VP Sara's P125M confidential fund spending in 11 days not illegal, defense claims

The defense team for the Office of the Vice President (OVP) has maintained that there is no prohibition under Commission on Audit (COA) regulations that prevents Vice President Sara Duterte from spending P125 million in confidential funds in just 11 days. During cross-examination of state auditor Roderick Wamil, a prosecution witness, defense counsel Michael Poa cited provisions of Joint Circular 2015-01 on the use of confidential funds. "Is there a provision that prohibits using it in 11 days?" Poa asked Wamil. "There is no provision. That's why we did not include the 11 days disbursement in our findings. It's just a statement of fact," Wamil replied. Wamil, formerly with the COA intelligence and confidential funds unit, testified before the Senate court on the OVP's alleged failure to comply with COA regulations on the utilization and liquidation of confidential funds. Poa stressed that the COA findings did not prove any misappropriation in the use of the P500 million in confidential funds. "Actually, the presumption of misuse is in item 8.3, that if the failure of liquidation of the accountable officers upon due demand shall be a prima facie evidence that such one has been put to personal benefit or misuse," Wamil told the court. Poa added that the COA findings did not state that the Vice President pocketed even a single centavo of her confidential fund. "Basically, your findings were just preliminary. There was no conclusive finding as to any misappropriation," Poa noted. He added that as a state auditor, Wamil's findings were merely recommendatory, and the final decision rests with the commission proper. Meanwhile, Poa presented a document from the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) titled Special Allotment Release Order dated December 22, 2014, covering confidential activities. This was presented to counter social media posts suggesting that only Vice President Sara Duterte had confidential funds. Furthermore, Poa presented Commission on Audit Circular No. 92-385 dated October 21, 1992. Poa noted that under this 1992 circular, "intelligence and confidential activities by their very nature are highly sensitive and confidential operations or missions, the details of which cannot be divulged without posing a threat to national security or to the success of the mission." He added that the use of such funds requires an approach allowing more flexibility in intelligence operations. The defense team also opposed the marking of the affidavit of former police officer Arturo Lascañas as evidence by the House prosecution team, with lead defense counsel Sheila Sison arguing that an unsigned affidavit should not be part of the impeachment court's evidence. This case highlights ongoing discussions in the Philippines regarding transparency and accountability in public funds, particularly concerning confidential funds which, by their nature, are difficult to disclose in detail. The defense's argument focuses on the interpretation of existing regulations, and the proceedings are being closely watched.