Only VP can explain disallowed transfers’

“I think no one else can explain that but the vice president,” prosecution counsel and spokesman Benjamin Tolosa Jr. said in Filipino as Day 14 of the impeachment trial of Duterte wrapped up on Tuesday. OVP special disbursing officer (SDO) Gina Acosta and former DepEd SDO Edward Fajarda testified before the House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability in November 2024 that confidential funds were turned over to the vice president’s security officers instead of being personally disbursed by them. At the time, Acosta said she transferred the cash advance for the confidential funds to then-head of the Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group (VPSPG) Col. Raymund Lachica upon Duterte’s directive. Fajarda also admitted that he gave the cash advance for DepEd’s confidential funds to Col. Dennis Nolasco, one of Duterte’s security aides. Tolosa said the testimony indicated that the transfer of responsibility violated rules governing cash advances for confidential funds. “We want to hear directly from the vice president what her explanation is regarding this matter — especially since it is clear, and we heard it ourselves, that she was the one who ordered this, which constitutes a direct violation of the joint circular,” Tolosa said, referring to Joint Circular 2015-01. House prosecutor and Kabataan Party-list Rep. Renee Co, meanwhile, noted that the SDOs exercised authority delegated by the heads of their respective agencies. “At the end of the day, their authority as SDO was delegated. The person who delegated it was the head of the agency, VP Sara Duterte,” she said. The lawmaker asserted that accountability does not end with the SDOs because Duterte approved and signed documents related to the use and liquidation of the confidential funds. Calls for Duterte to explain the disallowed fund transfers come ahead of the expected appearance of Acosta and Fajarda at Duterte’s impeachment trial. Tolosa warned of perjury risks should witnesses in the impeachment trial reverse or recant statements they previously made under oath. Irregular expenditures  Testifying on the 15th day of the impeachment trial on Wednesday, state auditor Xylene del Campo maintained that the confidential fund expenditures by the OVP and DepEd were deemed “irregular” for failing to comply with documentation requirements. Del Campo, a witness from the Commission on Audit-Intelligence and Confidential Funds Audit Office (COA-ICFAO), testified that some disbursements, including purchases of medicines, supplies and food aid, were supported only by acknowledgment receipts and lacked invoices or sales receipts needed to verify the expenses. “Their spending was irregular because it did not comply with the Joint Circular,” del Campo said, when asked by Senator-Judge Risa Hontiveros about COA’s review indicating that confidential fund spending by OVP and the DepEd were deemed “irregular.” “Because payment of rewards was not supported with documents evidencing success, and they failed to provide the additional documents needed to verify the procurement of supplies as well as medical and food aid. We also noted findings regarding reimbursements,” she added. Del Campo, who issued Notices of Disallowance against the OVP after it spent P125 million in confidential funds in just 11 days from Dec. 20, 2022 to Dec. 31, 2022, said proper invoices are strictly required by the COA to prove that actual purchases occurred. “When we buy supplies for food, medicine... it’s standard procedure that there would be receipts that will be issued by the establishment where they bought the supplies, food and medicine,” del Campo told the Court, in response to the Presiding Officer Francis Escudero about the agency’s procedure of asking for receipts, del Campo said these are long-established auditing standards that apply to all government agencies. She said other supporting documents would not be sufficient to substantiate such purchases. Despite this, the OVP, through Chief of Staff Zuleika Lopez, told the COA in a March 13, 2024, letter that it was “unnecessary to request for invoices or official receipts as evidence of payments due to the confidential nature of surveillance and monitoring activities.” To this, del Campo said commercial establishments selling basic office supplies or commercial goods are not considered confidential. “Receipts are needed so we can prove that they really used the funds to buy tables and chairs,” she added. Del Campo also said that part of the items that the OVP said it acquired using confidential funds include P34.9 million for “various goods” as reward payment, P24.9 million for “medicines” also as reward payment, P11.8 million for “purchased supplies,” P3 million for desktop computers and printers, P500,000 for tables and chairs, and P10 million for van rentals and trucking services. Protective Intelligence Operations Report  Duterte’s defense team presented documents showing that security and intelligence activities conducted by her security detail were carried out as part of preparations for her official engagements in 2023, seeking to establish that such activities were legitimate uses of confidential funds. Defense lawyer Kristine Ferrer examined the confidential activities and engagements prepared by Lachica, head of the VPSPG.A certification issued by Lachica stated that surveillance and information-gathering operations were conducted in 127 areas during the first quarter of 2023 and 111 areas in the second quarter. Ferrer questioned del Campo about her testimony the previous day concerning activities listed by the Office of the Vice President under Item 4.8.5 of Joint Circular 2015-01. Del Campo had testified that the engagements listed under the provision did not constitute confidential activities that could be charged against confidential funds. Ferrer, however, pointed to the Protective Intelligence Operations Report, particularly its summary of intelligence work, which contained activities that del Campo acknowledged as falling within intelligence and surveillance operations. Among the activities listed were coordinating with Philippine National Police intelligence operatives and informants for threat assessments in areas where the vice president was scheduled to travel; profiling participants attending events; and deploying intelligence operatives and informants along routes and at event venues. Ferrer also presented lists of Duterte’s engagements for the second and third quarters of 2023, with del Campo acknowledging that the corresponding security and surveillance activities formed part of intelligence operations. The defense sought to use the documents to distinguish routine official engagements from the intelligence and protective operations undertaken to secure the vice president and assess potential threats. The presentation, however, was marked by a dispute between Ferrer and prosecution lawyer Lorna Kapunan over the scope and limitations of the defense’s cross-examination of the witness. The exchange centered on whether the defense could further examine documents and activities that it argued were relevant to determining whether the confidential expenditures were properly classified and utilized under existing government rules. Funny names The defense panel also asked del Campo whether unusual names appearing in acknowledgment receipts could indicate that the listed payees were fictitious. Del Campo reiterated that auditors did not verify the identities of the individuals named as recipients of confidential funds because the audit conducted was limited to determining compliance with documentary and procedural requirements. Ferrer asked del Campo whether an alias could be considered questionable or fictitious if the name used was “funny.” Del Campo said the audit findings did not make such a determination. She also clarified that the two notices of disallowance and the Audit Observation Memorandum issued in connection with the questioned transactions did not specifically cite the use of “funny names” as an audit finding. The exchange prompted another objection from Kapunan, who argued that Ferrer’s line of questioning had already been addressed by the witness. Kapunan said the question was misleading and had no bearing on the use of confidential funds if the names were merely incidental, humorous or even names of lawmakers. Presiding Officer Sen. Francis Escudero intervened, allowing the defense to pursue its questioning. P560 million needs to be returned Under questioning by Senator-Judge Erwin Tulfo, del Campo said more than P560 million in public funds from the OVP and DepEd are covered by COA findings requiring their return. However, the amounts have not yet been recovered because the agencies still have remedies available to contest the audit actions. Del Campo explained that a notice of disallowance means a particular expenditure was disallowed in the audit and creates a demand for the return of public funds. “In ICFAO, when we issue a disallowance, there is a demand to return the public funds,” del Campo said. But del Campo said those funds had not been returned because the OVP appealed the audit findings and still had remedies available before the COA Commission Proper. For the OVP’s 2022 transactions, she said the Commission Proper had already affirmed the notice of disallowance. However, the OVP subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration, which remains pending. For the OVP’s 2023 transactions, del Campo said COA had issued notices of disallowance totaling P375 million, plus another P73.287 million covering the fourth quarter of 2023. The latter notices were issued on March 31, 2026, and the OVP remains within the prescribed 180-day period to appeal before the Commission Proper. Taken together, the OVP amounts cited by del Campo total about P448.3 million. The senator then asked about the corresponding amount involving DepEd, which also received confidential funds subject to COA examination. Del Campo said COA had issued credit notices covering the first and second quarters of 2023, while the third-quarter transaction remained under review and evaluation. She placed the amount involved at P112.5 million, covering the first to third quarters of 2023. She clarified that DepEd had no confidential fund budget in 2022. The combined amounts cited during the exchange — about P448.3 million for the OVP and P112.5 million for DepEd — come to about P560.8 million. Defense lawyer takes offense  The 15th day of the impeachment trial was also marked by a flareup between Ferrer and Kapunan, which led Escudero to urge both counsels not to let the “generational divide” heighten the tension. The exchange began after Kapunan objected to Ferrer’s repeated request for the witness to answer “yes or no,” arguing that not all questions can be answered that way and that misleading questions are not allowed even during cross-examination.Ferrer maintained that such questions are allowed. “Counsels, please. Let’s not allow the generational divide or seeming generational divide to increase tension in the courtroom. Let’s keep it a notch lower,” Escudero said. Kapunan then quipped, “Your Honor, please. I am preventing myself from giving her a spanking, your Honor. That is what I would have done in the generational divide,” drawing laughter inside the impeachment court. The exchange continued as Ferrer questioned the witness about a 1992 COA circular. A provision of the circular states that the submission of receipts, bills or commercial invoices in support of disbursements of confidential funds might create a leak of information, endanger the lives of agents and government agencies, and could result to a failure of the mission. When Ferrer asked the witness whether the concepts introduced in the circular were still applicable today, Kapunan objected, saying the defense lawyer was trying to elicit from the witness an opinion “that indirectly runs counter to the expressed provision” of a 2015 joint circular. Kapunan said the joint circular was in recognition of the fact that the old and other circulars on intelligence and confidential funds were inaccurate and inconsistent with each other. Ferrer asked the court to remind the prosecutor not to argue for the witness. Escudero then reminded the counsels for both sides to keep their exchanges civil. “You are all members of the bar, and you are all counsels for the parties. And we will be treating and looking at each one equally,” he added. Kapunan relented, saying she promised to behave from that point forward. Ferrer responded that she respected Kapunan and considered her an idol, but Kapunan quickly cut her off. “Let’s end here. It might sound like a eulogy, Your Honor. I’m still very much alive,” Kapunan said, again drawing laughter from those in the gallery. Later in the trial, Ferrer appealed to the court to caution Kapunan against making what she considered unflattering remarks about her, particularly Kapunan’s earlier comment that she was restraining herself from giving Ferrer “a spanking.” “Maybe she has more years of experience. She has 48 years, I have 15. We should learn to respect each other and refrain from making side comments. And that was captured by the media. That is our request, Your Honor, to just remind the counsel not to make those kinds of remarks,” she added. Escudero said Kapunan had already relented earlier, while Kapunan reiterated her commitment to tone down her remarks. Absences not a concern Also on Wednesday, impeachment court spokesman Reginald Tongol said the absence of some senator-judges from the ongoing impeachment trial does not pose a problem, as long as the chamber maintains a quorum. Tongol said senator-judges may miss proceedings for personal reasons or because of other official duties as senators.“The only time there could be concern is if there is not enough quorum,” Tongol said, noting that the lack of a quorum would prevent the impeachment court from proceeding with the trial. Senator-Judges Loren Legarda and Alan Peter Cayetano were absent during the proceedings on Tuesday and Wednesday, Aug. 11- 12, while Sen. Bong Go attended the Tuesday afternoon session.x`Tongol’s statement came amid continued scrutiny of the attendance of members of the 24-member Senate, which is sitting as an impeachment court to hear the charges against Duterte.