By Benjamin Cuaresma
MANILA — The House prosecution panel on Tuesday said the evidence presented so far before the Senate impeachment court has shifted the burden to Vice President Sara Duterte to explain how more than P612.5 million in confidential funds was spent and liquidated during her tenure as Vice President and concurrent Education secretary.
House prosecution panel adviser and spokesperson Robert Ace Barbers said the testimony of Commission on Audit (COA) official Roderick Wamil had laid the foundation for the prosecution’s case, leaving the defense with the responsibility of rebutting the audit findings.
“In my opinion, the burden of evidence has now shifted to the defense panel,” Barbers said, referring to Monday’s impeachment proceedings.
Wamil, who previously served with the COA’s Intelligence and Confidential Funds Audit Office, testified that both the original and revised liquidation reports submitted by the Office of the Vice President (OVP) failed to fully establish the identities of several recipients of confidential funds, the specific intelligence activities undertaken, and the supporting documents for a number of disbursements.
The audit covered the first P125 million tranche of confidential funds released to the OVP between Dec. 21 and Dec. 31, 2022. Wamil told the impeachment court that the acknowledgment receipts presented during the trial were among the 845 documents submitted by the OVP to COA during the audit.
The prosecution also introduced 10 additional names listed as recipients of confidential fund disbursements—Renan Piattos, Nova Santos, Mico P. Harina, Janice Marie Revilla, Patty Ting, Andy Lim, Alejandro Pikit, Feonna Biong, Sisfrunio Balsac, and Gabriel Bisaya—expanding the list beyond the previously scrutinized “Mary Grace Piattos.”
According to Wamil, the deficiencies identified in the liquidation documents became part of the basis for the Commission on Audit’s issuance of a Notice of Suspension covering the first P125-million confidential fund release.
Barbers said the defense would now have to present substantial evidence to counter the prosecution’s claims, including proving that the listed recipients were real individuals and explaining the intelligence services they supposedly rendered.
“They will have to present strong counter-evidence to rebut what has already been established,” Barbers said.
He added that if the defense seeks to present the alleged recipients before the impeachment court, the decision would ultimately rest with the senator-judges in accordance with the court’s rules.
Barbers maintained that the central issue remains the disposition of public funds and whether they were actually used for legitimate confidential operations.
“The next step is for them to justify where the funds went,” he said. “That is why I believe the burden of evidence has now shifted to the defense.”
The Senate impeachment court is continuing its trial on the Articles of Impeachment filed against Duterte, with proceedings expected to focus further on the handling and liquidation of confidential funds allocated to both the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education.
ia/xf
