VICE President Sara Duterte is the primary accountable public official for irregularities in the use of confidential funds by her office in 2022 and 2023, a state auditor testified on the 14th day of Duterte’s impeachment trial.
From Dec. 13 to 31, 2022, the Office of the Vice President (OVP) used confidential funds for activities that were not among those authorized under Joint Circular 2015-01, including a Christmas party, tree planting and the distribution of wheelchairs, said Xylene Mae del Campo, the supervising auditor from the Commission on Audit (COA) Intelligence and Confidential Funds Audit Office (Icfao).
Del Campo presented the activities to the court as part of the examination of the OVP’s use of its confidential funds and the alleged information gathering and surveillance operations purportedly undertaken to support the payment of rewards.
Among the activities identified by del Campo were a Department of Education partners’ appreciation night in Mandaluyong City; the Knights of Rizal Supreme Council’s 60th anniversary event in Baguio City; and a Christmas party at Happy Land in Tondo, Manila.
Other activities charged against the OVP’s confidential funds included tree planting, coordination meetings, distribution of wheelchairs, gift-giving activities, medical missions and other programs conducted by OVP satellite offices in various parts of the country.
Asked by private prosecutor Lorna Kapunan if these activities were among those authorized for funding under Joint Circular 2015-01, which governs the allocation and use of confidential and intelligence funds, del Campo said they were not.
Presiding Officer Senator-Judge Francis Escudero also asked del Campo whether confidential funds could be used to reimburse activities undertaken from Dec. 13 to 20, 2022, before the release of the funds. Del Campo said such reimbursement was not allowed under the joint circular.
The hearing also examined P73.287 million in payments for rewards and fees, including payments purportedly involving tables, chairs, desktop computers and printers.
Del Campo said the payments were not supported by sales invoices or official receipts, raising additional questions about the documentary support for the liquidation of the OVP’s confidential funds.
Fishy names
Kapunan presented several acknowledgment receipts submitted by the OVP in response to an Audit Observation Memorandum (AOM). The documents contained names that she noted were similar to the surnames of several senators and other prominent personalities.
Among the names cited during the hearing were Ralph and Josh Bacon, Anne Ongpauco, Heart Santiago, Beth Revilla, Clarisse Hontiveros, Jose Diokno Jr. and Diane Maple Lapid.
Kapunan asked del Campo whether COA auditors had sought clarification from Escudero about whether Ongpauco and Heart Santiago were related to his wife.
Del Campo said COA auditors did not undertake such validation, explaining that the auditors’ role was limited to determining whether the liquidation documents submitted by the OVP complied with the requirements of Joint Circular 2015-01.
The testimony forms part of the prosecution’s presentation of evidence concerning the alleged misuse of confidential funds by the OVP and the Department of Education, which was headed by Duterte until her resignation as Education secretary in July 2024.
The OVP also failed to comply with government rules on the use of confidential funds in the first, second and third quarter of 2023, del Campo said.
She testified that the certification covering the OVP’s confidential activities for the third quarter of 2023 did not conform to the requirements of Joint Circular 2015-01.
The certification was issued by Col. Raymund Dante Lachica, then head of the Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group (VPSPG), and was submitted in support of the payment of rewards supposedly arising from confidential activities conducted by the OVP.
Del Campo, however, said the documents did not contain sufficient evidence showing that the reported activities produced accomplishments or results that would justify the payment of rewards.
She noted that the certification did not establish whether the surveillance activities yielded concrete results, such as the arrest or identification of members of the New People's Army (NPA), which she cited as an example of the type of accomplishment that could substantiate the claimed intelligence operations.
Del Campo also drew attention to the nature of the activities listed in the Protective Intelligence Operations Reports (PIOR) attached to the certification.
Among the activities reported were meetings, attendance at commencement exercises, tree-planting activities, courtesy visits, coordination meetings and awards ceremonies, none of which are allowed under Joint Circular 2015-01.
She said similar activities had also been reported in the OVP's first and second-quarter confidential fund reports in 2023, as well as the report for December 2022.
Cash advance transfer also flagged
Del Campo further identified another alleged violation involving the release of the confidential fund cash advance.
She said Duterte's special disbursing officer (SDO), Gina Acosta, was instructed to release the cash advance to Lachica.
Under Joint Circular 2015-01, however, a special disbursing officer who receives a cash advance is not authorized to transfer that cash advance to another officer, del Campo said.
DepEd fund releases
Meanwhile, the DepEd under Duterte released confidential funds in multiple locations on the same dates in 2023, with acknowledgment receipts showing payments made across several provinces and cities, the impeachment court heard Tuesday.
Kapunan presented acknowledgment receipts (ARs) showing that payments were issued in different locations on identical dates.
Among the documents were receipts dated Feb. 21, 2023, issued in Danao, Malolos, Davao City, Negros Occidental, Agusan del Sur, Makati and Negros Oriental.
Another batch of ARs dated Feb. 25, 2023 indicated releases in Masbate, Laoag, Davao City, Agusan del Norte, Olongapo, Samar, Loboc, Pangasinan and Compostela Valley.
The prosecution also presented ARs dated March 15, 2023, covering a much wider list of locations, including Davao City, Tandag, Mindoro, Laguna, Agusan del Norte, Olongapo, Zamboanga City, Butuan City, Nabunturan, Cavite, Surigao del Norte, Quezon City, Iligan City, Tarlac City, Pasay City, Samar, Compostela Valley, San Juan and Ifugao.
Del Campo explained that the places indicated in the acknowledgment receipts referred to the locations where the payments or releases of the confidential funds were made.
The documents were presented as part of the prosecution's examination of how DepEd's confidential funds were disbursed and documented.
The revelation is significant because the impeachment proceedings have been examining the documentary trail behind confidential fund releases, including the identities of recipients, locations of disbursement, and the supporting certifications required under government rules.
Del Campo also distinguished the DepEd documentation from the certification previously presented in connection with the OVP.
Del Campo said the DepEd certification from the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) supported the payment of rewards for confidential activities and, unlike the questioned OVP certification, complied with the requirements of the joint circular governing the use of confidential funds.
The defense team highlighted a COA credit notice covering the DepEd’s confidential funds, saying the issuance showed the agency’s liquidation had been allowed in audit.
Defense lawyer Michael Wesley Poa said the credit notice was issued in August 2024 for DepEd’s use of confidential funds in the first and second quarters.
“A credit notice simply means that after evaluation by the Commission on Audit, the liquidation report, the submissions, and the AOM, they allowed in audit the use of confidential funds,” Poa said during a post-trial press briefing in Senate.
Poa said this meant COA “did not see an issue in the use of confidential funds” at that point, while acknowledging that the credit notice could still be reopened if material new evidence emerges within the prescribed period.
He also pushed back against treating the notice of disallowance involving the Office of the Vice President’s confidential funds as a final finding, saying the OVP remains within the 180-day period to seek a review or appeal before COA.
“So, it’s not that the OVP did not respond and it’s just that it’s still within the period within which the OVP can respond,” Poa said.
Poa said the OVP may still seek reconsideration and eventually appeal to the Supreme Court, adding, “There’s no final decision as long as there’s a remedy.” He said the defense would address the notice of disallowance and the alleged chain-of-custody issue involving the documents during its presentation of evidence before the impeachment court.
Poa stressed that the defense had long raised the existence of the DepEd credit notice and said the public should consider it alongside the fact that COA rules allow such a notice to be reopened if material new evidence emerges.
Defense team chided
Also on Tuesday, Escudero chided the defense team for “ghosting” the prosecution panel as it did not respond to repeated requests for a meeting to compare documents to be presented before the tribunal.
During the 14th day of Duterte's impeachment trial, Kapunan accused the defense team of ignoring a meeting request to stipulate documents, colloquially describing the brush-off as "inindian." In making his ruling for the defense to submit their pre-marked evidence to the impeachment court to be studied by the senator-judges, Escudero told Kapunan that Duterte's lawyers may have “ghosted” her.
"Maybe you got ghosted because they didn’t respond to you. But having said that... the chair would like to request the counsels for respondent to kindly furnish the court with a copy of the marked pieces of evidence during pre-trial," Escudero said.
"So in lieu of meeting, kindly just submit that, attorney Kristine [Ferrer], so that we can do the comparison ourselves either as a court or through the individual senator-judges," he added.
Last Wednesday, the impeachment court, through Escudero, ordered both the prosecution and defense to meet either Thursday or Friday last week so they can agree on the veracity of the documents they possess and will submit as evidence before the tribunal.
But Kapunan said they received no reply from the defense, saying that the defense’s stonewalling dragged on until the end of office hours on Thursday last week.
"This is what happened: we were ignored," Kapunan told the impeachment court.
"The presiding officer’s directive to agree on a date — specifically Thursday or Friday of last week — was very clear. That constitutes bad faith, Your Honor, because the presiding officer had specified those dates — Thursday or Friday of last week. Yet, the defense claim that the presiding officer made nothing of the sort," she added.
