There is an aspect of government affairs that is not being given the attention it deserves. Going straight to the point, I refer to officials being issued assets that they fail to return upon their separation or resignation from service.
I would suppose that items such as vehicles, which have substantial cost, top the list of “favorite” assets that go unaccounted for even after the officials to whom they were assigned for their official use had retired or had ceased holding public office altogether.
The irony in some instances is that the assets are no longer being used by the persons they were assigned to. Rather they were being utilized by somebody else. Of course, whether a government property assigned to an employee could be used by other individuals is another issue.
Other government assets, sometimes more expensive than vehicles, are also involved in this forgetfulness or seeming lack of accountability.
These assets include works of art such as paintings by well-known artists that must have cost millions of pesos each. In this connection, I remember seeing beautiful paintings hanging in public offices created by renowned painters like Amorsolo and Joya, and modern artists like Manansala, Ang Kiukok and Legaspi.
We previously mentioned assets that cost a lot of money, but the issue is not confined to those items. Sometimes beautiful and costly pieces of furniture disappear when the government official using them leaves office. Sometimes even household items like exquisite dining plates and cutlery also go unaccounted for.
Heavy equipment such as forklifts, hauling trucks, cranes, loaders and concrete mixers may also be included in this list. These require more sleight-of-hand maneuvering or a concerted effort among individuals to pull off. Certain parts of equipment may also be targeted. Air-conditioning units placed in storage may seem intact from the outside but inside the compressor, condenser or motor fan may already be missing.
What I have shared here are from narratives of reliable persons whose credibility is beyond reproach.
However, there are surely other instances not within this article. I am certain all my readers can relate to my stories by simply knowing of or having witnessed the same being committed.
Unfortunately, it is not only about assets not being returned, but there is also an equally alarming problem such as thievery, misappropriation, or misuse, defined here as using government property for purposes not exactly intended by law.
To prevent these abusive instances, there must be internal controls over property and office equipment, and more so on the officials and employees of the government. The effective implementation of these controls must be ensured within government agencies. These equipment, vehicles, tools and assets should be utilized for the purposes for which they were procured and to enable the accountable officers to do their jobs efficiently for the entire duration of the office assets’ useful life. These controls are at times overlooked due also to the hard demands of the work of the agencies themselves.
Still, there are two basic considerations that every officer accountable for government property must firmly bear in mind. They are, first, that they shall be liable for the monetary value of the asset in case of improper or unauthorized use or misapplication of the same, by himself or by any person for whose acts they may be responsible.
The second is that accountable officers shall be liable for all losses, damage, and deterioration occasioned by negligence in the keeping or use of the property, whether at the time of such loss, damage, or deterioration, it being in his actual custody.
To help heads of offices remember their duty of accountability, the regular, not just periodic, employment by the property or similar division in each agency of internal control devices, such as property inventories, is a necessity and requirement.