OVP Faces Allegations of 'Irregular Spending' for Confidential Funds

Witness Roderick Wamil described the Office of the Vice President's (OVP) use of confidential funds in 2023 as an irregular expenditure based on their review of the documents. This testimony was presented during the continuation of the impeachment trial, amidst explanations of different types of government spending. The prosecution repeatedly highlighted Joint Circular No. 2015-01, issued by the Commission on Audit (COA), Department of Budget and Management (DBM), Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG), Governance Commission for GOCCs (GCG), and Department of National Defense (DND). This circular, based on Section 2(2), Article IX-D of the 1987 Constitution, empowers the COA to establish accounting and auditing rules to prevent irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, and unconscionable expenditures, or the improper use of government funds. It clarifies that while confidential and intelligence funds are sensitive in nature, they are not exempt from strict accounting and auditing rules. According to Wamil's testimony, the OVP allegedly violated Item 4.8.5 of Joint Circular No. 2015-01 in its use of confidential funds in 2023. Wamil stated that the OVP allegedly used P15 million for reward payments from February 6 to March 29, 2023, and another P12 million for reward payments from April 25 to June 30, 2023. However, based on their findings, the OVP allegedly failed to submit documentary evidence supporting those reward payments for the first two quarters of 2023. Wamil said that while the reward payments were reflected in the OVP's accomplishment reports, there were no documents proving that the information gathering or surveillance activities for which the rewards were supposedly paid had been successfully carried out. Prosecution counsel Lorna Kapunan argued that the purpose of the Joint Circular is to prevent irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, and unconscionable expenditures. When explaining the terms, Kapunan translated "irregular" into Filipino as "kaduda-duda" (questionable) and "unnecessary" as "hindi kailangan" (not necessary). Defense counsel Michael Poa objected to the translation before the questioning resumed. Kapunan asked Wamil where the OVP's accomplishment report would fall. To this, Wamil responded, "Yes, Ma’am. Under the irregular expenditures." Prohibited government expenditures are further detailed in COA Circular No. 2012-003, issued in October 2012, which outlines prohibited and discouraged government expenditures. This circular defines irregular expenditure as the use of government funds in violation of existing laws, rules, regulations, procedural guidelines, and established policies. An expenditure is considered irregular when public funds are disbursed without complying with prescribed procedures and the proper rules governing their use. Unnecessary expenditure refers to spending that cannot be considered prudent or reasonable, or that fails to demonstrate the level of care expected of a responsible manager of public funds, including expenditures that do not contribute to the mandate, objectives, or operations of a government agency. Excessive expenditure refers to the use of government funds in amounts that exceed what is reasonable or appropriate, including expenditures that go beyond the ordinary or justifiable amount, are disproportionate to the proper quantity or price, or exceed reasonable limits. Extravagant expenditure refers to the use of government funds in a manner that is lavish, imprudent, and lacking in economy, including spending that is excessive, lavish, luxurious, overpriced, or made without careful consideration. Unconscionable expenditure refers to the use of government funds in a manner that is unreasonable and excessive—spending that no person of sound judgment would make and that no fair and honest person would consider reasonable, including expenditures that violate ethical and moral standards. Meanwhile, regarding Wamil's testimony on the reward payments, Poa made a motion to strike off the record the portion tackling the audit findings. He stated that the proceedings at that stage were only meant to determine whether there were irregularities based on the OVP's accomplishment reports, and not yet to examine the actual audit findings. Senator Chiz Escudero, the impeachment trial presiding officer, ordered the portion of the testimony stricken from the record. —LDF, GMA News