Unraveling the Martires Doctrine: Transparency vs. Efficiency in Government Spending

The Martires doctrine was also published by The Manila Times on 20 September 2023

In a recent congressional hearing on the budget for the Office of the Ombudsman, Ombudsman Samuel Martires made a bold statement, asserting that there was no need to show receipts for expenses charged to confidential funds. In 2022, the Office of the Ombudsman was allocated a substantial P51 million for confidential funds, prompting Party-list Rep. France Castro to seek clarification on how these funds were being utilized. The Controversy Unveiled Martires firmly held his ground when faced with Castro's inquiry regarding the submission of receipts to the Commission on Audit (CoA) for auditing purposes. He argued, "If you require an agency of government with confidential funds to submit receipts, it is no longer a confidential fund." Nevertheless, Castro countered his stance by referencing Joint Circular 2015-01, a comprehensive document signed by multiple government agencies, which explicitly mandates the submission of receipts for confidential fund expenditures. The Regulatory Landscape Joint Circular 2015-01, issued on January 8, 2015, involves the Commission on Audit (CoA), the Department of Budget and Management, the Department of the Interior and Local Government, the Governance Commission for GOCCs, and the Department of National Defense. Section 6.2.3 of the circular specifies that the liquidation of cash advances for confidential funds (CF) and/or intelligence funds (IF) must be supported by specific documentary requirements, including a liquidation report, a certified copy of the check and paid disbursement voucher (DV), and documentary evidence of payments. A Clash of Perspectives Martires, who assumed his role in 2018, maintained that no one had instructed him to submit receipts, emphasizing the impracticality of requiring intelligence officers to do so. He argued that this practice could jeopardize sensitive operations by revealing case details and result in tedious, repetitive tasks. His position suggests that a certification should suffice for liquidating CFs or IFs, bypassing the need for receipts. However, critics contend that such documents can be easily fabricated. Martires even suggested that Congress consider eliminating confidential funds altogether if they become a source of dispute, proposing that "they can learn how to live without it." The CoA Dilemma In the same congressional hearing, Ombudsman Martires raised another point of contention – the requirement for the publication of an "audit observation memorandum" in the General Appropriations Act (GAA). He argued that this provision caused confusion and led to protracted resolution of complaints, resulting in dismissals due to "inordinate delay." Furthermore, he expressed concern that these dismissals could tarnish the reputation of the Ombudsman. Balancing Transparency and Efficiency While Martires' perspective may seem to protect against corruption, it could inadvertently hinder transparency. Making CoA reports public serves not only to promote government accountability and performance but also to build trust among taxpayers and constituents. Certification as a method of liquidation poses challenges, as it can be easily manipulated, particularly by corrupt individuals. A potential solution could be an accomplishment report that demonstrates the positive correlation between confidential fund or intelligence fund inputs and the successful prosecution of cases. In conclusion, Ombudsman Martires' stance challenges conventional wisdom regarding the handling of confidential funds in government. It underscores the need to strike a balance between flexibility in executing tasks and ensuring accountability. As this debate continues, it remains to be seen whether the Martires Doctrine will prevail or if a compromise will emerge, allowing both efficiency and transparency to coexist in government spending practices.