Short answer. Under Section 89 of RA 9165, the Commission on Audit (COA), or its duly authorized representative, audits all accounts and expenses of the Dangerous Drugs Board and the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). This puts the government's anti-drug budget under the same independent audit oversight as other public funds.

What the law says

All accounts and expenses of the Board and the PDEA shall be audited by the COA or its duly authorized representative.

RA 9165, Section 89 — Audit Of Board And PDEA. Read the full provision →

What the COA audit covers

The Commission on Audit's mandate under Section 89 reaches every peso the Dangerous Drugs Board and PDEA take in and spend, not just funds tied to a particular operation. That includes the funds the Board manages under its own fund-management authority elsewhere in the Act, plus operating budgets, procurement, and any other account the two bodies keep in connection with carrying out RA 9165. Nothing in the provision carves out an exempt category of spending, and the text does not limit the audit to a particular fiscal year or type of transaction, so recurring administrative expenses are covered the same way seized-asset or confidential funds are.

Why an outside auditor rather than a self-check

Placing the audit with COA rather than an internal unit of the Board or PDEA keeps the review independent of the agency being reviewed. COA already holds constitutional authority to audit government revenue and expenditure generally, so Section 89 does not create a new watchdog agency; it simply confirms that drug-enforcement funds are not exempt from the ordinary audit process every other government office is already subject to, and that the results are not self-certified.

How this pairs with the annual report to Congress

The audit duty in Section 89 sits alongside the Chairman's annual report to Congress required by a companion provision of the same Act. The report tells lawmakers what was spent and on what; the COA audit independently verifies that the figures are accurate and that spending followed proper government accounting rules. Together the two provisions give both a narrative account and an independent financial check on the same funds, rather than relying on either one alone.

What this means in practice

For anyone tracking how anti-drug funds are used, whether the Board and PDEA underwent a COA audit for a given year, and what that audit found, is public accountability information rather than an internal matter. Findings of misuse or irregularity in a COA audit can also become the basis for administrative or criminal liability against the officials responsible, separate from any drug-related prosecution that might arise under other parts of the Act. Section 89 binds the Board and PDEA as institutions; it does not itself create a private right of action for an outside party, so a citizen concerned about misused funds ordinarily raises the issue with COA or Congress rather than filing a case directly under this provision.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.