Key Takeaway: Compliance with COA Circulars is Crucial for Validating Extraordinary and Miscellaneous Expenses in Government Corporations

Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corporation (PSALM) v. Commission on Audit (COA), G.R. No. 213425 & 216606, April 27, 2021

Imagine a government agency tasked with managing the sale and privatization of crucial energy assets. Now picture this agency embroiled in a legal battle over the reimbursement of expenses deemed essential for its operations. This scenario isn’t just hypothetical; it’s the real story behind the Supreme Court case involving the Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corporation (PSALM) and the Commission on Audit (COA). At the heart of this dispute lies a fundamental question: How should government corporations handle extraordinary and miscellaneous expenses (EME) to comply with auditing regulations?

In this case, PSALM, a government-owned and controlled corporation (GOCC) established under the Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001, found itself at odds with the COA over the reimbursement of EME for its officers and employees. The crux of the issue was the documentation required to substantiate these expenses, with PSALM arguing that certifications should suffice, while the COA insisted on receipts or similar documents.

Legal Context: Understanding EME and COA Regulations

Extraordinary and Miscellaneous Expenses (EME) are funds allocated to government officials for various operational needs, such as meetings, seminars, and public relations activities. These expenses are governed by specific regulations set forth by the Commission on Audit (COA), which is tasked with ensuring the proper use of government funds.

COA Circular No. 2006-001, issued specifically for GOCCs, mandates that claims for EME reimbursements must be supported by “receipts and/or other documents evidencing disbursements.” This directive was a response to the need for stricter controls over EME disbursements in government corporations, which have more autonomy in allocating these funds compared to national government agencies (NGAs).

Contrastingly, COA Circular No. 89-300, applicable to NGAs, allows the use of certifications in lieu of receipts. This distinction highlights the different levels of scrutiny applied to EME disbursements, reflecting the varying degrees of financial oversight required for different types of government entities.

For instance, consider a government official attending a conference on energy policy. Under COA Circular No. 2006-001, the official from a GOCC like PSALM would need to provide receipts for travel, accommodation, and other related expenses to claim reimbursement. In contrast, an official from an NGA might only need to submit a certification stating that the expenses were incurred for official purposes.

Case Breakdown: The Journey of PSALM’s EME Claims

PSALM’s journey began in 2002 when it started reimbursing EME to its officers and employees based on certifications, in line with Section 397(c) of the Government Accounting and Auditing Manual (GAAM) and COA Circular No. 89-300. However, in 2006, the COA issued Circular No. 2006-001, which explicitly required receipts for EME reimbursements in GOCCs.

Despite receiving this directive, PSALM continued to use certifications for EME claims in 2008 and 2009, leading to the COA issuing notices of suspension and subsequent disallowances. PSALM’s attempts to appeal these disallowances were met with consistent rejections, culminating in the Supreme Court’s consolidated review of two petitions filed by PSALM.

The Supreme Court’s decision hinged on several key points:

• Due Process: PSALM argued that the COA violated its right to due process by not issuing an Audit Observation Memorandum (AOM) before disallowing the 2009 EME claims. The Court rejected this claim, stating that the COA’s rules do not require an AOM for disallowances related to clear violations of regulations.
• Applicability of COA Circular No. 2006-001: PSALM contended that the circular did not apply to it because it derived its authority to disburse EME from the General Appropriations Act (GAA). The Court disagreed, affirming that the circular applies to all GOCCs, regardless of their funding source.
• Sufficiency of Certifications: The Court emphasized that certifications could not be considered substantial compliance with the requirement for receipts, as they lacked the necessary transaction details to validate the expenses.
• Equal Protection: PSALM claimed that the COA’s differential treatment of GOCCs and NGAs violated the equal protection clause. The Court upheld the distinction, noting the substantial differences in EME disbursement autonomy between the two types of entities.

The Court’s ruling was clear: “The COA did not commit grave abuse of discretion in upholding the 2009 EME ND despite non-issuance of an AOM.” It further stated, “The COA correctly applied the legal maxim ‘ubi lex non distinguit, nec nos distinguere debemus’ or ‘where the law does not distinguish, neither should we.’”

Practical Implications: Navigating EME Reimbursements in Government Corporations

The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of adhering to COA regulations for EME reimbursements in GOCCs. Government corporations must ensure that their EME claims are supported by receipts or similar documents that provide clear evidence of disbursement. This ruling sets a precedent for how similar cases might be handled in the future, emphasizing the need for strict compliance with auditing rules.

For businesses and individuals working with or within government entities, understanding these requirements is crucial. Here are some practical tips:

• Keep Detailed Records: Always maintain receipts and other documentation for any expenses claimed as EME.
• Stay Updated: Regularly review COA circulars and other relevant regulations to ensure compliance.
• Seek Legal Advice: If unsure about the applicability of certain rules, consult with legal experts specializing in government auditing.

Key Lessons:

• Compliance with COA Circular No. 2006-001 is mandatory for GOCCs seeking EME reimbursements.
• Certifications alone are insufficient to validate EME claims in GOCCs.
• Understanding the distinction between regulations for GOCCs and NGAs is essential for proper financial management.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are Extraordinary and Miscellaneous Expenses (EME)?
EME are funds allocated to government officials for expenses related to operational needs, such as meetings, seminars, and public relations activities.

Why did the COA disallow PSALM’s EME claims?
The COA disallowed PSALM’s EME claims because they were supported only by certifications, which did not meet the requirement for receipts or similar documents under COA Circular No. 2006-001.

Can GOCCs use certifications for EME reimbursements?
No, according to the Supreme Court’s ruling, GOCCs must provide receipts or similar documents to substantiate EME claims, as per COA Circular No. 2006-001.

What is the difference between COA Circular No. 2006-001 and COA Circular No. 89-300?
COA Circular No. 2006-001 applies to GOCCs and requires receipts for EME reimbursements, while COA Circular No. 89-300 applies to NGAs and allows the use of certifications.

How can government corporations ensure compliance with EME regulations?
Government corporations should maintain detailed records of all expenses, stay updated on COA regulations, and seek legal advice when necessary to ensure compliance with EME reimbursement rules.

What are the implications of this ruling for future EME claims?
This ruling sets a precedent that GOCCs must strictly adhere to COA Circular No. 2006-001, requiring receipts for EME claims, to avoid disallowances.

ASG Law specializes in government auditing and compliance. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.