HOUSE prosecutor and Bicol Saro party-list Rep. Terry Ridon on Tuesday said the Office of the Vice President (OVP) sought a softer audit action from the Commission on Audit (COA) after irregularities were found in its use of the confidential and intelligence funds.
Ridon tagged this as an “irregular” and “audacious” attempt to influence the COA.
In a briefing following the conclusion of Day 12 of the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, Ridon asserted that it was improper for OVP and Department of Education officials to ask state auditors to issue an “audit query” instead of an Audit Observation Memorandum, or AOM, after deficiencies were found in the agencies’ confidential fund submissions.
“The people involved at the OVP and the Department of Education have quite a lot of nerve to even raise an audit query with the Commission on Audit,” Ridon said in Filipino.
Only COA has the authority to decide what audit document to issue to a government agency.
“It is not subject to a request. It is not subject to a favor by any other agency,” Ridon said.
“They tried to influence the agency. Instead of issuing an Audit Observation Memorandum for both the OVP and the Department of Education, they wanted a slap on the wrist, an audit query memorandum,” he added.
The congressman said the request suggested that the officials were aware that formal audit findings were imminent and sought to avoid the issuance of an AOM.
“They knew that an audit observation was forthcoming. ‘Let’s have a meeting, maybe it’s possible, just an audit query,’” he said.
Former COA Intelligence and Confidential Funds Audit Office (Icfao) auditor Roderick Wamil earlier testified that OVP Chief of Staff Zuleika Lopez and Michael Poa, then DepEd chief of staff and spokesman, met with COA officials in September 2023 and requested that state auditors issue a less formal “audit query” rather than an AOM regarding potential deficiencies in confidential funds.
COA rejected the request, noting it was not an authorized procedure, and subsequently issued AOMs due to missing documents and noncompliant liquidations, Wamil said.
Unsupported or disallowed expenses
During the 12th day of the impeachment trial, Wamil said the P375 million in confidential fund expenses of the OVP for the first three quarters of 2023 were either unsupported or outside the allowable uses under government rules.
Wamil said 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.
These were reportedly not included in the exclusive list of allowable confidential expenses under Joint Circular No. 2015-01.
“If it is not included there, their confidential funds cannot be used for it,” Wamil said in Filipino during direct examination by private prosecutor Lorna Kapunan.
He identified the vice president’s signatures on three disbursement vouchers after comparing them with specimen signatures submitted by the OVP.
“The significance of this disbursement voucher is that it initiates the processing of their cash advance,” Wamil added. “The vice president certified their cash advances as necessary, according to the law, and incurred under her direct supervision.” He also testified that the OVP reported P42 million in medical and food aid for the first quarter, P40 million for the second quarter, and P10 million in incentives or travel expenses for each quarter, but submitted no proof of payment, official receipts or supporting documents.
He added that the OVP reported P15 million in rewards in the first quarter, P12 million in the second quarter and P35 million in the third quarter without evidence that information from informants resulted in successful intelligence-gathering or surveillance operations, contrary to the documentary requirements.
The OVP’s Physical and Financial Plan failed to identify the specific confidential activities for which the funds would be used, contrary to Item 4.2 of the Joint Circular, the COA official said.
Wamil also testified that the DepEd, under Duterte, did not submit a list of confidential activities to justify the use of P112.5 million in confidential funds released in 2023.
Wamil said the three Physical and Financial Plans (PFPs) of the DepEd, all signed by Duterte in her capacity as Education secretary, did not contain a detailed list of confidential activities that would serve as the basis for the release and use of the confidential funds.
Documents presented before the impeachment court showed that DepEd identified broad expenditure categories but did not provide detailed supporting activities for the confidential fund releases. Among the reported allocations were P9.2 million for counterinsurgency programs, P9.14 million for anti-illegal activities operations, and P9.035 million for anti-extremism and anti-terrorism programs.
The prosecution also presented disbursement vouchers showing that the cash advances covering the confidential funds for the three quarters were approved and signed by Duterte.
His testimony came as the House prosecution panel continued presenting evidence under Article I of Duterte’s impeachment case involving the alleged misuse of confidential funds.
Scam or not a scam?
During a break in the trial, Kapunan described the alleged misuse of Duterte’s P612.5 million in confidential funds as a “scam against the people,” citing audit findings that questioned whether the funds were used for their declared purposes and supported by documentary evidence.
The impeachment proceedings involve P500 million in confidential funds released to the OVP and P112.5 million received by the DepEd while Duterte concurrently served as Education secretary.
“The victims of the scam are the ordinary people. The scam is worth P612 million,” Kapunan told reporters in Filipino, and likened the issue to asking a parent for money to buy books but spending it on makeup or a date instead.
Kapunan said the issue was not the aliases appearing in acknowledgment receipts but whether the confidential funds reached their intended purpose and subsequently if they were properly accounted for and supported by receipts.
“We aren’t emphasizing the names. What we are pointing out is the amount and how it was used. There are no receipts,” she said.
“Regardless of the name involved, where was it used? What is the evidence that it was used for medicines? What is the evidence that it was used for supplies? What is the evidence that it was used for the safe house?” she added.
The defense team pushed back against Kapunan’s description of the OVP’s confidential funds as a “scam,” calling it a mischaracterization of the evidence presented before the Senate impeachment court.
Poa said Kapunan’s statement went beyond the testimony of Wamil, who was discussing an Audit Observation Memorandum (AOM) involving the OVP’s confidential funds.
Poa maintained that whether the confidential funds amounted to a scam should be established through witness testimony and evidence, “not by the lawyers.” The issue arose during Tuesday’s hearing when Kapunan used the word “scam” while questioning Wamil on the OVP’s confidential funds, prompting the defense to object, and to have it stricken from the record.
Poa said he believed Escudero understood the basis of the defense’s objection.
During the cross-examination of Wamil, Poa presented a 2014 letter from then Vice President Jejomar Binay asking for P6 million in confidential funds, to correct the impression that Duterte was the only vice president to have confidential funds.
Wamil testified on Monday that Duterte was the only vice president he audited because she was the only one with a confidential fund appropriation during his tenure.
“I wanted to protect the rights of my client, especially against this misleading information that she was the only vice president who had confidential funds. I think that’s unfair,” Poa said.
He said the witness’s testimony referred only to the period he served at the Intelligence and Confidential Funds Audit Office, but was later interpreted to mean Duterte was the only vice president in Philippine history to have confidential funds.
‘Duterte was accountable’
During redirect examination, Kapunan asked Wamil whether a presidential grant of confidential funds relieved Duterte of the obligation to liquidate the funds and submit supporting documents.
Wamil replied that the recipient of confidential funds must still comply with existing COA guidelines and documentary requirements.
“She has an obligation to liquidate the funds,” Wamil said.
“Since confidential funds are public funds, it must be properly accounted for. Therefore, all cash advances under the confidential funds must be liquidated properly and completely,” he added.
In the cross-examination, Wamil confirmed it was the Office of the President that approved the vice president’s confidential funds.
31 days requested
The House prosecution panel has requested 31 trial days to present witnesses and documentary evidence supporting its allegations that Duterte misused more than P612.5 million in confidential funds.
Senate impeachment court spokesman Reginald Tongol said the timetable was disclosed during the pretrial conference, where prosecutors outlined the scope of their evidence for Article I of the impeachment complaint, which accuses Duterte of the misuse and misappropriation of confidential funds of the OVP and the DepEd.
Tongol said the prosecution initially listed 27 witnesses but has since informed the impeachment court that it intends to present only 13 of them.
Despite the reduction in the number of witnesses, Tongol said the length of the proceedings would largely depend on the authentication and identification of documentary evidence that prosecutors intend to offer during the trial.
He noted that prosecutors informed the impeachment court that they have more than 3,000 documentary exhibits concerning the confidential funds, all contained in 15 boxes, which they began presenting during Day 11 of the impeachment trial.
The large volume of documentary evidence is expected to consume a significant portion of the proceedings as each document must be properly identified, authenticated and formally offered before it can be admitted as evidence.
