The Senate impeachment trial has reached the point where the issue is no longer simply about accounting technicalities.
It is about accountability.
The appearance of 98 supposed payees tied to Vice President Sara Duterte’s confidential-fund disbursements should force the impeachment court to ask the most basic question in any public-money controversy:
Who received the money?
That question should not be buried beneath legal arguments, procedural maneuvering or a mountain of paperwork.
If public funds were legitimately disbursed, the recipients should be identifiable. The transactions should be supported by authentic documentation. The activities for which the money was supposedly spent should have actually taken place.
That is not political persecution.
That is basic accountability for government money.
The Senate is now confronted with a documentary trail involving acknowledgment receipts and supposed recipients, while Commission on Audit testimony has raised questions about the sufficiency and timing of some supporting documents.
Among the names reportedly appearing in the records are unusual entries such as “Kamote,” “Mango” and “Keso.”
Now, let us be clear: an unusual name is not, by itself, proof of fraud.
But neither should an unusual name be dismissed simply because it is inconvenient.
If “Kamote” is a real person, identify the person.
If “Mango” is a real person, identify the person.
If “Keso” is a real person, identify the person.
If they received public money, establish when, where, how much and for what legitimate confidential activity.
And if the names cannot be verified, the Senate should demand to know why.
This is where the impeachment proceedings should rise above partisan politics.
The Senate should not automatically believe the prosecution.
It should not automatically believe the defense either.
It should believe the evidence.
That is precisely why the documentary record matters.
The public is being asked to accept that confidential funds were spent for legitimate intelligence and security-related purposes. Fine.
Then show the evidence that can lawfully and credibly establish that proposition.
Confidential funds are not magical money.
They may be confidential in nature, but they are still public money.
Confidentiality cannot become a blanket excuse for an accounting trail that nobody can meaningfully verify.
There is another uncomfortable question.
If the records are legitimate, why should the verification of the recipients be a problem?
The defense has every right to challenge the prosecution’s evidence. That is fundamental to due process.
But due process cuts both ways.
It protects the accused from unsubstantiated accusations, while protecting the public’s right to know whether its money was properly used.
The Senate therefore has a responsibility far greater than deciding who wins a political argument.
It must determine whether the evidence presented in this historic trial establishes an impeachable offense.
That requires patience.
It requires scrutiny.
And above all, it requires independence.
The controversy surrounding the confidential funds did not begin inside the Senate chamber. It began with questions over how the funds were released, spent and liquidated.
COA’s findings now form part of the evidentiary record.
The prosecution says the documents demonstrate irregularities.
The defense disputes the allegations and challenges the prosecution’s interpretation of the records.
That battle will ultimately be decided by the impeachment court.
But one principle should remain non-negotiable:
Public accountability cannot be confidential forever.
There are legitimate reasons why intelligence operations require secrecy. Sources, methods and sensitive operations cannot simply be exposed to the public.
But secrecy must never be confused with immunity from audit.
The Senate can protect legitimate confidential information while still determining whether public money actually went where government records say it went.
That is the test.
Not whether a witness is politically popular.
Not whether the accused is a Duterte.
Not whether the prosecution is aligned with one political camp.
Not whether the defense has powerful allies.
The question is much simpler:
Where did the money go?
And behind every receipt, there should be an accountable transaction.
Behind every transaction, there should be an identifiable recipient.
Behind every confidential activity, there should be a legitimate government purpose.
If those elements are present, the evidence should establish it.
If they are absent, the Senate has a duty to confront that absence.
The impeachment court should not be intimidated by the volume of documents.
Thousands of receipts do not automatically make a case strong.
Neither does the existence of questionable documents automatically make the allegations true.
The Senate must separate fact from accusation, evidence from rhetoric, and accountability from politics.
But it must also resist the temptation to allow procedural battles to obscure the central issue.
The Filipino people are not asking for theater. They are asking where their money went.
Ninety-eight names have now entered the discussion.
The receipts are there.
The testimony is being heard.
The Senate has the constitutional responsibility to examine them.
And when the evidence is finally complete, the senators should have the courage to follow it wherever it leads — even if the destination is politically uncomfortable.
ia/xf
