FOR several days, the impeachment proceedings, more specifically the prosecution, have been trying to turn P612.5 million in confidential funds against Vice President Sara Duterte into one of the most politically explosive figures in Philippine politics.
Indeed, there are certainly questions that deserve answers. Allegedly, there are suspicious acknowledgment receipts, unusual aliases, lack of documentation, Commission on Audit (COA) findings and disallowances.
But an equally important question has emerged from the Senate impeachment trial: Has the prosecution actually proved that Sara Duterte personally misappropriated P612.5 million? So far, the answer is far less straightforward than the political rhetoric suggests.
Article I
Article I of the ongoing impeachment trial accuses Duterte of misusing confidential funds totaling P612.5 million: P500 million under the Office of the Vice President (OVP) and P112.5 million under the Department of Education (DepEd) when she served as education secretary. The prosecution has traced the release and encashment of the funds, and has moved into the COA audit records.
Yet tracing money from the Treasury to a government account, and from that account into a cash advance, is not the same as proving, in any case, where the money ultimately went or whether Sara Duterte pocketed it. That evidentiary bridge remains critical and not proven.
Former state auditor Roderick Wamil’s testimony has exposed alleged weaknesses in the OVP’s liquidation system, which is perhaps an audit deficiency. Yes, these are serious matters, but they are not automatically theft.
The OVP submitted 845 acknowledgment receipts covering its P125-million confidential expenditure in the fourth quarter of 2022. Wamil testified that it was the first time he had encountered an agency whose submission consisted entirely of acknowledgment receipts. Around P75 million were subject to audit observations or requests for further documentation.
Indeed, this is hardly trivial. But the same testimony also revealed something important. An Audit Observation Memorandum (AOM) is not, by itself, a finding that money was stolen. Wamil agreed that an AOM essentially demands explanations and supporting documents. A notice of suspension represents another stage; restitution becomes relevant upon a notice of disallowance. A final COA ruling may establish liability to return funds, but even that is not identical to a finding that an official personally stole the funds. Thus, the prosecution therefore faces a distinction that cannot simply be wished away: Lack of documentation in liquidation is not automatically personal misappropriation or theft.
Indeed, based on the evidence and witnesses presented by the prosecution, it has still not been able to establish or prove whether Sara Duterte allegedly ordered fictitious transactions, knowingly approved fabricated receipts, diverted money for private purposes or personally benefited from confidential funds. Another problem for the prosecution is that the P612.5-million figure is misleading precisely because even COA did not say that the whole amount vanished into Duterte’s pockets. It did not.
There’s an enormous difference between saying: “P612.5 million in confidential funds is subject to audit proceedings and scrutiny,” and alleging or alluding that “Sara Duterte stole P612.5 million.”
In constitutional accountability, adjectives cannot substitute for evidence and repetition cannot turn an allegation into an established fact. Accountability requires accuracy, even when it complicates the preferred political narrative of those who want the Vice President politically crucified and convicted.
Thus, the most relevant question is: Where is the link to Sara Duterte? This is perhaps the ultimate and biggest problem for the prosecution.
Note that confidential government funds must be released before they can be spent. Proving that a check was encashed proves that money moved. It does not, by itself, prove that it ended in the personal account of the vice president. Hence, the prosecution has established the release and encashment of the funds. Nothing more.
Marcos “is” not a spectator
Moreover, there is also an uncomfortable political fact in this story. The presidential authorization complicates the political narrative against the VP. The official record confirms that the P125-million OVP confidential fund for 2022 was released from the national contingent fund with President Marcos’ approval, upon a favorable recommendation from the Department of Budget and Management. The Office of the Executive Secretary publicly defended that release as legally authorized and said Marcos supported Duterte’s programs at the time.
This does not legalize any possible improper subsequent spending. Authorization to receive funds is different from lawful utilization and liquidation. But it weakens any suggestion that Duterte secretly or unilaterally created the entire allocation. Hence, Marcos Jr. was not an innocent bystander in the P125-million 2022 release; he approved it when the political alliance was intact and convenient. Thus, the remaining P375 million for the OVP and P112.5 million for DepEd must therefore be analyzed according to their respective appropriations and releases, not through speculations.
Selective accountability
All these bring us to the larger problem. Public accountability loses credibility when it appears selective. If confidential and intelligence funds deserve forensic scrutiny, and they absolutely do, then every office entrusted with billions in such funds must face comparable scrutiny, right?
Consider the scale. The Office of the President spent about P4.5 billion on confidential and intelligence funds in 2022, even though that year straddled the Duterte and Marcos presidencies. It spent around P4.56 billion in 2023 and P4.5 billion in 2024, with another P4.5 billion allocated for 2025. That puts the four-year figure at roughly P18 billion.
The OVP, by comparison, received P500 million in confidential funds across 2022 and 2023, and none thereafter in this comparison, roughly 1/36th of the amount the presidential office received. Yet which allocation has dominated congressional investigations, headlines and now an impeachment trial? The smaller one? Is that not selective accountability?
Conclusion
Accountability applies to everyone in government, especially those in the highest positions, and proportionality demands fair oversight. Otherwise, we create a peculiar system in which hundreds of millions are dissected because the political relationship between the top two highest-ranking elected government officials collapsed, while billions elsewhere are treated with comparatively little public curiosity. That is not principled accountability. It is politically selective accountability.
Accountability is indispensable to democracy. But selective accountability destroys its credibility. And if the principle is truly that every peso of confidential funds must be accounted for, then by all means let us not just investigate Sara Duterte’s so-called P612.5-million confidential funds; let’s bring out the books for everybody else, including the president’s roughly more than P18 billion of confidential and intelligence funds.
The Office of the President, the OVP, the Department of National Defense, the police, the military and intelligence agencies should all be subject to rigorous institutional mechanisms that verify confidential expenditures without compromising legitimate national-security operations.
Nevertheless, no serious observer should demand the public disclosure of operational intelligence sources. Confidentiality exists for legitimate reasons: intelligence gathering, counterterrorism, national security and law enforcement cannot function if every informant and operation is broadcast publicly. But secrecy should protect operations, not officials from accountability.
Indeed, the prosecution has demonstrated audit red flags. It has presented audit deficiencies and disallowances. What it has not conclusively demonstrated is the allegation being repeated outside the Senate chamber: that Sara Duterte personally stole or deliberately misappropriated the entire P612.5 million. Again, it did not.
