Sunday, June 20, 2010

Interlocking Directorates between the University of the Philippines and U.P.-based foundations present a compelling case of for intensifying and further scrutinizing financial audits of these foundations, says COA. The Diliman Diary digs further into the details and shows why.

(To see the complete Amended By-laws of the
U.P. Foundation, please click on this link:

By Chanda Shahani

Conflicting interests between U.P.-based foundations and the University of the Philippines (U.P.) may be costing the Filipino taxpayer lots of money, the Commission on Audit (COA) said in is 2008 Consolidated Audited Annual Report posted on its website: (

COA said the absence of a policy regarding UP affiliated foundations raised doubt on funds accountability over an estimated P55 million and $95,968.32 received by these foundations from 2003 to 2007 in behalf of the University. COA said these funds were not fully disclosed or reported to the University or covered by contract or agreement given that members and officers of the foundations are at the same time incumbent faculty members and officers of the University.

COA, mincing no words, described the relationship between the foundations and U.P. as an “undue advantage” that defeats a fundamental principle of accounting and control which is that too much power cannot be concentrated in the hands of one set of individuals without independent oversight by an independent body. COA has been asking the U.P. Administration for several years to see the financial records of these foundations, but no records have been released as per the 2008 CAAR. COA's Supervising Auditor for the U.P. System, Sofia Gemora, told the Diliman Diary that it will release the 2009 CAAR in June of this year and upload this onto COA's website.

The COA report may just be the tip of the proverbial iceberg. The Diliman Diary took the 2008 CAAR's findings and screened them against a convenience sample of two prominent foundations in U.P. Diliman, the U.P. Foundation and the U.P. Business Research Foundation, in order to see if they met criteria of financial relevance and magnitude, which we arbitrarily set at a minimum PhP 1 million in unaudited funds raised, and if which met, would compel us prod COA to put these foundation's activities under even greater scrutiny, in the name of the public interest.

The Diliman Diary has found that the U.P. Foundation and the U.P. Business Research Foundation have high-ranking university officials as its officers, and that said University-based foundations are accepting large amounts of monies and revenues from external sources; without yet immediately allowing financial accountability or oversight from COA.

The U.P. Foundation's Chairman and President is the U.P. President, according to its Amended By-laws obtained from the Securities and Exchange Commission, (the first page of which is embedded above, while the remainder is embedded in this link: while its Director is U.P. Diliman College of Business Administration (CBA) Professor Gerardo B. Agulto according to U.P.'s own website ( The U.P. Business Research Foundation's Executive Vice-President and Trustee is CBA Dean Erlinda S. Echanis, according to the CBA's own website at:

The only exceptions to the general rule of U.P.'s lack of transparency have been the release of documents relative to U.P. Diliman's National College of Public Administration and Governance (NCPAG) and the School of Labor and Industrial Relations; projects with private foundations which enjoyed multilateral agency funding which resulted in the release of the financial documents to COA (Please see Diliman Diary, December 12, 2009 at this link: Otherwise, COA has been left in the dark about the activities of other foundations operating with impunity within the U.P. System.

From the above facts, it appears that the University of the Philippines Foundation, Inc. (UPFI) enjoys a relationship with the University of the Philippines System which is “as close as lips and teeth,” to paraphrase Mao Zedong who once famously described China's close relationship with North Korea.

Such a relationship may lead to a potential conflict of interest and potentially compromises the financial interests of the State because the officers of the U.P. Foundation are also high-ranking officials of the U.P. System; which may give them undue advantage in utilizing the resources of the University to generate revenues without having to account for them, under the current system, as the U.P. Foundation currently does not subject its books of accounts and other financial statements to oversight or audit by COA.

The Amended By-laws of the U.P. Foundation state in Article VI that “The President of the University of the Philippines System shall be the Chairman and President” of the U.P. Foundation. Section 5.02 of the Articles and By-laws of the U.P. Foundation state that the U.P. System President, the Chancellors of its four autonomous units and three members of the Board of Regents shall sit on the Board of Trustees. Additionally, its current Executive Director, Gerardo A. Agulto, Jr., is a professor of the U.P. Diliman College of Business Administration. Other previous directors of the U.P. Foundation have also been drawn from the faculty of the CBA.

COA's 2007 CAAR says that it submitted guidelines to accredit U.P.- affiliated foundations last April 23, 2008; and added that for existing agreements with U.P. affiliated foundations, U.P. did not clearly delineate its respective relationship and functions with various foundations related to financial and operational arrangements particularly on collection of fees for various seminars, training, research and other activities.

Both the 2008 and 2007 CAARs are effectively seeking explicit provisions on all MOAs between U.P. affiliated foundations (both existing and incoming) and U.P.; saying that such MOAs would explicitly address the issues of how the proceeds of the training programs being conducted by the U.P. affiliated foundations will be shared and accounted for; formalizing the arrangements with the foundations defining the functions and responsibilities of both parties, including how to account for the fees and charges being collected from reviewees.

U.P. President Emerlinda R. Roman has established a committee to issue guidelines on the accreditation of foundations under Memorandum No. PERR 05-20, which is purposely created to specify policies governing the arrangement with foundation partners; however the lack of action of action and follow-up for the past two years on the part of the Office of President Roman and the U.P. Legal Office in preparing new MOAs (where none existed before) or amending existing MOAs for signature between the U.P. and U.P. affiliated foundations is now being criticized by the COA.

The lack of progress in signing the MOA up to now is especially troubling because President Roman, under the amended By-laws of the U.P. Foundation is concurrently Chairman and the President of the U.P. Foundation and she therefore has the power to fast track the signing of such MOAs.

Any significant delay in having these MOAs signed will effectively prevent any financial records being subjected to immediate COA scrutiny, especially for the duration of the remainder of President Roman's term, which ends in February 2011, inviting criticisms from independent observers, including COA.

The Diliman Diary attempted to get the side of the U.P. Administration before its original deadline for this story (June 2, 2010), and had a letter received on May 27, 2010 by the Office of the Vice-President for Public Affairs (Please see the letter embedded above) while making several telephone calls to follow this up; only to be told that they had referred the matter to the Office of the Vice-President for Legal Affairs. “We will get back to you in writing,” a lawyer from the Office of Legal Affairs told us. Asked if the response would come before the June 2, 2010 original deadline, the lawyer repeated that, “We will get back to you in writing.” The Diliman Diary left behind phone numbers (land line and cell phone) and an email and a physical address. To date, more than two weeks after the orignal deadline, there has been no response on the issue of the apparent delays in the signing of the MOAs from the U.P. Administration.

By way of an experiment which began as early as 2004, this writer and fellow Diliman Diary writer (print edition), Loujean S. Gemanil, both U.P. alumni, donated PhP 100.00 each to the U.P. Foundation (Please refer to the attached receips embedded above). In response, U.P. Foundation's Executive Director, Professor Gerardo A. Agulto, Jr. sent this writer and Ms. Gemanil letters dated February 12, 2004 acknowledging the receipt thereof of our donations of PhP 100.00 each. 

A donation of at least PhP 100.00 apparently meant that U.P. Foundation allocated this to the publication of the U.P. Carillon Newsletter with the letter adding, “Please accept our sincere appreciation for your support to the University and the individual beneficiary (ies) involved (for whom we also write this acknowledgement).”

Sometime later the next year or in 2005, Ms. Gemanil and this writer received one 2004 Annual Report of the U.P. Foundation. The annual report also contained one loose leaf xerox copy (xerox front and back) containing the U.P. Foundation's Statement of Changes in General Fund Balance for the Nine Months Ended December 31, 2004 and the other side contained the Statement of Assets, Liabilities and General Fund Balance as of December 31, 2004 (Please refer to the embedded scan above).

A closer examination, in fact, of the Statement of Changes in General Fund Balance for April 1, 2004 to December 31, 2004 with Comparative Year ending March 31, 2004 figures shows no reference to the Carillon Newsletter; although it may be inferred that this is tucked included under the category, Financial Assistance to the U.P. System.

Page 29 of Annex D of the 2004 report, moreover, contains the audited financial statements of the U.P. Foundation as of March 31, 2004 and 2003 respectively. Taking a closer look at the Statement of Changes (Please see he embedded scan above), we can see that in 2003 Financial Assistance to the U.P. System was PhP 49,491.00 in 2003 and PhP 61,322 in 2004.

The very small amounts of assistance to the U.P. System do not square well with Article 10 of the U.P. Foundation's Amended Articles of Incorporation (to see the complete Amended Articles of Incorporation of UPFI, please click on this link: which state that:
“at least sixty (60) percent of its gross income as defined in the Internal Revenue Code and unrestricted donations ... shall be devoted to undertaking, directly financing or assisting pure, fundamental or applied research, development work and/or economic evaluation and/or granting scholarships for scientific and technological manpower training, including the establishment of professorial chairs.”

Following this stipulation in the U.P. Foundation's own Amended Articles of Incorporation, then in 2004, the U.P. Foundation should have remitted 60% of PhP 5,558,829 to the U.P. System, which represents the the gross income of the fund for 2004 or the amount of PhP 3,335,297.4 instead of a mere PhP 61,322.00 representing a mere 1% remittance to U.P. which is to the gross financial disadvantage to U.P.

Following the traditions of crusading journalism pioneered by William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pultizer in the 1800s, the Diliman Diary has found it appropriate to send a very detailed memo on December 18, 2009 to COA (utilizing the same basic information contained in this article), urging them to put the U.P. Foundation and the U.P. Business Research Foundation under the auditing microscope in time for the release of the 2009 CAAR sometime in June 2010.

The Diliman Diary informed COA that Article 10 of the U.P. Foundation's Amended Articles of Incorporation also state that “no more than thirty (30) percent of the gross income and not more than ten (10) percent of unrestricted donations to the Foundation shall be devoted to general and administrative expenses.” The audited financial statements of the U.P. Foundation as of March 31, 2004 shows in the statement of changes that the total deductions from the fund which would fit the definition of general and administrative (G&A) expenses (excluding Financial Assistance to the U.P. System) is PhP 3,311,313.00 and represents fifty-nine (59) percent of the U.P. Foundation's gross income in 2004. This percentage of gross revenue is way too high and violates the U.P. Foundation's own stipulations on putting a percentage of revenue cap on general and administrative expenses. This excess of corporate fat in the U.P. Foundation is of gross disadvantage to U.P. itself because the very high G&A expenses eats away and into the gross income amount that should be remitted to U.P. 

On a related note, page 2 of the President's message in the U.P. Foundation's 2004 Annual report , by then U.P. President Francisco Nemenzo states that “there was a moderate improvement in interest rates in 2004 as compared to 2003. The Foundation earned an after-tax 8.2% return on investment. Interest income increased to PhP 28.2 million, PhP 2.7 million greater than the earnings in the previous year. The Foundation's funds and those held in trust were invested for the most part in government securities, in accordance with established investment policies that put priority in safety over high returns.” 

“The Foundation's financial assistance to the University climbed to PhP 27.2 million, 25% higher than the 2003 level.”

Nemenzo's statement that the U.P. Foundation's financial assistance to U.P. climbed to PhP 27.2 million in 2004 is also not supported by the financial statements. However, Nemenzo, an avowed Marxist and professor of political science, could hardly be expected to countercheck accounting-related documents that would form the basis of his official message.

The only part that the Diliman Diary has been able to independently verify is President Nemenzo's statement that interest rates improved in 2004 to 7.34% for its 91-day T-bill rate compared to 6.03% for the previous year, as borne out by published data on interest rates during that period from the Bureau of Treasury (

However, questions are nevertheless raised by the interest rates increase: What kind of T-Bills and corresponding interest rates, tenors and maturity dates matured in 2004? in 2003? In other words, what was the basis for the increase in income claimed by Nemenzo, who was not only U.P. President, but also Chairman and President of the U.P. Foundation as of March 31, 2004? Was the improvement in performance due to decisions made in 2003 or in previous years, given the fact that the maturity dates and periods of government securities can range from 91 days to 25 years? What about the breakdown of the investment decisions made in 2003? Were they favourable to U.P., and therefore, the government?

Only an audit by an independent authority can verify the accuracy of official reports and documents given by the U.P. Foundation to its donors; even as it uses the official name of the university to carry on with its business.

Article eight of the Amended Articles of Incorporation of the U.P. Foundation states that, “the Foundation shall have no capital stock and no part of its net earnings or income shall inure to the benefit of any individual, contributor or member.” But we cannot verify if this is what occurred as the only financial records on file of the U.P. Foundation are its 2003 and 2004 financial statements. A check with the records department of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) shows that the U.P. Foundation has no financial records available for the years 2005 to 2007, which is in violation of SEC regulations and ties COA's hands from auditing the U.P. Foundation. 
A check into the past archived websites of the U.P. System, such as:
which is an intenet archived website of the U.P. Sysem as of April 5, 2008 shows that the front page of the U.P. website, which is owned by the government and therefore subject to oversight by COA, was openly marketing and promoting donations to the U.P. Modernization Fund Campaign, (administered by the U.P. Foundation as admitted to by President Nemenzo in Annex D, page 2 of the 2004 annual report of the U.P. Foundation).

In fact a download of the link to the U.P. Modernization Fund openly states that interested donors can directly contribute to the U.P. Modernization Fund Campaign by making a check payable to the U.P. Foundation, Inc. payable in Philippine pesos or United States dollars.

The download also reveals the existence of a foundation in the U.S.A. named “Friends of the U.P. Foundation,” which encourages U.S. based donors to make tax-deductible donations to the Friends of the U.P. Foundation, the donations which would fall under COA oversight if they continue to collect funds in the name of the University. The downloaded document, entitled U.P Modernization Fund Campaign states that “donations for an endowement will be held in perpetuity, and onlyinterest income will be used to support the purpose for which the donation was given ... The U.P. Foundation, Inc. is a non-stock, non-profit organization established to assist U.P. in generating financial support. The Foundation is responsible for the fiscal management of the U.P. Modernization Fund.”

If the U.P. Foundation was not generating large amounts of revenues by utilizing the assets and prestige of the U.P. System, and therefore of the State, then it might be possible to overlook its lack of financial accountability to COA, under the principle that the amounts involved lacked sufficient magnitude, and were not important enough to warrant a journalistic investigation, not to mention a full-blown audit by COA.

Large amounts of United States dollars may in fact have been raised by U.P. President Emerlinda R. Roman, as claimed by the Friends of the University of the Philippines Foundation in America, Inc. (FUPFA) on its own website at:
when she visited the United States and other countries.The website estimates that:
  • Almost $ 200,000.00 was raised by President Roman in 2005 during a trip to the U.S.
  • More than $ 250,000.00 was raised by President Roman in 2006 during a trip to the U.S.
  • More than $ 320,000.00 was raised by President Roman during a trip to the U.S., Canada and Hong Kong

In 2007, the website said President Roman was appointed as chairperson of FUPFA's Board of Trustees, along with a new set of officers, thus making COA ovesight over FUPFA transactions via a MOA with U.P. necessary, in view of the large amounts of money involved that were raised for and on behalf of the University.

COA has said as much. In its 2008 CAAR, COA has taken the stand that it needs to be involved in monitoring (through a series of MOAs with the University) of the revenues and expenditures of university-affiliated foundations. COA is justifying this stand by citing Section 42 1 (B) Book V (B) of the 1987 Administrative Code which provides that “except as may otherwise be specifically provided by law or competent authority, all money and property officially received by a public officer in any capacity or upon any occasion must be accounted for as government fund and government property. Government property shall be taken up in the books of the agency concerned at acquisition cost or at appraised value.”

COA has also cited Section 122 of GAAM Vol. I, in its 2008 CAAR which states that “Receipts from non-tax sources authorized by law for specific purposes, which are collected/ received by a government office or agency acting as trustee, agent guaranty for the fulfillment of an obligation, and all other collections classified by law or regulations as trust receipts shall be treated as a trust liability of the agency concerned...”

COA personnel interviewed by the Diliman Diary said an independent oversight by an independent body cannot be done by any other entity other than COA itself, because the 1987 Constitution states in Article IX D Section 2(1) that:

“The Commission on Audit shall have the power, authority, and duty to examine, audit, and settle all accounts pertaining to the revenue and receipts of, and expenditures or uses of funds and property, owned or held in trust by, or pertaining to, the Government, or any of its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters, and on a post-audit basis: (a) constitutional bodies, commissions and offices that have been granted fiscal autonomy under this Constitution; (b) autonomous state colleges and universities; (c) other government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries; and (d) such non-governmental entities receiving subsidy or equity, directly or indirectly, from or through the Government, which are required by law.”

The case of the U.P. Business Research Foundation (UPBF) is quite similar to that of the U.P. Foundation. It is a university-affiliated foundation that openly advertises its activities on the state-owned University of the Philippines College of Business Administration (CBA) website which is a subdomain of the U.P. System website at: According to the website:

“The UPPBRF is responsible for the establishment of Professorial Chairs. Professorial chairs and faculty grants help advance education and their teaching and research endeavours. A chair may be established with an endowment fund to be managed by the Foundation. The income from the fund shall provide financial support to a deserving faculty member of the U.P. College of Business Administration. Professorial Chairs may be named in honor of illustrious alumni or prominent representatives of private business and public management sectors. The chairs may also carry the name of the company sponsor.”

“In line with the centennial year celebration of the University of the Philippines, Centennial Professorial Chairs have been established. A Centennial Professorial Chair is immediately established with a single donation of at least P1,500,000.”

According to the website, UPBRF established 37 Centennial professorial Chairs. At a value of at least PhP 1,500,000 per Centennial Professorial Chair, the amounts generated amount to at least PhP 55,500,000.00.

The website also makes reference to Professorial Chairs established by the U.P. Foundation, Inc., for UPBRF but makes no clear reference to the amounts given by the U.P. Foundation, Inc. or how they are spent.

The following links on the CBA website indicate that several individuals simultaneously hold ranking positions within UPBRF as well as the U.P. College of Business Administration. (Please click on the following links: and and The Diliman Diary invites its own readers to make their own inferences and draw their own conclusions on this publicly posted data.

Additionally the 2008 audited financial statements submitted by the UPBRF to the SEC (please see which was submited to the SEC on April 12, 2009 also supports a pattern of parallel management by and between UPBRF and CBA or what lawyers like to call, "interlocking directorates."

It would thus be appropriate to state that there is a strong relationship between the CBA and the UPBRF and that many of the CBA's key officials are also key officials of the UPBRF, thus necessitating the implementation of the signing of a MOA between the UPBRF and the UPCBA which should also result in the necessary financial statements being examined by COA.

The Statement of Revenues and Expenses for the Years 2008 and 2007 (Ended December 31) of the 2008 audited financial statements submitted to SEC by UPBRF show that gross revenues were PhP 29,653,235.00 in 2007 and PhP 41,217,408.00 in 2008. In 2008; we can see in the Notes to Financial Statements that donations and grants totalled PhP 25,142,713.00 This does not seemingly square well with the minimum estimated cumulative donations in 2008 (the Centennial year of U.P.) amounting to PhP 55,500,000.00) stated in the CBA's own website.

One rational explanation for this could be properly explained by Page 3, Notes to Financial Statements, of the 2008 audited financial statements submitted to SEC by UPBRF which states that the UPBRF's external auditors (Diaz, Murillo Dalupan and Company) recognize revenue – in three different modes:

1)  a) Upon receipt (for donations and grants), rather than when earned;
     b) Related program expenses are recognized when the obligations are incurred;

2) Rent income is ecognized using the accrual method based on existing lease agreements;

3) Interest income is reconized on a time proportion basis, net of applicable final tax.

Thus, one valid explanation for the discrepancy between Note 10, Page 10 of Notes to Financial Statements which states that donations and grants totalled PhP 25,142,713.00 in 2008 as contrasted with the minimum estimated cumulative donations in 2008 (the Centennial year of U.P.) amounting to PhP 55,500,000.00) as implied in the CBA's own website could simply be that many donors gave pledges with varying due dates or even post-dated checks for Centennial Professorial Chairs (PhP 1.5 million per chair) and that revenue was simply recognized as the funds were collected and deposited over a period of time.

But this is nevertheless still speculative, and depends entirely on a presumption of regularity. The reality is that the ordinary taxpayer and other concerned parties will never know what proportion or percentage of the estimated PhP 55,5000.00 million received for the Centennial Professorial Chairs was received in 2008 unless COA itself intervenes and can see the schedules of payments with respect to donations and grants for the Centennial Professorial Chairs and check whether the entries on the books are recorded in the same accounting period as the donor checks are dated and deposits made.

Additionally, another limitation of the method is that while related program expenses are recognized when the obligations are incurred rather than when they are disbursed; we have no way of knowing whether these expenses were immediately settled within the subject year or these payables were “stretched” into the next year resulting in potentially higher cash reserves available to UPBRF within that subject year. For example, the item “Service and Awards” in the Statements of Revenues and Expenses for 2008 reached PhP 349,515.00. What were these expenditures for? Or why should “Miscellanous” reach a staggering PhP 986,919.00 in 2008? Were these used to buy paper clips? Snacks? A cup of coffee or two? For all we know, these may be entirely legitimate expenses; but we will never know this unless we can see the details because the limitations faced by the auditing firm, Diaz, Murillo, Dalupan and Company is that they can only give an on opinion of these financial statements based on an audit with the assumption that management is giving an accurate and fair representation of these financial statements and that necessary internal controls were implemented.

Thus the U.P. Foundation it appears from the above mentioned facts very much an alter-ego and fund-raising extension of the U.P. System and thus subject to COA audit because such is admitted to in its own Articles of Incorporation and By-laws as well as its extensive use of the U.P. System's personnel, assets, resources and good name to generate funds.

Similarly, the U.P. Business Research Foundation appears to be very much a legal and fund-raising extension arm of the U.P. College of Business Administration, and thus subject to COA audit because such is admitted to in its own website and is also admitted to in the UPBRF's 2008 audited financial statements submitted to SEC on April 12, 2009 where the Statement of Management Responsility for Financial Statements was signed by CBA officials who were also acting as UPBRF's officials as well .

Section 5.02 of the UPBRF's Articles of Incorporation (to see the entire document, please click on this link: stipulates that the Dean of CBA automatically and always assumes a place on UPBRF's Board of Trustees. Additionally, Article VI designates the power of the Executive Director as having “the general charge of the ordinary and usual business operations of the Foundation.” As of April, 2009 the Executive Director was none other than CBA Professor Rafael A. Rodriguez, and as of the time of this writing, it is CBA Professor Gerardo B. Agulto.

COA's Supervising Auditor for the U.P. System, Sofia Gemora said it is without any doubt whatsoever that UPBRF should be held to account for its financial transactions by COA and even the evidence of research and output by professors for professorial chairs that are awarded; as the UPBRF is a virtual extension of the UPCBA and even the University System.

Section 8.02 of the UPBRF's Amended By-laws (to see the entire document, please click on this link: states that “disbursements for professorial chair awards shall be made in accordance with a program of expenditures to be prepared by the Dean of the U.P. College of Business Administration, such program to be based on the needs of the College, funds availability and the criteria approved by the Foundation.”

Even the U.P. Board of Regents of the University is involved with the UPBRF in that Section 8.03 admits that in the case of a professorial chair holder, “the actual selection of the chair shall be made within established procedures in the University of the Philippines, originating from the College and eventually being submitted to the Board of Regents for final approval.”

An even more detailed examination and comparison of the By-laws of the UPBRF together with the 2008 Statement of Revenues and Expenses of the UPBRF shows that UPBRF was, according to its By-laws, required to “endeavor that not less than fifty-one per centum (51%) of its gross income shall be devoted exclusively to the undertakings directly financing, or assisting fundamental, pure or applied research, development work and/or economic evaluation and/or granting of scholarships for scientific and technological manpower training, including the stablishment of professorial chairs in the pursuit or accomplishment of any or all the activities mentioned in the Articles of Incorporation.”

But a closer look at the 2008 Statement of Revenues and Expenses of the UPBRF shows that its gross revenue was PhP 41,217,408.00 and thus by definition, 51% of that amount or PhP 21,015,778.08 should have been devoted to the undertakings stipulated in its Articles and By-laws However the total expenses for 2008 was only PhP 12,742,637.00 which already shows that there is a disbursement problem in terms of an allocation for legitimate expenses as defined in the By-laws of UPBRF thus leading to an excessive accumulation of funds that should logically be dispersed.

The huge amount of unabsorbed cash should not just be allocated for the faculty of the U.P. Diliman CBA and its faculty; but should logically be shared with other schools of management in the U.P. System such as U.P. Baguio, Los Banos, Cebu, Manila, Visayas and Mindanao, as this is not disallowed by UPBRF's Articles and By-laws.

COA's Gemora thanked the Diliman Diary for providing it with a detailed memo (which also forms the the basis of this article) of its observations on the interrelationship between the U.P. System, the U.P. Foundation, the U.P. Diliman College of Business Administration and the U.P. Business Research Foundation last January, 2010 and said it was “very helpful.”

She added that U.P Foundation and UPBRF officials had scolded her and her staff in the past for attempting to get financial statements of the two foundations, adding that more details on their audit will be forthcoming when the results of the 2009 Consolidated Audited Annual Report (CAAR) are released on the official website of COA ( sometime in June, 2010.

Notice of full disclosure: This writer has previously litigated against the above individuals and several others. The details may be accessed through this link:

Update: For the Diliman Diary's November 5, 2010 coverage of the Commission on Audit's 2009 Consolidated Audited Annual Report on the U.P. System, including COA's report and recommendations on U.P.'s university-affiliated foundations, please click on this link:

(Chanda Shahani is the editor of the Diliman Diary. He has a master's degree in entrepreneurship (M.E.) from the Asian Institute of Management).

No comments:

Post a Comment

Blog Archive

The Diary Archive