Plunder, graft raps filed vs Sara Duterte over P612.5-M confi funds

Plunder and graft complaints were filed Friday against Vice President Sara Duterte and 15 other officials of the Department of Education and the Office of the Vice President over the alleged misuse of P612.5-million confidential funds.

Among the complainants who went to the Office of the Ombudsman were former Finance undersecretary Cielo Magno, 2025 Ramon Magsaysay awardee Father Flavie Villanueva, and Father Robert Reyes.

Aside from plunder and graft, the complaints also alleged malversation and other related complaints against Duterte over her alleged misuse of confidential funds from 2022 to 2023.

They said that despite lengthy and repeated congressional inquiries, the Vice President has refused to explain where her offices spend such amounts of public funds, a stance which they said betrays the people’s trust.

"In the light of the many calls of the Filipino people for accountability, we should not forget the numerous instances that the second highest officer of the country has skirted away questions and investigations over anomalous use of confidential funds. In the instance of being questioned by the representatives of the people in Congress, the Vice President, Sara Duterte, has blatantly refused her responsibility to answer to the people. She has continuously undermined the very essence of what public service is all about. Her indiscriminate misuse of public funds without fear of accountability is outright criminal and a perfect example of the betrayal of public trust,” Villanueva told reporters.

"Today, we call upon the institution of the Ombudsman to put an end to this mockery of the system of checks and balances as enshrined in our Constitution. We fervently hope that our charges of plunder, conversation, bribery, graft and corruption, betrayal of public trust, and gross violation of the Constitution be upheld against Vice President Sara Duterte, and she, at least, be called upon to account one on hundreds of millions of confidential funds that she plundered. And if she fails to do so, she should no less than be found criminally liable for it," Villanueva added.

'Fictitious' names

In a statement, the complainants said the Vice President designed and directed parallel schemes in the OVP and DepEd to divert and conceal P612.5 million in confidential funds through irregular transactions, unsupported disbursement vouchers, and certifications signed without review.

"Entire cash advances were allegedly handed to unauthorized AFP (Armed Forces of the Philippines) officers personally designated by Duterte, while liquidation was completed using fabricated acknowledgment receipts bearing fictitious names such as 'Mary Grace Piattos,' 'Nova,' and 'Oishi.' The filing argues that these acts reflect deliberate evasion of oversight and systematic abuse of authority, constituting serious violations of the constitutional mandate that public office is a public trust," they said.

Duterte’s alleged misuse of confidential funds during her vice presidency is among the bases of the impeachment case filed by the House of Representatives against the Vice President.

The impeachment case, however, was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court last July 25 for violating the one-year bar rule, or one impeachment complaint filed against an impeachable official per year, and for violating the Vice President’s right to due process.

The House has since sought the reversal of the Supreme Court ruling, saying it should be allowed to perform its exclusive duty to prosecute an impeachable official, and the Senate's to try the case. 

With the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) as its legal counsel, the House argued that the fourth impeachment complaint signed off by 215 House members is the only initiated impeachment case against the Vice President because it met the Constitutional requirement of the complaint being endorsed by at least one-third of the House members, which would allow the lower chamber to transmit the Articles of Impeachment straight to the Senate en route to an impeachment trial.

Further, the House said the archiving of the first three impeachment complaints against the Vice President on February 5, which was done after the transmittal of the fourth impeachment complaint, is not an initiated complaint that violated the one-year bar rule. It noted that the Supreme Court decision in the Francisco v. House case defines initiation as "either the filing of the complaint and its referral to the proper committee in impeachments under the first mode in Article 11 [Section 3.2] or the mere filing if under the second mode [Article 11 Section 3.4]."

"To reckon it from a complaint's so-called 'dismissal' would be to defeat the purpose of the one-year bar, and to frustrate the spirit of Article 11 [of the Constitution]," the appeal read.

Magno, however, said the adverse Supreme Court ruling should not get in the way of seeking accountability from the Vice President, thus their filing of complaint before the Ombudsman.

"This [effort] is recognizing that we have various mechanisms, various institutions to hold our politicians accountable. And we have to make sure that these institutions are working for our interests," Magno said.

"This process will also be recognized as something as valuable as such," Villanueva added.

GMA News Online reached out to Duterte's camp for comment and will publish it once available.

In July, the Vice President said the names found among the supposed recipients of confidential funds in her office and during her tenure as Education secretary were aliases used in intelligence operations.

She also said then that she would address the questions during the impeachment trial, as her lawyers are gathering evidence and affidavits from witnesses. —AOL/ VDV, GMA Integrated News