On Senate Electoral Tribunal’s MOOE

This refers to the article entitled, “Senate questioned on use of P32M as MOOE of SET” by Jess Diaz, which appeared on page 11 of the 03 April 2014 issue of the Philippine STAR News.

The article is false and misleading for the following reasons:

1. The Commission on Audit (COA) did not question the “use of P32M as MOOE of SET.” What was put in issue was the supposed lack of supporting documents for the liquidation of the additional allowance of P82,000 given monthly to the chairperson and eight members of the Tribunal, or a total of P8,856,000.This is very clear from the Annual Audit Report for FY2012, the pertinent portion of which is quoted, thus:

“Our audit of the Other Maintenance and Operating Expenses amounting to P32,877,114.19 disclosed that this includes the additional allowance of P,82,000 given monthly to the members of the Electoral Tribunal. Further verification disclosed that there were no documents to support the expenditures, but only a certification which stated ‘that the amounts were expended in the performance of the official duties,’ contrary to Item (6), Section 4 of PD1445.” (p. 18, AAR)

2. The article failed to cite the recommendation of COA for Management to “immediately cause the submission of supporting documents for the liquidation vouchers for December 2012, Further, strict compliance with Section 4(6) of PD1445 be adhered to for all transactions of the SET starting January 1, 2013.”

The said recommendation clearly shows that the COA found merit in the comments given by Management, so that the submission of supporting documents was required only for the month of December 2012. Strict compliance with Section 4(6) of PD1445 for all transactions of the SET was required only starting January 1, 2013. The pertinent portion of the AAR states:

“x x x The Secretary of the Tribunal in her letter dated 08 April 2013 stated that the liquidation of the subject disbursement vouchers and the respective liquidation vouchers for CY 2012 was made in accordance with previous practice and pursuant to the Special Provision in the Joint Resolution of the Senate of the Philippines and the House of Representatives on liquidation of accountabilities that mere ‘Certification that the amounts were expended in the performance of their official duties’ are (sic) sufficient to liquidate the accountabilities. The Secretary further stated that this being the accepted mode of liquidation at the time the expenditures were incurred, it could not be reasonably anticipated that supporting documents would be required.

“Despite the contention of the Secretary of the Tribunal and considering that the Commission on Audit has the authority to promulgate auditing rules and regulations, the submission of the supporting documents for the above mentioned allowance is still in order. However, In consideration of the foregoing circumstances and that the Audit Instructions was issued only on January 31, 2013, Management was required to submit complete supportinq documents for the additional allowance of P82,000 given In December 2012 only.” (p. 19, AAR)

It is worthwhile mentioning that said recommendation notwithstanding, the SET Management was able to show to COA that in FY 2012, liquidation of MOOE disbursements was governed by COA Circular No. 89-300 dated 21 March 1989, which categorically allowed claim for reimbursement of extraordinary and miscellaneous expenses (MOOE) by means of “a certification executed by the official concerned that the expenses sought to be reimbursed have been incurred for any of the purposes contemplated under Section 19 and other related sections of RA 6688 (or similar provisions in subsequent General Appropriations Act) in relation to or by reason of his position.” (Par. 4, General Audit Principles and Guidelines, COA Circular No. 89-300.)

The said auditing requirement may be considered amended only on 31 January 2013 with the issuance by COA Chairperson Grace M. Pulido Tan of the Audit Instruction on the Audit of the Senate of the Philippines and the House of Representatives, including the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal and the Senate Electoral Tribunal.

However, since copies of the Audit Instruction was received by SET only on 12 February 2013, SET requested that the new liquidation requirement be made effective starting the next quarter, or in April 2013. Since then, SET has been religiously complying with the new liquidation requirement.

3. The article failed to cite the comments given by Management on the audit observations relating to the disbursement of the cash deposit of then Sen. Juan Miguel Zubiri for his counter protest in SET Case No. 001-07 (Pimentel vs. Zubiri).

On the observation regarding delayed liquidation and grant of new cash advances, the pertinent portion of the AAR reads as follows:

“Management commented that the Tribunal’s mandate is to process the election protest in the most expeditious manner, thus collection of ballot boxes and election documents were scheduled successively, even simultaneously, to ensure that there was sufficient number of ballot boxes in the Tribunal’s custody to sustain continuous revision proceedings.

“However, due to the limited number of designated Team Leaders/Special Disbursing Officers (SDO), they were to be sent out on another collection mission before they could settle their previous cash advances. The return of the ballot boxes and election documents had to be expedited in order to save on warehouse rentals and other related expenses like security and utility expenses.”(p. 16, AAR)

On the large amount of cash advances compared to the actual expenses, the pertinent portion of the AAR states:

“Management had the following comments:

• Cash advances granted to the Team assigned to collect ballot boxes in Makati City and Las Piñas City were unexpended for reason that no ballot boxes were collected from the said areas. The Team assigned in Makati City was belatedly informed by the City Treasurer that the 960 ballot boxes to be collected had been turned over to the COMELEC Main Office. Upon verification from COMELEC, it was learned that the contents of the ballot boxes had been disposed of, and the ballot boxes were recycled and used in connection with the 25 October 2010 Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) elections.

• In Las Piñas City, only the election documents were collected , as the 1,234 ballot boxes for collection were opened on 28 and 29 Mary 2012 and the contents disposed of.

• The Team in the Province of Cagayan was able to refund a considerable amount due to savings from truck rental as a result of uncollected ballot boxes destroyed by typhoon Ondoy. Likewise , the allotment for storage fee and gasoline for Philippine National Police (PNP) were not spent as the ballot boxes were stored at the PNP Headquarters.” (p. 17, AAR)

These comments were clearly considered satisfactory by COA as shown by its recommendation that “for future similar cases, Management should: a) require the accountable officers to comply with the provisions of Sec. 89 of PD1445, EO 298 and COA Circular No. 970-002; b) ensure that previous cash advances are liquidated first before another cash advance is granted pursuant to Sec. 4.1.2. of COA Circular No 97-002; and c) reduce the amount of cash advances to an estimated amount sufficient to cover the expense when the destinations are within Metro Manila only.” (p. 17, AAR)

For truth and fairness’ sake, we earnestly request that the Philippine STAR publish another article presenting a more complete and truthful version of Mr. Jess Diaz’s story.— Irene R. Guevarra, Secretary, Senate Electoral Tribunal