By Benjamin Cuaresma
MANILA, Philippines — The Office of the Vice President’s (OVP) use of confidential funds came under renewed scrutiny Tuesday after a Commission on Audit (COA) state auditor testified that P73 million out of the P125-million fund released to the agency in 2022 was disallowed for violating rules governing confidential expenditures.
COA Intelligence and Confidential Funds Audit Office state auditor Xylene Mae Del Campo told the Senate impeachment court that Vice President Sara Duterte, then head of the OVP, along with the agency’s special disbursing officer and chief accountant, were identified as liable or responsible for the disallowed disbursements.
The testimony formed part of the prosecution’s presentation in the impeachment trial, where Duterte faces allegations involving the misuse and irregular liquidation of confidential funds.
Del Campo said the OVP failed to provide receipts for the questioned P73 million, prompting COA to issue a Notice of Disallowance.
She also testified that some of the documents submitted by the OVP to liquidate its P125-million confidential fund covered expenses incurred before the money was actually released.
The OVP received the P125 million on Dec. 21, 2022, but documents submitted for liquidation included expenses supposedly incurred from Dec. 13 to 18 — days before the fund was disbursed.
Among the activities identified in the documents were a youth patriotism campaign, Christmas parties and activities, and a thanksgiving gathering.
Del Campo said these activities did not fall within the allowable uses of confidential funds under Joint Circular No. 2015-01, which governs the utilization, reporting and audit of confidential and intelligence funds.
She further testified that confidential funds could not be used to reimburse expenses that had already been incurred before the release of the funds.
The auditor also identified P3.5 million of the disallowed amount that had allegedly been spent on tables, chairs, desktop computers and printers without documentation showing that the items were intended for confidential operations.
The COA findings have become a significant component of the impeachment proceedings as prosecutors seek to establish that the OVP’s handling of confidential funds went beyond the purposes authorized under existing government rules.
Under Joint Circular 2015-01, confidential funds are intended primarily for surveillance activities undertaken by civilian government agencies in support of their mandate or operations. Their use remains subject to documentation, accounting and audit requirements.
The prosecution has argued that activities such as Christmas gatherings and other ordinary agency programs cannot simply be charged against confidential funds merely because the expenses were incurred by the OVP.
The defense, meanwhile, has questioned aspects of the prosecution’s documentary presentation and objected to the need to compare certain exhibits, arguing that the authenticity and evidentiary value of the documents would ultimately be determined by the impeachment court.
Defense counsel Christine Ferrer said the defense did not need to compare the exhibits simply to establish that certain documents were identical, noting that the prosecution would formally offer its evidence and the defense would then be given an opportunity to comment.
The presiding officer continued to oversee the identification and pre-marking of documentary evidence as the trial proceeded.
The COA testimony puts the spotlight squarely on the distinction between confidentiality and exemption from accountability.
Confidential funds may involve sensitive operations, but their use is still governed by government accounting and auditing rules. A confidential label does not automatically make an expenditure legitimate, nor does it place public funds beyond the reach of auditors.
For the prosecution, the issue is whether the questioned OVP expenditures were legitimate confidential activities supported by the required documentation.
For the defense, the evidentiary question remains whether the prosecution can establish through admissible and credible records that the questioned transactions amounted to an impeachable offense.
The Senate impeachment court is now being asked to weigh not only where the OVP’s confidential funds went, but whether the manner in which they were spent and liquidated complied with the rules governing public money.
And at the center of the dispute is a basic principle of public accountability: confidentiality may protect sensitive information, but it does not erase the government’s duty to account for public funds.
ia/xf
