WHAT THE AUGUST 4 IMPEACHMENT HEARING ACTUALLY SHOWED

The twelfth day of Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial focused on a basic accountability question: Can the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education show where their confidential funds went and why the expenses were allowed?

Former Commission on Audit state auditor Roderick Wamil testified that more than ₱200 million in confidential-fund expenses reported by the two offices lacked the supporting documents required under government audit rules.

His testimony strengthened the prosecution’s case that large amounts were poorly documented and that some expenses may not have been allowable uses of confidential funds.

It did not establish that Duterte personally received or pocketed the money.

₱129 MILLION IN OVP EXPENSES WAS FLAGGED

Wamil testified that at least ₱129 million from the OVP’s confidential funds for the first two quarters of 2023 lacked attachments supporting the reported expenses.

The amount included:

• ₱82 million reported as medical and food assistance;

• ₱27 million in reward payments; and

• ₱20 million in travel incentives connected with confidential operations.

According to Wamil, the OVP did not submit documents showing who received the medical and food assistance or how the payments were connected to confidential operations.

He also said medical and food assistance and travel incentives were not among the authorized confidential-fund expenses listed under Joint Circular No. 2015-01.

Reward payments can be charged to confidential funds, but Wamil said they must be connected to successful information-gathering or surveillance activities. He testified that the OVP did not submit documents showing the intelligence activities or results behind the reported ₱27 million in rewards.

This does not prove that every transaction was fictitious. It means the documents submitted to COA were insufficient, according to Wamil, to verify that the expenses were legitimate and allowable.

DEPED’S ₱112.5 MILLION HAD SIMILAR DOCUMENTATION PROBLEMS

The Department of Education received ₱112.5 million in confidential funds during the first three quarters of 2023. The money was divided into three allocations of ₱37.5 million.

The plans listed four broad programs:

• counter-insurgency;

• prevention and control of abuse in schools;

• operations against illegal activities; and

• anti-extremism and anti-terrorism.

Wamil testified that the plans did not identify the specific confidential operations that would be conducted.

DepEd later submitted accomplishment reports, but Wamil said the documents did not identify the schools, locations, organizations, individuals or operations covered by the reported activities.

One program supposedly involved preventing the recruitment of teachers and students by communist or leftist groups. Wamil said DepEd did not submit a list of the groups involved, the schools covered or the activities conducted.

The problem was not merely that the programs were confidential. According to Wamil, the reports did not contain enough information to connect the expenses to identifiable operations and results.

DEPED’S DISBURSEMENT VOUCHERS WERE NOT APPROVED BY DUTERTE

Wamil also testified that three DepEd disbursement vouchers were approved by then-Finance Undersecretary Annalyn Sevilla instead of Duterte, who was then the education secretary.

He considered this a violation of the joint circular because the rules assign responsibility for approving confidential-fund cash advances to the head of the agency.

The defense may still dispute Wamil’s interpretation or argue that Sevilla had sufficient authority. But his testimony gave the prosecution another compliance issue beyond the missing attachments.

DUTERTE’S SIGNATURES APPEARED ON KEY DOCUMENTS

The prosecution repeatedly asked Wamil to identify the signatures appearing on the OVP and DepEd records.

Wamil identified Duterte’s signature on several documents, including OVP disbursement vouchers, liquidation reports and DepEd physical and financial plans.

Some documents contained certifications that the expenses were necessary and lawful, were incurred under her direct supervision or that the purpose of the cash advance had been accomplished.

The signatures connect Duterte to the approval and certification process. They make it more difficult for her to separate herself completely from how the funds were reported and liquidated.

But a signature does not, on its own, prove that Duterte prepared the acknowledgment receipts, invented any recipient, personally received the funds or knowingly certified a fabricated transaction.

Those connections still require evidence.

COA ISSUED TWO AUDIT OBSERVATION MEMORANDA

The OVP submitted its liquidation report for the 2022 confidential-fund allocation in January 2023.

COA issued its first Audit Observation Memorandum, or AOM, on September 14, 2023. A second AOM followed on October 3, 2023.

The defense emphasized that an AOM is not a final Notice of Disallowance, a criminal ruling or a judgment by the impeachment court.

An AOM informs a government office that auditors have found deficiencies. The office is then given an opportunity to explain the transactions, correct the records or submit additional documents.

Wamil confirmed that the OVP responded to the audit observations. He maintained, however, that the explanations and records submitted did not satisfy the requirements of the joint circular.

The existence of two AOMs is important to the timeline, but neither memorandum should be described as a final finding that Duterte stole or personally used the money.

OVP AND DEPED OFFICIALS ASKED FOR AN “AUDIT QUERY”

Wamil also testified about a September 2023 meeting involving OVP Chief of Staff Zuleika Lopez, then-DepEd official Michael Poa and COA officials.

According to Wamil, Lopez and Poa asked whether COA could issue an “audit query” instead of an AOM if the auditors found problems with the liquidation documents.

COA rejected the request because an audit query was not among the procedures provided under Joint Circular No. 2015-01.

During cross-examination, Wamil described the request as effectively seeking an exemption from the procedure required under the circular.

The prosecution may use this testimony to argue that OVP and DepEd officials wanted the findings handled through a less formal process.

The hearing, however, did not establish why Lopez and Poa made the request. Asking for a different audit procedure does not by itself prove an attempt to hide fraud.

THE REPORTED 11-DAY SPENDING PERIOD WAS NOT ILLEGAL BY ITSELF

The defense secured an important concession from Wamil.

He acknowledged that no provision in the joint circular specifically prohibited the OVP from using its ₱125-million confidential-fund allocation within 11 days.

Wamil said the period was mentioned as a fact but was not itself included as an audit violation.

The 11-day description comes from COA’s accounting that the funds were reported as utilized between December 20 and December 31, 2022.

The OVP disputes that timeframe.

During congressional budget deliberations in 2023, then-Davao de Oro representative Maria Carmen Zamora, speaking as the OVP’s budget sponsor, said implementation began on December 13, when the Special Allotment Release Order was issued.

Under that calculation, the period was 19 days rather than 11.

The disagreement over whether the correct period was 11 or 19 days should be kept separate from the audit questions.

Under either calculation, Wamil acknowledged that the speed of utilization was not prohibited by itself.

The prosecution must still show that particular expenses were unauthorized, unsupported, fictitious or unrelated to legitimate confidential operations.

The short period may raise questions about how the money was used so quickly. It is not, standing alone, proof of an offense.

SARA DUTERTE WAS NOT THE FIRST VICE PRESIDENT WITH CONFIDENTIAL FUNDS

The defense presented a December 2014 Special Allotment Release Order from the Department of Budget and Management showing that the OVP under then-Vice President Jejomar Binay also received confidential funds.

This rebutted claims that Duterte was the first vice president in Philippine history to receive such an allocation.

Wamil clarified that Duterte was the only vice president whose confidential funds he had personally audited.

The Binay document provides useful historical context, but it does not answer whether Duterte’s own expenses were properly documented or authorized.

Binay’s allocation was also released before Joint Circular No. 2015-01 took effect.

THE DEFENSE INVOKED AN OLDER COA CIRCULAR

The defense showed Wamil a 1992 COA circular discussing the difficulty of requiring ordinary receipts for safehouses, meals, supplies and other covert expenses.

The circular recognized that identifying safehouse owners, informants or confidential agents through conventional receipts could expose operations or place people at risk.

The prosecution objected, arguing that the 2015 joint circular superseded the older issuance. It also questioned whether the defense had presented the proper original document.

Impeachment court presiding officer Sen. Francis “Chiz” Escudero noted the objection but did not prevent the defense from presenting the original later.

The issue remained unresolved.

Confidential operations may require protection from public disclosure. But even when ordinary commercial receipts are impractical, the question remains whether the agency must submit alternative records showing that the operation, informant, reward or safehouse actually existed.

THE “SCAM” REMARK WAS STRUCK FROM THE RECORD

Prosecution lawyer Lorna Kapunan described the confidential-fund arrangement as a “scam” during her questioning.

Poa objected.

Escudero sustained the objection and ordered the remark removed from the trial record.

The word was Kapunan’s characterization. It was not a conclusion made by Wamil, COA or the impeachment court.

Kapunan later defended her statement outside the proceedings, but it remains an argument from the prosecution rather than an established finding.

A SUBPOENA FOR “MARY GRACE PIATTOS” WAS STILL UNDER DISCUSSION

Kapunan also said the prosecution was discussing whether to ask the impeachment court to subpoena “Mary Grace Piattos,” one of the names appearing in acknowledgment receipts submitted for OVP confidential-fund expenses.

As of the August 4 hearing, no subpoena for Piattos had been issued.

Prosecutors also acknowledged that they had not located the supposed recipient.

The inability to locate the person adds to the questions surrounding the acknowledgment receipts.

It does not yet establish who created the name, whether the identity was fabricated or where the corresponding money went.

WHAT THE HEARING SHOWED

The prosecution presented substantial testimony that the OVP and DepEd reported confidential-fund expenses without the records that Wamil believed were required under Joint Circular No. 2015-01.

Wamil also testified that some reported OVP expenses did not fall within the allowable purposes of confidential funds.

Duterte’s signatures appeared on several approval and certification documents, connecting her to the official paper trail.

The prosecution therefore strengthened its case that there were serious documentation and compliance problems involving the funds.

WHAT THE HEARING DID NOT SHOW

The August 4 testimony did not establish that Duterte personally received the questioned money.

It did not establish that she personally invented recipients, prepared false acknowledgment receipts or ordered public funds converted for private use.

It also did not establish that the entire ₱612.5 million in OVP and DepEd confidential funds was stolen or improperly spent.

The AOMs discussed by Wamil were audit observations, not final judgments of liability.

The prosecution still has to connect the documentary deficiencies to Duterte’s knowledge, intent and personal responsibility.

THE BOTTOM LINE

The prosecution had a strong day on documentary accountability.

Wamil’s testimony placed more than ₱200 million in OVP and DepEd expenses under serious doubt because of allegedly missing, inadequate or noncompliant records.

Duterte’s signatures also connected her to several levels of approval and certification.

The defense prevented the prosecution from treating weak documentation as automatic proof of personal theft.

Its cross-examination established that the reported 11-day utilization period was not itself prohibited, that the OVP submitted liquidation reports and responses, that the audit observations were not final rulings, and that a Binay-era OVP had also received confidential funds.

But the central question remains unanswered:

Where is the reliable documentation showing what the questioned confidential funds actually paid for?

Until the defense produces records or testimony capable of answering that question, the documentary gaps identified by Wamil will remain one of the prosecution’s strongest arguments under Article I.