Public money should never be treated as something that only needs explaining when questions arise. It should be documented, accounted for, and traceable from the moment it is allocated to the moment it reaches the people it is intended to serve.

That principle becomes especially important when the money is used for disaster relief.

The Commission on Audit (COA) recently flagged the Office of the Vice President (OVP) over control and documentation deficiencies involving nearly ₱168 million in relief operations conducted in 2025. The findings included inconsistencies in situation reports, deviations from approved mission orders, incomplete beneficiary records, and missing or incomplete supporting documents.

These are not merely paperwork problems.

When governments use funds for relief operations, documentation is part of accountability. A relief operation is supposed to answer basic questions: Who needed assistance? How many people were supposed to receive it? What was distributed? Where was it distributed? And was the distribution carried out according to the approved plan?

According to COA, relief operations involving ₱19.67 million worth of welfare goods had discrepancies between OVP situation reports and information validated by local government units. Auditors also found 24 relief operations worth ₱39.01 million that deviated from approved mission orders without documented approval. Eight mission orders covering ₱84.12 million also did not specify target beneficiaries.

There is, of course, a legitimate argument that disaster response cannot always follow a perfectly predictable plan. Conditions can change. Roads can become inaccessible, evacuation centers can move, and the number of people needing assistance can shift rapidly. Government agencies need enough flexibility to respond to those realities.

But flexibility cannot mean that accountability becomes optional.

If circumstances force an agency to change a distribution schedule, location, quantity, or beneficiary list, there should still be a record showing why the change was made and who authorized it. Otherwise, the very flexibility intended to help disaster victims can create gaps in accountability.

That is why COA's findings deserve more than a defensive explanation. They deserve a clear accounting of what happened and what will be done to prevent the same deficiencies from happening again.

The issue is also bigger than the OVP.

Every government agency handling public funds should understand that transparency is not something that begins after an audit raises questions. It should already be built into the process. Proper records should not be treated as an administrative burden that comes after the actual work. They are part of the work.

This is particularly true for disaster relief. People who receive government assistance should not be reduced to numbers on a spreadsheet, but numbers and records are still necessary to determine whether assistance was properly delivered. Without reliable documentation, it becomes harder to verify whether resources reached the intended beneficiaries.

COA itself said the deficiencies weakened the completeness, reliability, and verifiability of the OVP's relief distribution records. It recommended stronger review procedures and proper documentation, verification and authorization of operational adjustments, beneficiary lists and distribution records.

The OVP has said it will issue a response after reviewing the COA notice. That response should be examined alongside the audit findings, rather than treated as a substitute for them.

Public officials may have explanations for irregularities. They may have legitimate reasons for decisions made during emergencies. But public trust ultimately depends on whether those explanations can be supported by records.

Public funds need more than an explanation. They need proof.

And when millions of pesos are involved, especially money intended for people affected by disasters, the standard should not be lower because the circumstances are difficult. If anything, the need for transparency becomes greater.