By Benjamin Cuaresma
MANILA — What began as another day of testimony on Vice President Sara Duterte’s controversial confidential funds turned into a bizarre roll call of “Pampano,” “Keso,” “Kamote,” “Mango” and other unusual names appearing in acknowledgment receipts submitted by the Office of the Vice President (OVP).
But beneath the laughter inside the impeachment court was a much more serious question: Were millions of pesos in confidential funds actually spent for legitimate intelligence operations—and can the OVP prove it?
On the 14th day of Duterte’s impeachment trial, Commission on Audit (COA) Intelligence and Confidential Funds Audit Office auditor Xylene Mae del Campo returned to the witness stand as prosecutors presented additional documents involving P125 million in confidential funds disbursed by the OVP between July 14 and September 30, 2023.
The receipts were submitted by the OVP after COA demanded additional documentation to support the liquidation of the funds.
Among those listed as recipients were names that immediately drew attention.
For the supposed purchase of information, the documents listed Beverly Claire Pampano receiving P130,000, Renan Piatos P110,000, Kokoy Villamin P50,000 and Denise Tanya Escudero P120,000.
Under purchases supposedly involving supplies, materials and equipment for confidential operations, the documents listed Matthew N. Keso receiving P250,000, Nova Santos P50,000, Salah Casim P180,000, Xiaome Ocho P100,000, Jay Kamote P200,000, Miggy Mango P50,000 and Honeylet Camille Sy P350,000.
Two individuals identified for reward payments were listed as Contis, Connor Adrian and Kristine Applegate Estrada, each receiving P50,000.
Another receipt identified “Anne Ongpauco” as receiving P50,000 for the purchase of information, while “Heart Santiago” was listed as receiving P250,000 for the purchase or rental of supplies, materials and equipment for confidential operations.
The names immediately raised eyebrows because some appeared similar to, or were associated with, names of known public personalities.
Prosecutor Lorna Kapunan asked Del Campo whether auditors checked if the persons named in the documents had any relationship with personalities connected to the proceedings.
Del Campo said they did not.
The issue involving “Heart Santiago” was particularly striking because Senate President Francis Escudero is the presiding officer of the impeachment court and his wife, actress Heart Evangelista, was born Love Marie Ongpauco-Escudero.
But the more consequential testimony concerned documentation—not the names themselves.
Del Campo told the court that some payments lacked supporting documents demonstrating that the alleged recipients had successfully performed the activities for which reward payments were supposedly made.
For purchases of supplies and equipment, auditors likewise sought additional documentation to establish that the expenditures were actually for confidential operations.
COA had identified four major deficiencies in the OVP’s liquidation documents: the absence of documents proving certain payments were made, insufficient support for reward payments, failure to properly identify activities in the office’s physical and financial plan, and disbursement vouchers that lacked the required signatures.
The OVP subsequently submitted certifications for reward payments and an operations report concerning the purchase of information.
But questions remained.
And in the middle of the tense proceedings, Kapunan injected humor into the extraordinary list of names.
“It’s now 12 o’clock. With the names Apple, Keso, Mangga, etcetera, I think it is time for us to have lunch, Your Honor,” she told the court.
The court then took a 30-minute lunch break.
The controversy also dragged the name of House prosecutor and Akbayan Rep. Chel Diokno into the receipts.
One document listed a “Jose Diokno Jr.” as receiving P120,000 for the purchase of information, while another listed “Clarisse Hontiveros” as receiving P500,000 for medical and food aid.
Diokno immediately denied that the Jose Diokno Jr. named in the document was him.
He stressed that his name is Jose Manuel Diokno, not Jose Diokno Jr., and said he had never received confidential funds from Duterte or served as an agent of the Vice President.
But Diokno turned the allegation against the OVP.
He said that even if critics insisted that he had received confidential funds, such a claim would only reinforce the prosecution’s argument that the OVP’s confidential fund was allegedly being used outside its proper purpose.
The heart of the impeachment controversy, therefore, is no longer simply about unusual names appearing on receipts.
It is about whether taxpayers’ confidential funds can be traced to legitimate operations, legitimate recipients and legitimate accomplishments.
The OVP may have submitted additional paperwork after COA raised its questions.
But as the impeachment proceedings continue, the court is being asked to determine whether those documents adequately explain where the money went—and whether the paper trail can withstand scrutiny.
In an impeachment trial where millions are under examination, the strangest names may provide the comic relief. The missing proof is the serious business.
ia/xf
