Senator Marcos Expresses Frustration Over COA Auditor's Responses on Confidential Funds

Senator-judge Imee Marcos showed annoyance over the responses of former state auditor Roderick Wamil during the impeachment trial on the use of confidential funds by the Office of the Vice President and Department of Education. Wamil continued his testimony on Wednesday, day 13 of the impeachment trial, on the use of confidential funds by the Office of the Vice President and Department of Education under Sara Duterte as secretary. Saying Vice President Sara Duterte is not the payee, and there’s nothing that says the money is with her, Marcos asked whether the Special Disbursing Officer is the accountable officer. Wamil answered that the head of the agency, alluding to Duterte, is also responsible. Marcos argued that Joint Circular 2015-01 on the use of confidential funds says that the accountable officer is the head of the agency or the person designated. Wamil disagreed, saying: “That is not entirely correct, You Honor, because under the Joint Circular, it shall be the responsibility of the head of the agency, first, to approve the cash advance; second, to oversee the agency-wide utilization.” “Mag-yes or no ka lang. Kanina ka pa, inaaway mo ako lagi (Just answer yes or no. You’ve always been at it, you’re always quarreling with me),” Marcos retorted. Marcos also pressed Wamil on the status of acknowledgment receipts in connection to the audit observation memorandum and notice of disallowance. “Did the COA disallow the confidential expenses because the AR were fake or fictitious, that those were just made up?” she asked in Filipino. Wamil said the COA does not have a finding on the ARs because it was not the focus of their audit. Marcos further asked whether the COA flagged the unusual names on the ARs such as Mary Grace Piattos and Andy Lim. Wamil answered that what they did was a compliance audit, and since the circular does not have a provision pertaining to the use of aliases, there is no such finding. He confirmed the senator-judge’s statement that the names of the reward recipients were not raised in the audit observation memorandum and notice of suspension. Marcos followed up with the question whether the notice of suspension and notice of disallowance are final. Wamil explained that a notice of disallowance means there is an obligation to immediately restitute or return the money to the government. Marcos argued that it’s final on the part of COA but its decision can be brought before the Supreme Court for it to become “final na final.” “I’ll clarify. Once it reaches the Supreme Court, the only ground would be grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. So it will no longer involve factual matters,” Wamil said. Marcos agreed that matters of fact cannot be raised before the Supreme Court but maintained that “at no point are these final.” Wamil said the COA decision for restitution is not affected by a filing before the Supreme Court. “Even if they file a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court, they should immediately restitute because the pendency of the petition for certiorari cannot stay the obligation to restitute.” Asked by Marcos whether there’s a finding that the confidential funds for the OVP were used for personal purposes, Wamil said it is a presumption under the circular which need not be mentioned. “I understand but it’s not there. Is there a COA finding in the audit observation memorandums and notices that says the confidential funds were stolen?” the senator-judge asked. “There is a prima facie evidence na nagamit po siya for personal use or benefit under the joint circular,” the auditor answered. Imee Marcos: “Kaya nga (Precisely).” Marcos stopped her questioning after the presiding officer told her to wrap up, but said she would be asking more questions in case of a second round. (H. Marcos C. Mordeno / MindaNews)