OVP-COA meeting on confidential funds not illegal, Sara's defense claims

MANILA, Philippines – The defense team of Vice President Sara Duterte reiterated on Wednesday, August 5, that there was nothing illegal about the meeting between the Office of the Vice President (OVP) and the Commission on Audit (COA) on Duterte’s confidential funds. “In fact, Senator-judge Joel Villanueva even already helped me with that. Tinanong niya ‘yong witness kung may illegal ba doon, and the witness said hindi po kasi kahit ibang ahensya kinakausap din po kami (He asked the witness if there’s anything illegal about that, and the witness said nothing, because even other agencies talk to them),” defense spokesperson and counsel Michael Poa told reporters in a briefing. “So, there was no need to expound on that,” he added. On Tuesday, August 4, prosecution witness Roderick Wamil, former state auditor from COA’s Intelligence and Confidential Funds Auditing Office (ICFAO), testified that COA had a meeting with OVP and Department of Education (DepEd) officials in 2023 to discuss the offices’ confidential funds use. Both offices were under Duterte at the time. Poa also confirmed that the meeting took place, where they discussed COA’s Joint Circular No. 2015-01 — the memorandum that governs the auditing of confidential and intelligence funds. There, Poa said they asked whether an audit query memorandum (AQM) could be issued instead of an audit observation memorandum (AOM). But this was not meant to shield their offices or Duterte from auditing. Play Video “Audit query is done in the private sector, but I did not know that they don’t do that in the government. So, they just told us we can’t do that,” Poa said on Tuesday. AQM is issued “to answer questions that may either lead to a clarification or may lead to the issuance of an Audit Observation Memorandum or other appropriate notices.” Meanwhile, COA issues AOMs to offices to inform them about their audit deficiencies and require additional submissions within a certain period. If the explanation for the use of these funds was still unsatisfactory for the auditors, COA might issue a notice of disallowance. This is basically a demand to order the funds’ return to the coffers. Among the allegations thrown against Duterte at her impeachment trial was her alleged misuse of her confidential funds under the OVP and DepEd. In 2024, COA had already disallowed or flagged P73 million out of the P125 million OVP funds due to “non-submission of documents evidencing the success of information gathering/and or surveillance.” “But ‘yan lang po talaga, na wala namang masamang nangyari doon. And, nabanggit ko na rin kahapon, that it was actually COA-ICFAO that asked for that meeting (But that’s really all, and nothing irregular happened in that meeting. And, as I’ve said yesterday, that it was actually COA-ICFAO that asked for that meeting),” Poa explained. No conflict of interest Since Wamil mentioned Poa in his testimony, is there a possible conflict of interest on his part as Duterte’s lawyer in the impeachment trial? This was a point of order raised by Senator-judge Erwin Tulfo during the trial’s 13th day. However, presiding officer Chiz Escudero ruled that Poa is not a respondent to the case and only serves as counsel. Escudero ruled that Poa may still be allowed to act as Duterte’s defense lawyer “as his previous positions do not conflict with his duty as such.” “I think it was a very innocent question. If I were in his shoes, I would have probably asked the same question [if there’s] conflict of interest,” Poa said. “And the presiding officer ruled without even asking me to argue my side or to comment on that question. So, I think I should also be fair to Senator Tulfo that I don’t air out my arguments through the media,” he added. Objections overruled The prosecution had two requests to the impeachment court. First, to mark portions of self-confessed Davao Death Squad member Arturo Lascañas’ affidavit, and second, to take judicial notice of the House committee on justice and good government’s past hearings related to Duterte. Judicial notice is a rule that allows a court or a judge to accept “a fact as true without requiring formal presentation of evidence.” The defense objected to these motions. In separate rulings, the Senate impeachment court granted the two motions but gave reminders. “The Court restricted the affidavit’s use: it is admitted solely to prove it was utilized by the [National Bureau of Investigation] as an open-source lead, but absolutely not to prove the truth of its allegations. As the Court underscored: a physical exhibit label does not magically cure an unverified document,” the Court said. “Judicial notice proves a hearing happened; it is not a backdoor vehicle to smuggle hearsay into the record and strip the Respondent of her constitutional right to cross-examine her accusers,” it added. For the defense, the court’s rulings were just fair and appropriate. “At kanina, napansin naman po natin na maingat na rin po ‘yong naging ruling dahil may restrictions imposed,” Poa said. “So, wala naman tayong nakikita ganoon na partiality, and we really don’t want to say anything as to that against the impeachment court.“ (Earlier, we saw that the court was careful with its rulings given the restrictions imposed. So, we don’t see any partiality, and we really don’t want to say anything as to that against the impeachment court.) – Rappler.com