Vice President Sara Duterte faces potential disallowance of P612.5 million in confidential funds used by her Office of the Vice President (OVP) and the Department of Education (DepEd) from the fourth quarter of 2022 to the third quarter of 2023, according to a report by the Commission on Audit Intelligence and Confidential Funds Audit Office (COA-ICFAO). State auditor Xylene del Campo stated that the funds were allegedly disbursed improperly, raising concerns over their legitimacy. This marks a critical development in the ongoing impeachment trial of Duterte, which has drawn intense scrutiny over her management of public resources. The impeachment proceedings, currently in their 15th day, have seen escalating tensions between defense counsel Kristine Ferrer and prosecution counsel Lorna Kapunan. During a cross-examination of del Campo, Ferrer challenged Kapunan's remarks suggesting she was considering disciplinary action against her, prompting Ferrer to request that the court prohibit such side comments. The presiding officer, Sen. Francis Escudero, intervened multiple times to deescalate the situation, emphasizing the importance of maintaining professionalism and decorum in the courtroom. Escudero noted the apparent generational divide between the two attorneys, with Kapunan being significantly older than Ferrer, and urged them to focus on the legal matters at hand rather than personal exchanges. The dispute escalated further when Kapunan reportedly suggested she was resisting the urge to "spank" Ferrer, a comment that drew sharp rebuke from the defense. Ferrer responded by asking the court to ensure that such remarks were not tolerated, highlighting the professional nature of the proceedings. Kapunan, in turn, acknowledged the need for restraint, stating that she would henceforth behave appropriately. The exchange underscored the emotional and professional stakes of the trial, with both sides vying for control over the narrative surrounding Duterte’s alleged misuse of confidential funds. The allegations against Duterte stem from the improper use of funds intended for sensitive operations, including intelligence and security-related activities. Del Campo testified that these funds were meant to be used for gathering information, not as rewards, and that their unauthorized distribution posed risks to national security. The defense has argued that the lack of documented incidents does not justify the disallowance of payments, challenging the prosecution’s interpretation of the funds' purpose. This disagreement highlights the broader debate over how confidential funds should be managed and accounted for, particularly in cases involving high-level officials. Meanwhile, the trial has attracted attention beyond the courtroom, with several political figures expressing views on the proceedings. Bicol Saro party-list representative Terry Ridon noted that the prosecution’s approach during the trial differed from the conduct of defense counsel Michael Poa, who had previously handled similar cross-examinations without incident. Ridon suggested that the current dynamic reflects the influence of Ferrer’s aggressive tactics on the prosecution’s strategy. Additionally, the trial has sparked discussions about the role of social media in influencing judicial processes, with Escudero issuing warnings against the use of platforms like Facebook to comment on ongoing proceedings. As the trial progresses, key players such as Rep. Joel Chua, who leads the prosecution, continue to present evidence supporting the claim that Duterte misused public funds. Chua, known for his previous criticism of Duterte, has taken a central role in advocating for her removal from office. His efforts include examining financial records and testimonies from bank officials who oversaw the withdrawal of checks amounting to P612.5 million. These actions align with his history of challenging Duterte’s policies, dating back to his tenure as a city councilor and his subsequent rise in local politics. The implications of the trial extend beyond the immediate legal proceedings. The outcome could set precedents for how confidential funds are managed and held accountable in the future. Moreover, the trial has become a focal point for political discourse, with various stakeholders weighing in on the integrity of public institutions and the responsibilities of elected officials. As the trial moves forward, the balance between legal rigor and public accountability remains a central concern.
★
Keep the news honest.
ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €4/month.
Become a Supporter
PH
