Conflict of interest rendered the Commission on Audit an inutile and shameful institution. CoA chief auditors, instead of stopping lawmakers from receiving the unconstitutional DAP, allowed them because of utang na loob (debt of gratitude) for confirming their appointments.

It can be officially chronicled that the confirmation of the appointments of Grace Pulido Tan and Heidi Mendoza as CoA chairman and commissioner, respectively, brought to this country the worst form of conflict of interest, that assaulted the integrity of the audit institution, ravaged and dishonored traditions, smeared important names, and caused irreparable damage and losses to funds and property by the trillion.

A veritable example was CoA's shameful participation in the impeachment trial of Corona Renato Corona and the unaudited DAP money used to bribe the senators and congressmen to convict an innocent Corona.

Because of conflict of interest, there was more scratching of each other's backs between the senators and the auditors at the height of the DAP and PDAF affairs. There was intimacy between the lawmakers receiving the unconstitutional pork barrel in bliss, and the slumbering auditors who refused to perform their constitutional duties because of their debt of gratitude.

The rank and file of the audit commission; finance, accounting, and law practitioners, including learned men of the academe, keenly observing the proceedings of the Commission on Appointments, are hoping that the supreme legislative body will carefully and properly screen the appointment of the new CoA chairman to see that what happened to the Commission on Audit during the last 10 years will not happen again.

The policy of CoA was in complete disarray. At no other time in the history of CoA had its leadership been placed in such an embarrassing and difficult situation, so tainted with the perception of incompetence, bias, and partiality as it had been during that period.

At least P2 trillion was lost because of huge malfeasance in financial transactions characterized, for example as fully confirmed by the Supreme Court, the failure of CoA to audit P144 billion in DAP money that was allowed to pass despite its unconstitutionality, under the Doctrine of Operative Fact.

The Commission Proper from 2011 to 2021 has left huge backlogs of unacted and unresolved cases under appeal coming from all regions of the country, the result of its nonfeasance due to conflict of interest.

The rank and file are complaining. The commissioner is not doing his job the way a professional must. He is not setting an example in the care and use of government property, including those owned by CoA. And he is signing the Commission en banc decision without reading it. This behavior could not have happened if the Commission on Appointments were careful and strict in their questions and answers during the deliberations on the nominee's confirmation.

CoA has been involved in landmark cases that will haunt the audit institution for its failure to take action where that action was necessary to preclude an injustice.

A landmark case is a court case that must be studied because it has historical and legal significance. The most significant cases are those that have had a lasting effect on the application of certain laws, often concerning individual rights and liberties.

There are quite a number of these landmark cases awaiting final action and decision, plus a huge number of backlogs of unacted and tunresolved cases under appeal from Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao.

The worried and critical rank and file are wondering how the new audit chief could cope with the heavy unfinished business when he is known to be more of a politician than a hardworking office worker who will dedicate his time to audit work.