Who audits the auditor?
It is one thing for lawmakers and contractors to gorge on public infrastructure funds, but another matter entirely for the state’s top auditors, sworn to protect taxpayer money from such vultures, to take part in the feast.
Of the many names mentioned during the blockbuster Senate inquiry on public works corruption that has sparked a political firestorm and enraged a nation, that of Commission on Audit (COA) Commissioner Mario G. Lipana stands out as a literal anomaly. The reason is obvious: His alleged entanglement in the flood control scandal belies his commission’s long-standing reputation as the people’s last bastion against plunder.
Now, the public must confront a discomfiting question: Who audits the auditor?
Conflict of interest, it is often said, is corruption in waiting. In Lipana’s case, the conflict of interest is clear as day, and any benefit of the doubt seems to be of no use to him in the face of the bare facts. His wife, Marilou Laurio Lipana, heads Olympus Mining and Builders Group Philippines Corp., a company that has reportedly secured at least nine ongoing contracts with the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) in Bulacan worth P326.6 million, on top of previously completed projects amounting to P178.5 million.
Impeachable offense
These contracts sat at the center of the Senate blue ribbon committee’s hearings, where former DPWH district engineer Henry Alcantara testified that Lipana requested a list of flood control projects in 2022, leading to alleged budget insertions of P1.4 billion spread across three years.
Sen. Francis Pangilinan described such conduct, if proven, as an impeachable offense. “A COA commissioner who is peddling flood control projects in your district of Bulacan. Is that right? Because you are being audited by COA, right? How can there be a truthful audit if a project is being asked from you?” he asked Alcantara.
The logic is inescapable: who would trust a watchdog that accepts a bone from the same intruders it’s supposed to keep out?
The Office of the Ombudsman, pressed during plenary debates by ACT Teachers party list Rep. Antonio Tinio, confirmed that a fact-finding investigation was underway on the allegations against Lipana. But as Tinio correctly observed, delicadeza alone should have compelled the COA commissioner to resign as soon as his vested interests came to light.
Instead, Lipana has been conveniently absent from work, reportedly undergoing medical treatment in Singapore. Meanwhile, neither he nor his family has offered a word of excuse, while the public examines the damning paper trail of contracts in their name.
Twin temptations
The 1987 Constitution states that no member of a constitutional commission shall be “financially interested, directly or indirectly,” in any government contract, a provision so designed to insulate these bodies from the twin temptations of patronage and power.
Lipana, an appointee of former President Rodrigo Duterte and a career auditor who should have known better, violated not just the letter but the spirit of that safeguard the moment his wife’s company began bagging projects from an agency COA is mandated to scrutinize.
His profile on the COA website describes Lipana in glowing terms as “a career official who rose from the ranks” and who “has acquired more than 38 years of experience and expertise as Auditor of both local and international audits covering financial and compliance audit.”
How tragic for a technocrat with such credentials to have lacked, at best, the common sense not to risk his career in exchange for familial benefits, or at worst, the moral compass to reject corruption outright.
The larger tragedy, however, is the fallout on COA itself. For decades, the commission has been the country’s most reliable check on corruption, exposing irregularities across administrations and earning a name for itself as a bulwark of transparency.
Public’s faith
Lipana’s case erodes that trust, because state auditors who cannot meet the standard they demand of others forfeit the moral authority that gives meaning to their fiscal independence. Even granting him the presumption of innocence, the appearance of impropriety is overwhelming. By remaining in office, Lipana undermines the credibility of the entire audit system.
Therefore, COA’s next step is clear. For this body to retain the public’s faith, its leadership must enforce the principle it expects of other agencies: accountability begins at home.
This scandal is but a glimpse into how deep corruption runs in the bureaucracy, seeping into the very walls built to keep it out. For the sake of the institution he has served for nearly four decades, Lipana should audit himself and step down.
And when all is said and done, COA must perform, as other agencies are doing, lifestyle checks and a long overdue internal cleansing of its ranks, from the top down, for this constitutional office to preserve its honor as the nation’s conscience.
