Former COA Auditor Says Cash Advances Within 11 Days Are Not Prohibited Under Joint Circular 2015-01
"Is There Anyone Banning the Use of This in 11 Days?" – Former COA Auditor Responds to Defense Question
Former COA Auditor Clarifies Rule on Cash Advances
During the Senate proceedings, former Commission on Audit–Internal Control and Financial Audit Office (COA-ICFAO) state auditor Roderick Wamil confirmed that the use of cash advances within 11 days is not prohibited under existing regulations.
The clarification came after Defense Counsel Atty. Michael Poa questioned whether Joint Circular No. 2015-01 contains any provision that expressly prohibits spending cash advances within an 11-day period.
The exchange formed part of the continuing discussions surrounding government fund utilization and compliance with existing audit rules.
Question Raised by the Defense
During the hearing, Atty. Michael Poa asked:
"Is there anyone banning the use of this in 11 days?"
He specifically sought clarification on whether Joint Circular No. 2015-01 contains any provision that bars the use of cash advances within that timeframe.
In response, former COA auditor Roderick Wamil confirmed that there is no prohibition under the cited joint circular regarding the use of cash advances within 11 days.
Focus on Joint Circular No. 2015-01
The exchange centered on the interpretation of Joint Circular No. 2015-01, one of the regulations governing the handling and liquidation of government funds.
The discussion aimed to determine whether the questioned transactions violated any explicit provision of the circular or whether they complied with the applicable rules.
The hearing did not establish any final legal conclusion regarding the broader issues being examined.
Continuing Senate Proceedings
The Senate hearing continues to examine documents, testimonies, and audit procedures related to government expenditures.
Lawmakers, defense lawyers, and resource persons have presented differing interpretations of audit rules as part of the ongoing proceedings.
Any determination of liability or compliance remains subject to the appropriate legal and constitutional processes.
Public Interest in the Hearing
The exchange drew attention online as viewers closely followed the testimony regarding the interpretation of COA regulations.
Observers continue to monitor the hearings as senators seek further clarification on issues involving public funds and government accountability.
Duterte’s Health, Due Process, and the ICC Question
January 12, 2026•1 min read
Rodrigo Duterte is once again at the center of an international legal debate—this time over health, due process, and detention standards at the International Criminal Court (ICC).
According to defense filings, medical experts submitted a consolidated report asserting that Duterte’s current neurological and cognitive condition affects sustained attention, executive functioning, and stamina—capacities relevant to continued detention. The defense argues these findings justify interim release under existing ICC rules, without altering the original terms previously requested.
What’s notable is not just the claim itself, but the procedure. The defense asks the Pre-Trial Chamber to evaluate whether changed medical circumstances require reconsideration—an argument rooted in the ICC’s own framework on detention reviews. They also insist the process must allow forensic examination and clarification of any contradictions within the medical assessments before a final determination is made.
The prosecution side has earlier indicated no immediate need for another medical panel. Still, the Chamber retains discretion to weigh risk to proceedings, including flight risk or interference with witnesses, against the humanitarian and legal standards governing detention.
This moment underscores a larger tension: international justice versus individual rights, and how courts navigate medical evidence without politicizing it. For supporters, it’s a test of due process consistency. For critics, it’s a reminder that rules exist precisely for hard cases—and must be applied evenly.
Whatever the outcome, the ruling will likely clarify how the ICC balances health-based claims with the integrity of its proceedings—setting a benchmark for future cases.
