P6.4 Billion BARMM Bonanza: Autonomy’s Big Cash Clash with Accountability

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — March 20, 2025

A P6.4 billion mystery is shaking the foundations of the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM). A House panel’s push for a Commission on Audit (COA) fraud audit into BARMM’s Local Government Support Fund (LGSF) has ignited a high-stakes clash between national oversight and regional autonomy. With BARMM officials absent during Ramadan hearings and rumors of financial mismanagement swirling, this case isn’t just about money—it’s a battle over accountability, power, and the future of Mindanao. Strap in; this is political drama at its finest.

COA’s Constitutional Authority: Can It Override BARMM’s Autonomy?

The Commission on Audit (COA) is no paper-pushing entity—it wields constitutional power. Article IX-D, Section 2(1) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution grants COA authority to audit “all accounts” tied to government funds, including the P6.4 billion LGSF managed by BARMM. Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong’s call for a fraud audit is grounded in Presidential Decree No. 1445, Section 43, which allows special audits when irregularities are suspected.

At P6.4 billion, this isn’t pocket change. COA’s internal rules (P50 million-plus cases go to the central office) and COA Circular No. 2012-003, which targets “irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable” spending, demand a thorough investigation. However, Republic Act No. 11054 (Bangsamoro Organic Law or BOL), Article VI, Section 18 permits COA oversight, while Article XII, Section 17 emphasizes BARMM’s fiscal autonomy. The question is: who prevails? Spoiler: the Supreme Court has consistently backed COA.

Jurisdictional Showdown: Who Controls BARMM’s Funds?

The battle over jurisdiction is heating up. Rep. Mujiv Hataman anticipates BARMM officials may invoke autonomy to resist scrutiny at the next hearing—and they likely will. The House Committee on Public Accounts relies on Article VI, Section 1 of the Constitution, asserting that since Congress controls the purse strings, it has the right to investigate.

The BOL, Article IV, Section 3 places BARMM under national “supervision,” while Article VI, Section 19 establishes the Intergovernmental Fiscal Policy Board (IFPB) as a fiscal watchdog. If BARMM officials claim autonomy shields them from accountability, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Province of North Cotabato v. GRP Peace Panel (G.R. No. 183591, October 14, 2008) makes it clear: autonomy is not a free pass to evade oversight. Congress holds the upper hand.

Supreme Court Precedents: Legal Sledgehammers

The Supreme Court has repeatedly weighed in on similar disputes. In Funa v. Villar (G.R. No. 192791, April 24, 2012), the Court affirmed COA’s authority to audit any entity using public funds—BARMM included. Meanwhile, Disini v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 169823, September 11, 2013) established that unexplained expenditures are grounds for graft charges.

Imagine this scenario: BARMM claims the P6.4 billion funded school construction, but COA finds no evidence of such projects. Disini would classify this as a smoking gun for corruption. These rulings aren’t mere footnotes—they’re the legal foundation supporting the House’s push for accountability.

Liability Hot Potato: Who’s on the Hook?

If COA’s audit uncovers irregularities, BARMM officials could face charges under Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). Section 3(e) penalizes officials who cause “undue injury” to the government or grant “unwarranted benefits” through bad faith—think phantom projects. Section 3(g) targets deals “grossly disadvantageous” to the state, such as purchasing nonexistent assets.

Penalties include up to 15 years in prison and a lifetime ban from public office. Ethically, RA 6713, Section 4(a) demands “professionalism,” and Section 7(d) prohibits “unjustified delay.” Skipping hearings during Ramadan doesn’t align with these standards. Hypothetically, if P1 billion were funneled to a crony’s ghost NGO, that’s not a minor oversight—it’s a Sandiganbayan case waiting to happen.

Political Tinderbox: A Volatile Mix Ahead of 2025

This isn’t just a legal issue—it’s a political powder keg. BARMM’s autonomy is a hard-won achievement, rooted in decades of conflict and peace talks. Manila’s scrutiny risks reigniting old tensions. Rep. Hataman’s concerns are valid: BARMM’s use of “autonomy” to dodge accountability could erode public trust, especially with the 2025 elections approaching.

While Adiong and Hataman may be positioning themselves for electoral gains, BARMM officials’ Ramadan-related absences raise questions. House Minority Leader Joseph Stephen Paduano’s acknowledgment of “valid reasons” clashes with Hataman’s “duty first” stance. This is a cultural tightrope: too lenient, and accountability becomes a joke; too strict, and critics cry insensitivity. The bottom line: public office demands responsibility, regardless of personal circumstances.

Practical Solutions: Taming the Chaos

To address this crisis, here are actionable steps:

Legislative Reforms
Amend the BOL to mandate real-time reporting of national fund usage to Congress and COA. No more vague assurances—transparency is non-negotiable.
Strengthen COA and IFPB
COA must expedite the audit and release preliminary findings promptly. The IFPB, as outlined in BOL Article VI, Section 19, should act as a robust fiscal watchdog, not a passive observer.
Procedural Adjustments
Update House Rules, Rule IV, Section 11 to allow remote participation during hearings for valid religious reasons. However, subpoenas should be issued swiftly if BARMM officials fail to appear.
Ethical Accountability
BARMM officials must uphold RA 6713’s standards, demonstrating that funds benefited Mindanao, not personal networks. Anything less is a dereliction of duty.

The Real Stakes: Trust Is the Ultimate Prize

This P6.4 billion controversy is more than a financial mystery—it’s a litmus test for BARMM’s governance maturity and Congress’s resolve. Legally, COA and Congress have the tools to investigate, and autonomy isn’t a shield for misconduct. Politically, however, the stakes are sky-high. One misstep could undermine the fragile peace process.

In a nation where billions can vanish overnight, the true currency isn’t pesos—it’s trust. The BARMM controversy isn’t just about P6.4 billion; it’s about whether we, as a people, will tolerate a system that treats accountability as optional. The stakes are clear: without trust, there can be no progress, no peace, and no future worth fighting for.