IMEE MARCOS BROUGHT UP BINAY. SHE MADE DUTERTE’S SITUATION LOOK WORSE

Senator Imee Marcos had a document showing that ₱6 million had been allotted to the Office of the Vice President during Jejomar Binay’s term. She used it while questioning former Commission on Audit auditor Roderick Wamil about Sara Duterte’s confidential funds.

Had another vice president received confidential funds before Duterte? The 2014 document supported that limited point.

But Marcos’s comparison gave Wamil an opening to explain how different the two records were.

No liquidation report was presented showing that Binay’s office used the ₱6-million allotment. Duterte’s office reported ₱125 million as spent from December 21 to 31, 2022 and submitted liquidation documents that COA later examined.

Marcos wanted Wamil to answer yes or no.

“Mag-yes or no ka lang. Kanina ka pa eh. Inaaway mo ’ko eh,” she told him during the August 5 hearing.

A one-word answer would have left out the facts the public needed to hear. The Binay record showed an allotment. Duterte’s record included reported spending, 849 acknowledgment receipts, questioned expenses, certifications signed by Duterte, difficulty serving a formal audit memorandum, and a request for COA to use another form of audit action.

Marcos reached for Binay to make confidential funds under Duterte look ordinary. The comparison showed how far Duterte’s record had gone beyond the simple existence of an allotment.

WHAT THE BINAY DOCUMENT SHOWED

The document presented by Duterte’s defense was a Special Allotment Release Order, commonly called a SARO. It gave the Office of the Vice President authority to incur obligations up to the approved amount.

The document alone did not prove that the entire ₱6 million was released in cash, spent, and later liquidated. Wamil said COA had no liquidation report showing that Binay’s OVP used the money.

Some reports have claimed that the allotment was returned. I could not find a primary COA record, return receipt, or remittance document showing when and how the full amount was returned, so I will not present that claim as settled.

What we know is limited. Binay’s OVP had a ₱6-million confidential-fund allotment in 2014, but no liquidation report was presented during the hearing showing that his office spent it.

That does not prove Binay followed every rule governing the allotment. Without a verified spending and liquidation record, there is little conduct available for us to examine.

It also gave Marcos no basis for treating Binay’s case as an example of another vice president doing what Duterte did. Duterte’s OVP reported actual spending and submitted liquidation papers that allowed COA to examine how the money was used.

THE ₱125 MILLION SPENT IN 11 DAYS

Duterte’s OVP reported the entire ₱125 million as spent from December 21 to 31, 2022, an 11-day period at the end of the year. The speed attracted suspicion, but Wamil acknowledged during cross-examination that Joint Circular No. 2015-01 did not set a minimum number of days for using confidential funds.

Spending the money within 11 days was not automatically illegal simply because it happened quickly. The harder questions came from the purposes claimed by the OVP and the documents submitted after the office declared the money spent.

The 2014 SARO showed that money had once been made available to another OVP. Duterte’s liquidation allowed auditors to examine completed transactions.

THE 849 ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPTS

Wamil testified that the liquidation of the ₱125 million was supported by 849 acknowledgment receipts. He said those receipts were not accompanied by official receipts or sales invoices.

Asked about his previous audit work, Wamil said other agencies had submitted official receipts. He described Duterte’s OVP as the first agency he had personally encountered whose confidential expenses were supported only by acknowledgment receipts.

Wamil was describing his own years as an auditor, not issuing an official COA finding covering every government agency in Philippine history. He had spent around ten years auditing confidential and intelligence funds, so his observation still carried weight.

An acknowledgment receipt can show that a person claims to have received money, goods, or another form of payment. It may not contain the seller’s name, the items purchased, the individual prices, or the business that completed the transaction.

Confidential funds allow some details to be protected. The identities of informants and the details of ongoing operations cannot simply be released to the public.

COA still needs enough protected documentation to determine whether public money was used for an allowed purpose and whether the government received what it paid for. Wamil testified that the OVP’s acknowledgment receipts did not provide enough support for the reported expenses.

The old Binay SARO could show that an allotment existed years earlier. It could not validate the papers Duterte’s OVP submitted after spending its own funds.

MEDICAL AND FOOD ASSISTANCE

Wamil also testified that Duterte’s OVP reported ₱42 million in medical and food assistance during the first quarter of 2023 and another ₱40 million during the second quarter. He said those expenses were not included among the allowed uses of confidential funds under Item 4.8 of Joint Circular No. 2015-01.

The circular governs the release, use, reporting, and audit of confidential and intelligence funds. For civilian agencies, it lists activities connected to surveillance, intelligence gathering, counterintelligence, threats against the agency, and related operations tied to the agency’s legal functions.

Medical and food assistance can be valid government services when funded through the proper program and budget item. Wamil’s testimony was that they did not belong under confidential funds.

The defense may dispute that interpretation and explain why it believed the expenses supported the OVP’s functions. The impeachment court will decide how much weight to give the testimony and documents.

Proof that another OVP once had a confidential-fund allotment says nothing about whether food and medical assistance could be charged against Duterte’s confidential fund in 2023.

MEDICINES AS REWARDS FOR INFORMATION

One acknowledgment receipt discussed during the hearing reportedly covered ₱70,000 worth of medicine given as a reward for information. Senator Risa Hontiveros asked Wamil whether medicines were normally used to compensate intelligence sources.

Wamil said it was the first time he had personally encountered such an arrangement.

The transaction raised basic questions that the acknowledgment receipt could not answer on its own. What medicines were provided? How was the ₱70,000 value calculated? What information did the government receive? Did it produce a useful result?

Wamil testified that the OVP’s submissions did not provide enough proof showing that some reported reward payments produced successful results or benefited the government. He did not testify that no information had ever been received.

His point was narrower. The records submitted by the OVP did not sufficiently show that the reported rewards produced useful information or a government benefit.

That is an audit deficiency, not proof of a crime. Still, Duterte’s OVP reported the expenses as completed and paid, so COA was entitled to ask what the government received in return.

THE RECORDS DID NOT CONNECT THE MONEY TO RESULTS

Agencies using confidential funds must submit a Physical and Financial Plan describing the activities the money is intended to support. They must also submit accomplishment reports describing what was carried out.

Wamil testified that the OVP’s records did not clearly identify all the confidential activities funded by the ₱125 million or adequately connect the expenses to completed operations.

COA was trying to follow the money from the plan, through the expense, and into the claimed result. Wamil said the documents did not complete that chain for the questioned transactions.

Confidential spending cannot mean that auditors receive little more than broad claims and signatures. Operational details may be protected from public disclosure, but COA still needs records that allow it to examine the legality and use of the money.

According to Wamil, the OVP did not provide enough of that record. The weakness he described went beyond the type of receipt used and reached the planning and reported results behind the expenses.

DUTERTE SIGNED THE CERTIFICATIONS

Wamil identified Duterte’s signatures on documents connected to the confidential funds. These reportedly included disbursement vouchers, liquidation reports, accomplishment reports, and certifications.

He testified that Duterte certified that the cash advances were necessary and legal, had been incurred under her direct supervision, and had accomplished their stated purposes.

Those signatures do not prove that Duterte personally handled every payment or knew every detail written on each acknowledgment receipt. They do explain why Wamil refused to place responsibility only on the special disbursing officer.

Marcos pressed him on who should be accountable for the funds and appeared to want him to identify the officer who held and released the cash. Wamil answered that responsibility could involve both the special disbursing officer and the agency head.

The officer handled the money, while Duterte signed certifications concerning its legality, necessity, supervision, and reported accomplishment. Wamil was explaining why the documents did not support placing all responsibility on only one person.

A yes-or-no answer could not explain that.

THE AOM THE OVP INITIALLY REFUSED TO RECEIVE

COA prepared an Audit Observation Memorandum after finding problems in the records submitted by the OVP. An AOM formally informs an agency about audit observations and gives it a chance to respond, provide more documents, explain its position, or correct deficiencies.

Receiving an AOM does not mean that the agency or its officials have been found guilty of a crime. It begins a formal exchange between the auditors and the office being audited.

Wamil testified that Duterte’s OVP initially refused to receive the AOM because no authorized person was supposedly available to accept it. He said this was the first government agency he had personally encountered that refused to receive one and described the incident as unusual.

The OVP later received the document, but the initial refusal still calls for an explanation. The office had already reported millions of pesos in public funds as spent and should have expected formal audit papers concerning that spending.

THE REQUEST FOR AN “AUDIT QUERY”

Wamil also testified about a meeting involving OVP chief of staff Zuleika Lopez, then Department of Education spokesperson Michael Poa, and COA representatives. According to him, the officials asked whether COA could issue an “audit query” instead of a formal Audit Observation Memorandum.

COA rejected the request because, according to Wamil, Joint Circular No. 2015-01 did not provide for an audit query as a substitute for the AOM. He answered yes when asked whether granting the request would have violated the circular.

Poa later acknowledged remembering the meeting. He said the officials proposed an audit query because they believed such a process might be allowed under other COA rules or audit settings.

That gives us the defense explanation. The officials claimed to believe another audit process was available.

Wamil’s testimony was that the rule governing this confidential-fund audit did not allow the substitute they requested.

The regular AOM process already gave the OVP a way to answer COA. The office could submit records, dispute the auditors’ interpretation, and ask for findings to be corrected.

The OVP eventually used that process, and COA revised the memorandum after considering its response. I could not find the full original AOM, the complete OVP reply, and the revised AOM in a form that would allow a line-by-line comparison.

I therefore cannot say that every observation in the first AOM remained unchanged.

What we can confirm is the sequence. COA prepared an AOM, and the OVP initially refused to receive it. Officials later asked whether COA could use an audit query, which Wamil said the circular did not allow, before the office answered through the formal process.

That leaves a fair question. Why ask for another form of audit action when the AOM process already gave the OVP a chance to challenge the findings?

WHAT MARCOS ACCIDENTALLY EXPOSED

Marcos brought up Binay to prove that confidential funds in the OVP did not begin with Duterte. She established that limited historical point.

Then the comparison began working against her.

No liquidation report was presented showing that Binay’s office spent the ₱6-million allotment. Duterte’s office reported ₱125 million as spent within 11 days and submitted records that led to a long list of audit questions.

Wamil testified about 849 acknowledgment receipts without accompanying official receipts or sales invoices. He discussed medical and food expenses that he said were not allowed under the confidential-fund circular, medicines reportedly used as rewards, weak proof of results, and planning documents that did not clearly connect the money to completed confidential operations.

Duterte signed certifications covering the legality, necessity, supervision, and accomplishment of the expenses. Her office also initially refused to receive the formal audit memorandum, while officials later asked COA about an audit query that Wamil said the governing circular did not provide.

The Binay SARO could not answer any of those findings. It showed that another OVP had once been allotted confidential funds, but it did not show that Binay’s office used them in the same way Duterte’s office used its own funds.

Marcos tried to make Duterte’s confidential funds look like something earlier vice presidents had also done. She ended up inviting everyone to compare an allotment with no liquidation report presented against completed spending followed by serious audit questions.

The comparison made Duterte’s situation harder to explain.

WAMIL SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO FINISH

A simple yes could have left viewers believing that the Binay and Duterte records showed similar conduct. The evidence discussed during the hearing showed otherwise.

Another OVP had received a confidential-fund allotment, but no liquidation report was presented showing that Binay’s office spent it. Duterte’s OVP reported its money as spent, submitted liquidation documents, and faced detailed questions about what those documents contained and failed to contain.

Wamil was trying to explain that difference. Marcos could have let him finish and then challenged the limits of his testimony.

She could have asked whether COA searched every available Binay-era record or whether the absence of a liquidation report proved that the money was unused. Those questions would have tested his answer without stripping away the facts behind it.

Instead, Marcos demanded yes or no and accused him of arguing with her. The Binay document did not defend Duterte, and Wamil was explaining why.

Marcos should have let him finish.