By Benjamin Cuaresma
MANILA — Tempers flared inside the Senate impeachment court on Wednesday after Senator-judge Imee Marcos and a former Commission on Audit (COA) supervising auditor engaged in a heated exchange over who should bear legal accountability for the Office of the Vice President’s (OVP) controversial confidential fund expenditures, exposing sharply opposing interpretations of government auditing rules at the heart of the impeachment proceedings.
The confrontation unfolded during the testimony of former COA supervising auditor and lawyer Roderick Wamil, one of the prosecution’s key witnesses, whose explanations on the audit of the OVP’s 2022 confidential funds drew repeated challenges from Marcos.
Seeking to pin down responsibility for the questioned expenditures, Marcos argued that the Special Disbursing Officer (SDO)—the official who receives and disburses confidential funds—should be regarded as the accountable officer.
Wamil, however, maintained that while the SDO has direct custody of the funds, accountability does not end there. Citing the Joint Circular governing confidential and intelligence funds, he testified that the head of the agency likewise bears responsibility for authorizing the release of public funds and ensuring that their utilization complies with government accounting and auditing regulations.
The differing interpretations triggered one of the day’s most dramatic courtroom moments.
As Wamil repeatedly qualified his answers by referring to the applicable rules instead of responding with a simple “yes” or “no,” Marcos became visibly exasperated and urged the witness to answer directly, telling him he appeared to be arguing with her rather than responding to the questions.
Despite the pressure, Wamil stood firm, insisting that COA’s interpretation is anchored on the governing regulations and that accountability for confidential funds cannot be confined solely to the disbursing officer.
The hearing later shifted to the liquidation documents submitted by the OVP, including acknowledgment receipts that have drawn public attention because they bore names such as “Mary Grace Piattos” and “Andy Lim.”
Wamil clarified that COA’s compliance audit did not determine whether those names were fictitious, explaining that verifying the identities of listed recipients was outside the scope of the audit. Instead, COA examined whether the liquidation documents complied with the documentary requirements prescribed under existing rules.
He likewise testified that the Commission’s Notice of Disallowance covering approximately P73 million in OVP confidential fund expenditures remains effective unless suspended or overturned by the Supreme Court, stressing that the filing of a petition alone does not automatically halt its implementation.
The exchange underscored one of the central issues confronting the impeachment court: whether responsibility for confidential funds rests solely with the officer who physically disburses the money or extends to senior officials who authorize and oversee its release.
As the impeachment trial moves forward, the prosecution is expected to present additional witnesses and documentary evidence in an effort to establish alleged irregularities in the handling of confidential funds, while the defense continues to challenge both the legal basis and factual foundation of the accusations.
The tense encounter between Marcos and Wamil became one of the defining moments of Wednesday’s proceedings, reflecting the increasingly intense scrutiny over the management of confidential public funds and the broader questions of accountability now before the Senate impeachment court.
ia/xf
