Whenever the liquidation of cash advances becomes an issue and there is a clamor to strictly follow what the law stipulates about the matter, officials in the bureaucracy frequently invoke ‘due process’ as a matter of mantra.

Due process has become a victim too on how those in government allowed administrative violations to flourish. Even if the law sets a time for cash advances to be settled, beneficiaries of this fiscal scheme are almost always spared the penalties the statutes impose.

Of recent example is the disclosure that the Commission on Elections has registered P700 million in unliquidated cash advances spent in connection with the May 2022 polls. Originally, the amount reached P2 billion but P1.7 of this has already been liquidated.

To sound aggressive and forthright, the electoral body even went to the press (for publicity and other reasons) to announce that possible criminal charges may be filed against Comelec officials should they fail to liquidate or submit documents as validations for their cash advances.

Getting to the end of the issue, however, is a different matter. Violators, because of leniency or pity, complete their tour of duty cleared, and enjoy their pensions. The Commission on Audit (COA), being a non-quasi-judicial body, can only flag discrepancies but has no control whether administrative and criminals would eventually be filed.

Under COA Circular No. 97-002 issued in 1997, guidelines are specified in the grant and liquidation of cash advances.

First, no additional cash advance shall be allowed unless the previous cash advance has been liquidated and accounted for; second, cash advance for special time-bound undertaking shall be liquidated within one month from the date the purpose was accomplished; and third, all cash advances shall be fully liquidated at the end of the year, except for petty cash fund.

Moreover, this circular and COA Circular 2012-001require that within five days after the end of each month, the accountable officer shall submit a report of disbursements.

These are specific guidelines but are only as good as the consistency of any head of office. If an extension is allowed for reasons the law does not proscribe, the liquidation process can take years. Even after the culprit has been dismissed, resigned, or retired from the service, the obligation to liquidate cash advances can become just a part of official records and memory.

Due process is enshrined in the 1987 Constitution. The state guarantees it as a way of respecting individual rights but not a certainty that those who have expressly violated the regulations on cash advances (and in some instances, disallowance) are given their day in court and made to pay for if they have illegally squandered public funds and failed to settle their obligation.

When the charge is administrative, due process is satisfied only when a person is properly informed of the complaint against him and given the chance to explain or defend oneself.

Because due process inside the bureaucracy is foot-dragging in the way court cases are resolved by the justice system, expect the Comelec threat of criminal action to be later thrown under the bus or simply archived and forgotten.

Though a constitutional body, the COA’s charter limits its “power, authority, and duty to examine, audit, and settle all accounts pertaining to the revenue and receipts of, and expenditures or uses of funds and property, owned or held in trust by, or pertaining to, the Government, or any of its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters, and on a post-audit basis.”

Transforming it into a quasi-judicial body that can recommend or file cases make the agency even more effective in pursuing its obligation as the guardian of public funds.