos ang isinagawang nilang audit. Nais ng pamahalaang lungsod, sa pangunguna ni Mayor Jeannie Sandoval, na masigurong kumpleto, tama, at maayos na maibibigay sa COA ang mga dokumento na kailangan kada taon. Tayo naman po ay patuloy na nakikipag-ugnayan sa ahensya,” City Administrator Dr. Alexander Rosete stated.
The city government further emphasized that financial reports are handled by multiple departments, not just the Office of the City Mayor, to ensure thorough review and assessment before submission to COA.
The LGU also condemned the article’s mention of COA’s heightened scrutiny of local government expenditures during the election period, arguing that such a statement insinuates political motivations without presenting evidence that the flagged expenditures were election-related or irregular.
