Auditor: PH gov't guidelines silent on use of aliases in confidential fund receipts

A state auditor from the Commission on Audit (COA) informed the Senate impeachment court on Wednesday that government rules governing confidential and intelligence funds neither explicitly allow nor forbid the use of aliases on acknowledgment receipts (ARs).

The issue arose during the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte following revelations that liquidation records submitted by the Office of the Vice President (OVP) contained suspicious names, including Mary Grace Piattos, Andy Lim, and Alejandro Pikit.

During cross-examination, Senator-Judge Bam Aquino pressed prosecution witness and COA auditor Roderick Wamil on whether using false names or codenames complied with Joint Circular No. 2015-01—the official framework governing the release, utilization, reporting, and audit of confidential and intelligence funds.

“Are codenames allowed? Are aliases allowed?” Aquino asked.

“Based on the provisions of the joint circular, it’s neither allowed nor prohibited since the joint circular is silent as to that,” Wamil testified.

When asked to clarify if any other regulation governed the practice, Wamil noted that during his 10-year tenure with the COA’s Intelligence and Confidential Funds Audit Office, he could not recall any rule addressing the use of pseudonyms.

“So the use of aliases is not allowed?” Aquino pressed.

“The circular is silent on that,” Wamil maintained, reiterating his position under further questioning from other senator-judges.

Verification and enforcement limits

Senator-Judge Erwin Tulfo later questioned whether auditors attempted to verify the actual identities behind the questionable receipts. Wamil explained that the audit process centers on evaluating procedural compliance with existing regulations rather than conducting field verifications of individual names on document trails.

Tulfo then questioned why the audit agency did not take immediate legal action given the red flags surrounding the submissions.

“If the OVP’s disbursements were already suspicious—as you yourself said was obvious—why didn’t you file a case against the OVP before the Ombudsman, given the questionable medicines and the names of the individuals listed?” Tulfo asked.

“We can only refer the matter to the Office of the Ombudsman if a final order has been issued and the OVP fails to comply with that order,” Wamil responded.

Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian also inquired whether other government agencies routinely use aliases on similar receipts. Wamil noted that the COA has no way of making that determination, as acknowledgment receipts are submitted without supporting identity documents to confirm whether a listed name is real or a pseudonym.

-Paraluman News