Prosecutors Defend CoA Witness in VP Impeachment Trial

House of Representatives prosecutors on Thursday defended the answers of their first Commission on Audit (CoA) witness, saying his responses to senator-judges’ questions on the government’s auditing system were grounded in existing rules during the impeachment trial of Vice-President (VP) Sara Duterte-Carpio. House lead prosecutor and Batangas Rep. Gerville R. Luistro said former CoA state auditor Roderick C. Wamil consistently cited Joint Circular 2015-01 when responding to questions about the audit of confidential fund expenditures of the Office of the Vice-President (OVP) and the Department of Education (DepEd). “He maintained his position, and that only shows that his answers have a legal basis,” she told a news briefing on Thursday. “He repeatedly stated what is mandated in the joint circular.” She said Mr. Wamil showed consistency and confidence while answering questions from the senator-judges. During Wednesday’s proceedings, several senator-judges questioned the limits of the government’s audit procedures, particularly the lack of provisions requiring auditors to verify the identities of recipients of confidential funds. The senator-judges also raised questions about whether Ms. Duterte had been given sufficient opportunity to explain the expenditures flagged by auditors. Mr. Wamil had testified that CoA’s review was primarily a compliance audit based on documents submitted by government agencies. University of Makati political science professor Ederson DT. Tapia said the audit gaps were “not unusual,” adding that deficiencies identified during the trial should be addressed. “They help clarify the evidentiary value of the audit findings and the legal issues surrounding confidential funds,” he told BusinessWorld via Facebook Messenger. “At the same time, those questions should be directed toward illuminating the facts rather than signaling a predetermined position on the merits of the case.” Mr. Tapia said audit limitations should not distract the impeachment court from determining whether public funds were properly used. “The central question is where the public funds went, whether they were lawfully, properly and accountably used, and whether the totality of the evidence establishes responsibility for any misuse,” he said. “An audit is an important piece of evidence, but it is not, by itself, determinative of the outcome.” He also said the presiding officer has a responsibility to maintain procedural discipline while ensuring that senator-judges do not exhibit partiality. Meanwhile, House prosecutors welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision dismissing as moot petitions challenging the House’s handling of the impeachment complaints against Ms. Duterte. Ms. Luistro said the ruling recognized the Senate’s exclusive constitutional authority to try impeachment cases. “This is a clear indication that democracy and the Constitution are still prevailing in the Philippines,” she said. Senate impeachment court spokesman Reginald Tongol said the decision reinforced the Senate’s role as the sole impeachment court. “The impeachment court now holds the sole and exclusive power to try and decide this case,” he said in a statement. “The jurisdiction of the impeachment court is now absolute.” He clarified that the Senate was not among the respondents in the petitions dismissed by the Supreme Court. Mr. Tongol added that the ruling insulated the impeachment court from the proceedings that took place in the House. He said the Senate would be guided by the Constitution, its Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Trials, the Rules of Court and jurisprudence.