Sneak attack on public coffers amid tragedy?

 You would think that with thousands dying as a result of supertyphoon Yolanda in  2013, everyone in government would be selfless and think only of helping the survivors recover from the devastation.

The Commission on Audit, however, has found irregularities in the military's procurement of petroleum, oil, and lubricants (POL) worth P68.65 million in the aftermath of Yolanda after a review of the P118.65 million Quick Response Fund (QRF). The QRF is what the Office of Civil Defense transferred to the AFP to supposedly support the military’s rescue, relief, recovery and rehabilitation efforts for the victims of Super Typhoon Yolanda.

According to the COA, a memorandum of agreement (MOA) signed by the OCD and the AFP in November 2013 transferred P50 million to the military’s fund from the OCD’s 2012 QRF and another P68,645,912 from its 2013 QRF.

Records showed that Petron Corporation was paid P58,162,738 as “payment for POL products” and the balance was listed as “payment of withholding tax in favor of Petron Corp.” The POL disbursement was the biggest, or 98 percent, of the total amount spent by the OCD for its Yolanda-related operations.

However, state auditors discovered that the mode of procurement for the POL was through a repeat order, not through an emergency procurement.

The COA also said the contract of agreement for the repeat order was approved on September 30, 2013, a month before the signing of the MOA between the OCD and the AFP.

State auditors could not determine the actual dates of approval for 3 other supplemental contract agreements because they were left undated as well.

Several supporting documents for the original contract were not submitted, including paperwork involving details about general conditions, special conditions, schedule of requirements, technical specifications, notice of award, and notice to proceed.

 “The regularity of the disbursement of P68,645,912 in the procurement of POL products out of the QRF could not be ascertained since the supporting documents were deficient and the mode of procurement was not in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement,” state auditors said.

With the findings, COA ordered the AFP to explain why it used the repeat order method of purchase. It also asked the AFP to produce the missing documents.

 “Until the end of the year, however, no action was taken on the requirements,” state auditors said.

The question is: If the COA found irregularities in how the military spent P68.65 million in Yolanda-related funds, shouldn’t this be investigated thoroughly by the Office of the Ombudsman?