It not only weakens the principle of legality, but also opens up unnecessary spaces for the misuse of state resources. Therefore, rather than questioning the existence of prior control, the focus should be on strengthening its efficiency without sacrificing its depth, understanding that its true function is to protect, not hinder, public administration. The author is a forensic auditor, authorized fraud examiner, former Vice Minister of the Presidency and former General Secretary of the Comptroller's Office. In practice, this means that no official should have the ability to decide on public funds without an independent mechanism that reviews that decision. In turn, Jorge Fábrega Ponce warns that when control systems are weak or non-existent, spaces for discretion are generated that can lead to abuses of power. It is not simply an additional step in the administrative process, but a key verification point that allows validating whether an act complies with legal, budgetary and technical requirements before committing public resources. From a doctrinal perspective, authors such as César A. Quintero explain that the State functions on the basis of controls that limit the exercise of power. In other words, without that control, the act lacks an essential element of legality. Likewise, case law has recognized that the Comptroller General of the Republic can act to challenge acts that affect public property, which reinforces its role not only as a reviewing body, but as an active actor in the protection of State resources. Now, one of the most frequent criticisms of prior control is the delay in endorsements. Once the damage to public property occurs, its recovery is complex, slow and, in many cases, incomplete. Consequently, leaving management acts to the free discretion of officials without effective prior control represents a structural risk for public administration. From experience in public administration and auditing, control over the management of public funds cannot be analyzed only from a normative perspective, but also from its real impact on risk prevention and the protection of State assets. The Political Constitution of Panama, by establishing in its article 280 the functions of the Comptroller General of the Republic, not only defines competencies, but also designs a control system aimed at preventing errors, irregularities and possible acts of corruption before they occur. In this sense, prior control —provided for in numeral 2— must be understood as a practical risk management tool. The Supreme Court of Justice has reiterated that the endorsement of the Comptroller General of the Republic is not a mere formality, but a necessary validation for administrative acts involving the management of public funds to take effect. It is not a simple signature, but an integral validation. More importantly, the accumulated experience in public administration demonstrates a fact that cannot be ignored: even with prior control, there have been cases of corruption and improper handling of public funds. This leads to a direct and necessary reflection: if irregularities have been detected with prior control, how many more could materialize in a scenario where that control does not exist or is weakened? Eliminating or reducing prior control does not eliminate the risk; on the contrary, it shifts it completely to the deciding official, increasing the probability of errors, omissions or improper actions. From a forensic audit perspective, this is clear: preventive controls are always more efficient and less costly than corrective ones. In practice, reviewing an administrative act involves evaluating legal, budgetary, contractual and, in many cases, technical aspects. From an operational perspective, this point must be analyzed with care. In practical terms, this translates into decisions without sufficient support, poorly structured contracts or inefficient use of resources. This approach is not only doctrinal.
