THE Commission on Audit has called on former Technical Education and Skills Development Authority director general Joel Villanueva to settle P198.7 million in suspended and disallowed expenses found to be irregularly disbursed.
The state auditors threatened to either suspend or disallow P139.3 million in various disbursements in 2014 unless the incumbent and previous Tesda heads can present adequate documentation to prove the regularity of the expenses.
The recommendations were included in the latest Tesda annual audit report released by CoA covering 2014 transactions during Villanueva’s term.
The audit agency has yet to release the 2015 annual audit report that would determine whether Villanueva has complied with the recommendations, or not.
“Various disbursements totaling P139,373,487.33, including payments of salary, honoraria, professional/ personnel benefits monetization, overtime pay, traveling expense, rent expense, representation expenses, communication expense, various repairs and procurement not supported with adequate documentation or not included in the annual procurement plan; the disbursement vouchers of which have not been submitted for post-audit, thus casting doubts on the validity and propriety of expenditures,” its report read.
Earlier, the Department of Justice accused Villanueva of receiving P2.33 million in kickbacks when he was then a Citizens’ Battle Against Corruption party-list representative for the allocation of his pork barrel fund to a fake foundation linked to alleged pork barrel scam mastermind Janet Lim-Napoles.
CoA reminded Tesda to settle the suspended and disallowed expenditures of P198,738,541.63 as of Dec. 31, 2014.
“We recommended that Management direct officers and employees and other concerned party to settle respective suspensions, disallowances and charges in accordance within the prescribed period as required by rules and regulations in the settlement of accounts,” it said.
The Commission directed Tesda “to strictly observe/follow laws, rules and regulations” in disbursement and spendings to avoid disallowances and suspensions.
In the 2014 annual audit report, state auditors took a swipe at Villanueva for violating a Supreme Court’s temporary restraining order for the utilization of some priority development assistance funds that were later declared as both illegal and unconstitutional.
“Trainings and assessments with a total amount of P49,080,443.00 were conducted and charged from PDAF in violation of the Supreme Court Decision No. G.R. No. 208566 dated November 19, 2013 declaring the 2013 PDAF unconstitutional,” the audit report read.
SC’s TRO directed the Department of Budget and Management, National Treasury and other heads of government agencies against releasing the remaining PDAF allocated to lawmakers under the General Appropriations Act of 2013.
The TRO was later made permanent when the Court issued the final ruling on the petition to declare PDAF unconstitutional.
“In the audit of the utilization of PDAF, it was disclosed that trainings and assessments were conducted after the issuance of the TRO,” the audit report said, citing Villanueva’s full awareness of the high court’s directive over his issuance of a memorandum to Tesda officials concerning the ruling.
“Furthermore, the declaration of the Supreme Court that PDAF is unconstitutional, signify that any allocation is void and therefore can no longer be used for the goals intended, even if such goals are laudable. “Laudable ends cannot justify unconstitutional means.”(a legal principle borrowed from former Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban),” CoA stated.
In view of the Court’s restraining order, CoA stressed that “payment of training cost aggregating to P49,080,443.00 are considered illegal.”
Villanueva maintained the injunction cannot be applied to Tesda since the SC ruling “explicitly provides” that utilization of PDAF was barred only in cases when the DBM had not yet issued the notice of cash allocation.
In a rejoinder, CoA disagreed with Tesda’s management’s interpretation of the SC ruling, pointing out that the High Court was specific in its TRO.