‘Audit notice proof of VP funds misuse’

Lead prosecutor and Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro said all public funds, including confidential funds, are subject to COA audit and must comply with Joint Circular 2015-01, which governs the release, disbursement and liquidation of confidential and intelligence funds. Prosecution witness Roderick Wamil, formerly with the COA Intelligence and Confidential Funds Audit Office, testified this week that the OVP withdrew the full P125-million confidential fund allocation for each of the first three quarters of 2023, noting that the first- and second-quarter accomplishment reports included P82 million for medical and food aid, and P20 million for incentives or travel related to confidential operations. “All public funds are subject to audit. Regardless of the type of fund — as long as it is a public fund — it must adhere to regulations imposed by law. Specifically, regarding confidential funds, there must be compliance with the regulations set forth in Joint Circular 2015-01,” Luistro said in English and Filipino during an online press conference on Thursday. “We should view Joint Circular 2015-01 as the governing regulation for the entitlement, disbursement and liquidation of confidential and intelligence funds. This means that when it comes to confidential funds, our focus should be on whether or not there is compliance with Joint Circular 2015-01,” she added. The supposed repeated noncompliance of the OVP to provide documentary and liquidation requirements led to the issuance of notices of disallowance, the lawmaker said. House prosecutors cited reports that COA issued notices of disallowance covering P375 million in the OVP’s 2023 confidential funds due to alleged irregularities in their use and liquidation. “If the COA — specifically its auditors — determines that there are irregularities in the expenditure of public funds, the matter reaches the stage of a notice of disallowance. This means that, in the view of the COA auditors, the documents submitted by an agency — such as the OVP — do not match up,” House prosecution private counsel Virgil Ligutan said in the same virtual briefing. “Essentially, the COA is requiring an official or an agency to return the funds. While this does not constitute a criminal conviction, a notice of disallowance carries significant weight; the funds must be returned because the COA has uncovered an irregularity,” he added. The OVP has repeatedly disputed allegations of wrongdoing in its handling of confidential funds. The House prosecution team maintained Duterte must now face the impeachment court and directly answer the complaints against her. House legal spokesman Benjamin Tolosa Jr. said the vice president has no other opportunity to address the allegations against her after the Supreme Court dismissed petitions challenging the House impeachment proceedings. Tolosa noted that the Court’s ruling makes clear that the proper venue for Duterte’s defense is the impeachment court.“If the vice president has answers, she must present them here before the Impeachment Court. If she has evidence, she must show it here,” he said. The Supreme Court on Aug. 5 dismissed the consolidated petitions seeking to nullify the House impeachment proceedings against Duterte, ruling the challenges moot because the chamber had already transmitted the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. The Senate impeachment court on Thursday said the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the petitions questioning the House of Representatives’ impeachment proceedings affirms that the House has completed its constitutional role and that jurisdiction over the case now rests exclusively with the Senate sitting as an impeachment court. In a statement, Senate impeachment court spokesman Regie Tongol said the Senate acknowledges the Supreme Court en banc’s Aug. 5 announcement of its dismissal of the petitions, ruling that the issues raised had become moot following the transmittal of the Articles of Impeachment. Tongol said the high court’s action reinforces the constitutional separation between the House’s role in initiating impeachment complaints and the Senate’s authority to hear and decide impeachment cases. Luistro said the Supreme Court’s dismissal of petitions questioning Duterte’s impeachment ended attempts to block the Senate trial, saying the constitutional issues raised against the House proceedings have already been settled. Luistro said the ruling affirms the House’s exclusive constitutional authority to initiate impeachment cases and the Senate’s exclusive power to try and decide them. “I hope that with this decision of the Supreme Court, the issues being raised against the proceedings of the House Committee on Justice have finally been settled,” Luistro said. She said she hopes the same constitutional issues will no longer be raised when the impeachment trial resumes on Monday, adding that proceedings should continue before the Senate impeachment court. The petitions alleged that the House Committee on Justice conducted a “mini-trial,” engaged in a fishing expedition, prejudged the impeachment complaints before the clarificatory hearing, violated the Constitution’s one-year bar rule and acted on an invalid referral from the House plenary. Luistro said the Court’s ruling reinforces the constitutional powers assigned to both chambers of Congress in impeachment proceedings. Tindig Pilipinas co-convenor Kiko Aquino-Dee welcomed the Supreme Court’s ruling as a sign there would no longer be any impediment to the ongoing impeachment process. Judges urged to be impartial Presidential Communications Office Undersecretary Claire Castro called on the senator-judges to be impartial in the impeachment trial of Duterte. In a press briefing on Thursday, Castro said there were observations that some senator-judges “act as lawyers [for Duterte], which should not be the case.” The Palace press officer declined to identify the concerned senator-judges, but some members of the Senate minority bloc are allied with Duterte. “Everyone has watched the impeachment trial. So, you’ll see the senator-judges who conduct the cross-examination [of witnesses],” she said in Filipino. “Because they must be impartial, the senator-judges should not be biased,” Castro said. “So, it’s not their mandate to sweep the truth under the rug.” WITH ARIC JOHN SY CUA