By Benjamin Cuaresma
MANILA, Philippines — The House prosecution panel has thrown Vice President Sara Duterte’s “bending the law” accusation back at her, saying the more troubling question is why millions in confidential funds were backed by acknowledgment receipts instead of official receipts and why several expenditures appeared inconsistent with the rules governing confidential and intelligence funds.
Kabataan party-list Rep. Renee Co, spokesperson for the prosecution, said Friday that the controversy surrounding the Office of the Vice President’s (OVP) and Department of Education’s (DepEd) confidential funds is not simply a dispute over political interpretation.
It is, she said, a question of documentation, accountability and compliance with government rules.
Co pointed to the testimony of Commission on Audit state auditor Roderick Wamil during the impeachment proceedings, saying auditors encountered thousands of acknowledgment receipts submitted to support confidential-fund transactions but found no corresponding official receipts or other documentary evidence of payment for many of the questioned expenses.
Among the transactions were purchases of medicines allegedly used as rewards for confidential informants.
The prosecution also questioned entries indicating spending for medicines and safe houses, which Co said were not allowable uses of confidential and intelligence funds under the guidelines governing their utilization and audit.
“If there is anything that has to be answered about how the law, rules and regulations were observed, it should be Vice President Sara Duterte,” Co said.
For the prosecution, the central issue is no longer merely whether Duterte believes the impeachment process was legally flawed.
It is whether her offices can adequately explain the audit findings that have followed the questioned confidential-fund transactions.
Co said the defense has yet to provide what the prosecution considers a satisfactory explanation for the volume of irregularities reflected in the audit records of the OVP and DepEd.
She said the defense would eventually have the opportunity to present its own narrative before the impeachment court.
But until then, the prosecution intends to keep the focus on the documents.
Thousands of acknowledgment receipts, but no official receipts to substantiate the questioned transactions—that, Co argued, is what the prosecution considers a far more concrete example of rules being disregarded.
Former Surigao del Norte Rep. Robert Ace Barbers, another prosecution spokesperson, said the controversy did not suddenly emerge during the impeachment trial.
The issues surrounding the OVP and DepEd confidential funds date back to 2022, when the Commission on Audit issued notices of disallowance concerning questioned transactions.
Four years later, Barbers said, the agencies had been given ample opportunity to correct their submissions or provide the necessary explanations.
Yet the questions remain.
He said the passage of time makes the absence of a definitive explanation even more difficult to ignore.
For the prosecution, the issue is therefore not simply about political accusations traded between Duterte and her critics.
It is about public funds that auditors questioned and transactions that remain inadequately explained.
Duterte had earlier declared that there was no need to disrupt the impeachment proceedings because, in her view, the process had already been compromised by what she called a “bending of the law.”
She made the remark when asked about reports concerning the possible arrest of Senator Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa in connection with the International Criminal Court case.
Duterte argued that the alleged legal violations began during the House proceedings and continued into the impeachment process.
The prosecution, however, dismissed the accusation.
Barbers said he could not determine what Duterte meant by “bending the law” if she was referring to the House impeachment proceedings, noting that the Supreme Court had already acted on petitions questioning those proceedings.
Prosecution legal spokesperson Benjamin Tolosa Jr. likewise reminded Duterte that the High Court had dismissed petitions challenging the House proceedings on procedural grounds, including mootness in subsequent litigation.
The prosecution’s position is straightforward: the impeachment process should not be declared unlawful simply because the defense disagrees with how the House proceedings unfolded.
The confrontation has placed a seemingly mundane piece of government paperwork at the heart of a high-stakes impeachment battle.
Receipts.
For the prosecution, the issue is whether acknowledgment receipts can adequately establish that confidential funds were actually spent for legitimate and authorized purposes—and whether the transactions can withstand the scrutiny required of public expenditures.
The defense, meanwhile, is expected to challenge the prosecution’s interpretation of the audit findings and present its own explanation for the questioned transactions.
But the prosecution is clearly seeking to shift the debate away from broad political accusations and toward the paper trail.
And that could prove decisive.
Because when public money is involved, the question is not merely who claims the law was bent.
The harder question is who spent the money, where it went, what it was used for—and where are the receipts?
That is the accounting trail the prosecution is now demanding Duterte explain.
ia/xf
