No liquidations for lawmakers’ expenses

(Third of a series)

Apparently to go around the liquidation and taxation requirements, the House avoids classifying MOE as "cash advances" or "allowances," even if this is the way members of the chamber commonly see them.

Instead, the House classifies them as "monthly allocations" or "outright expenses." As a result, congressmen get away with not having to submit any document to account for these funds.

They are not expected to submit a payroll of their district staff or report their functions, salaries, and withholding taxes. No one starts asking if they do not produce a report on the research their offices should supposedly undertake.

There is no demand for them to produce the list of consultants they have hired, as well as the contracts they draw up for those whose services they need.

As far as the current rules go, how the legislators spend their public affairs fund is their business, and their business alone.

In the Senate, MOE are released through separate vouchers.

But the only supporting document that is often demanded is a certification signed by the senator or his chief of staff that the amount was spent in the discharge of official function.

The sums are based on a voucher signed by the senator or his chief of staff, supported by an approved expenditure program for the month and a certification by the senator concerned that the budget for the previous month had been spent.

"Extraordinary and miscellaneous expenses" are also lumped together in the MOE and released as cash advances, not on a reimbursement basis.

COA personnel acknowledge that the standard rule in all other government offices is to liquidate cash advances that are sourced from MOE, including petty cash, as well as travel and field operating activity expenses.

Except for salaries, they say, the rest of the money paid to a representative should fall under this rule. But since these objects of expenditures are disbursed as "monthly allocations" or "outright expenses," and not as cash advances, to a congressman, the government auditors say this frees the lawmakers from the obligation to liquidate the expenses.

An auditor who has been detailed at the House defends the setup: "The concept is, they (the congressmen) will spend the MOE.

How they operate their offices is up to them. They have the discretion because of the peculiar demands of their (district) office."

COA, says the auditor, presumes good faith on the part of the congressman and regularity in the use of his monthly allocations. He adds that state auditors can only assume congressmen will abide by government rules on hiring, procurement, travel, meetings, and activities or projects.

But a supervising auditor of COA insists that the arrangement at the House is not sanctioned at all by law.

No law or COA circular authorizes a representative’s expenses for supplies and other items for the maintenance of his or her office as "outright expenses" to be paid through payroll, he says.

Other COA personnel, including auditors assigned to the House, admit as much. (The Senate, unlike the House, does not consider MOE as "outright expenses.")

"The system is defective," laments the supervising auditor. "These are clear lapses in accounting and auditing procedures. How do we know if the congressman spent the money if he doesn’t account for it? What if he pocketed it?"

"If you really want transparency, congressmen must liquidate all the money that is released to them," a veteran legislative officer remarks. "But they don’t. Well, even if they did, we know a lot would be fabricated."

One auditor, though, is more forthright regarding why COA essentially leaves the House of Representatives alone. "The House is a political body," he says. "We don’t want to get into trouble."

Many of his colleagues agree. For instance, they point out, while COA is a constitutional body, the appointment of its chairman needs to be confirmed by the 25-member Commission on Appointments consisting of legislators from both the House and the Senate.

COA also finds itself at the mercy of Congress when budget time comes: The legislature wields the power of the purse. Horse trading becomes inevitable, especially in the assignment of auditors.

One senior congressman, for example, threatened to bypass the COA chairman’s appointment unless an auditor, who turned out to be a personal friend, was reinstated in a Metro Manila town. COA caved in.

Another auditor is even more blunt, saying, "We’re scared of congressmen, we’re scared of the system. Babalikan kami (They’ll seek revenge). We don’t want to tolerate corruption, but nothing happens to our reports. We just become subjects of harassment, and other people even make money out of our reports."

Auditors who question irregular or corrupt practices in the agency – which is part of their work – are often quickly reassigned. — With additional reporting by Avigail Olarte and Booma Cruz

(To be continued)