Impeachment Watch: Article I— Misuse of confidential funds (Part one)

On July 15, 2026, the Senate started hearing the prosecution’s evidence on Article I of the impeachment complaint. 

What Article I alleges

Article I concerns the alleged misuse and misappropriation of approximately ₱612.5 million in confidential funds received by the Office of the Vice President (OVP) and the Department of Education (DepEd) during Sara Duterte's tenure as vice president and education secretary.

The amount consisted of: ₱500 million released to the OVP; and ₱112.5 million released to DepEd. The prosecution's theory includes allegations that the funds were spent in a very short period of time, that some receipts were incomplete or made to fictitious persons, and that the funds were used, spent and liquidated in violation of the government rules, amounting to betrayal of public trust.

Land Bank’s Managers as Witnesses

The prosecution presented two former Land Bank managers who testified that large cash withdrawals were made on separate occasions by both the OVP and DepEd, agencies which did not normally have large cash withdrawals in the past.

The bank witnesses admitted that the large cash withdrawals might look unusual, but unusual did not automatically mean suspicious or illegal, a point that even some senator judges had emphasized during the trial. 

The defense team did not spend much time cross-examining the bank managers since the witnesses merely testified on the factual documentation of the bank transactions. 

The testimony, however, provided the first link as to the release of the government funds to the OVP and DepEd.

COA Witnesses

The prosecution then presented two COA auditors: Roderick Wamil and Xylene Mae Del Campo. Their testimonies were important because they moved the case from the banking trail to the audit findings on how the money was used and spent.

The prosecution observed that the OVP used its first ₱125-million allocation in only 11 days, from December 21 to 31, 2022.

Wamil, however, acknowledged that there was no COA rule prohibiting the OVP from spending the ₱125 million within 11 days. 

He explained that the 11-day expenditure was therefore treated as a fact in the audit, rather than itself constituting a violation. The more important question became what the money was spent on and whether the expenditures were properly supported.

A particularly controversial testimony focused on the names of supposed confidential informants. The prosecution presented acknowledgment receipts containing “unusual” names such as Mary Grace Piattos, Nova Santos and Andi Lim. 

Wamil said that he focused on the lack of documentation showing that the supposed information-gathering or surveillance activity took place, rather than on whether the recipients were real or fictitious persons, which he claimed to be not part of COA’s compliance audit.

Wamil testified that the receipts, standing alone, did not adequately establish that the payments resulted from successful information-gathering or surveillance activities as required by Joint Circular No. 2015-01.

Another important development was Wamil's testimony that Duterte personally signed documents relating to ₱375 million in confidential funds. 

The prosecution pointed to Duterte’s signatures on disbursement vouchers, liquidation reports, accomplishment reports, and certifications to argue that Duterte could not simply attribute responsibility to subordinate personnel since she approved all transactions.

The defense, however, attempted to distinguish between administrative signing of documents and actual responsibility for an unlawful or fraudulent expenditure.

COA Notice of Disallowance (ND)

According to the COA auditors, there were two NDs totaling ₱448.3 million out of the OVP's ₱500 million actual utilized confidential funds, namely:

1. ND No. 2024-002-100 — ₱73.3 million (2022)

2. 2023 ND — ₱375 million (three ₱125-million cash advances)

The first ND comprises: approximately ₱69.8 million involved alleged reward payments for which COA said there was insufficient documentation showing successful information-gathering or surveillance activities; and approximately ₱3.5 million involved for tables, chairs, computers and printers for which the OVP allegedly failed to provide adequate documentation showing their connection to confidential operations.

The ND identified Sara Duterte, Gina Acosta (Special Disbursing Officer or SDO) and Julieta Villadelrey (Chief Accountant) as the accountable officers. The ND was appealed to the COA Commission Proper but was affirmed and became final. Presiding Officer Escudero, however, observed that any final ND could still be appealed to the Supreme Court.

The second ND covers the first, second and third quarters of 2023, wherein the OVP received cash advances of P125 million each time, totaling P375 million.

On March 31, 2026, COA issued ND covering the entire ₱375 million because the expenditures were allegedly either unsupported or outside the allowable uses of confidential funds. It is still subject to appeal with the COA Commission proper.

Wamil testified that medical and food aid and incentives/travel expenses were not among the allowable confidential-fund expenditures under said joint circular.

Del Campo was asked about Gina Acosta's earlier account that she had turned over confidential funds to Col. Raymund Dante Lachica, then Duterte's security chief, pursuant to Duterte's instructions.

Del Campo testified that transferring the cash advance by the designated SDO to another person violated government rules because the disbursement should have remained with the authorized special disbursing officer rather than being transferred to

another official.

During cross-examination of Del Campo, defense counsel specifically asked whether the COA Notice of Disallowance itself used words such as: “misuse, corruption or misappropriation”.

The auditor acknowledged that those terms did not appear in the Notice of Disallowance. This was a significant admission, as the COA disallowance establishes an accounting or audit problem, but not automatically such that Duterte misappropriated public funds or committed an impeachable offense.

The hearing on Article I will continue with the testimony of former OVP Special Disbursing Officer Gina Acosta . (To be Continued as Part 2)

(Photo by Joseph Vidal/Senate Social Media Unit, from the Facebook page of the Senate of the Philippines)

Atty. Nena Radoc is a CPA-Lawyer-MBA with over 40 years of management experience in local and multinational companies.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the author are her own and do not in any way reflect those of Paraluman News.