OVP showed no details or successful results of confidential fund use —Ridon

The members of the Commission on Audit en banc are unanimous in denying the appeal of the Office of the Vice President on the Notice of Disallowance it issued for P73 million confidential funds in 2022.

In COA Decision Number 2026-171 dated April 10, 2026, COA Chair Gamaliel Cordoba, Commissioner Mario Lipana, and Commissioner Douglas Mallillin said, "This Commission finds the appeal bereft of merit."

COA disallowed more than P69 million paid as rewards in cash, in products, and in medicines to informants, saying these should be supported by the necessary documents proving that the information-gathering and surveillance operations were successful.

EXPLAINER: What is a Notice of Disallowance?

The OVP, in its petition for review, said the "condition on supporting documents evidencing success of information-gathering and surveillance activities had been complied with, considering that there had been no untoward security-related incidents which hindered the conduct of the activities and threatened the safety of the people."

But the COA maintained that the OVP "did not present the details or breakdown of the CEs (confidential expenses) and a narration of the success of the information-gathering and/or surveillance activities which were conducted."

"Ang sinasabi nila, wala pong patunay na meron pong proof na naging successful po yung mga confidential operations po nila. Ibig sabihin, gumamit ng pera pero walang pagpapakita na naging matagumpay po yung mga operasyon," House Committee on Justice member Representative Terry Ridon said in an online interview on Thursday.

(What COA is saying is that there is no proof that the confidential operations were successful. In other words, they used the money but have nothing to show that the operations were successful.)

Governance-related issues

"Pangalawa, wala din pong pagpapatunay or justification na ito pong paggamit ng pondo ay necessary at connected po doon sa mga confidential operations. Ibig sabihin, hindi ho nauunawaan ng COA bakit gumamit ng pera pero parang walang koneksiyon dito po sa mga confidential ops na supposedly para po sa mga national security issues at intelligence concerns," he added.

(Secondly, there is no proof or justification that the use of the funds was necessary or connected to the confidential operations. Meaning, the COA does not understand why the OVP used the money but it seems to have no connection to the confidential operations that supposedly were for national security issues and intelligence concerns.)

"Pinakamahalaga, ang sinabi po ng Commission on Audit en banc, ito pong mga aktibidad na binabanggit po ng Office of the Vice President ay mga governance-related issues. Ibig sabihin, wala po talaga itong kakone-koneksiyon doon sa national security, intelligence operations. At ang sabi po nila, kung governance-related issues, dapat po ito ay ikinakarga sa general fund po ng OVP. So ibig sabihin, hindi po dapat ito ikinasa mula po sa confidential funds," Ridon added.

(Most importantly, the Commission on Audit en banc is saying that these activities described by hthe Office of the Vice President are governance-related issues. This means they really have no connection at all with national security and intelligence operations. And if they are governance-related issues, these should be carried by the general fund of the OVP. These should not have been funded by confidential funds.)

'Difficult to justify expense'

The commission also disallowed the use of P3.5 million to purchase tables, chairs, desktop computers, and printers.

"The tables, chairs, desktop computers, and printers were purchased using public funds. As such, the OVP must prove the use of public funds for the purchase thereof. In this regard, official receipts or sales invoices are required as DEPs, and not merely acknowledgment receipts," COA said.

The COA cited the OVP's argument that its right to due process was violated. But the commission denied this, saying, "the appellants were afforded due process when the ND (Notice of Disallowance) was issued with a notice therein that audit disallowances not appealed within six (6) months from receipt thereof shall become final and executory as prescribed under Sections 48 and 51 of PD No. 1445.36 Further, they exercised the due process afforded to them when they filed the petition for review before this Commission, questioning the audit disallowance and presenting evidence in their favor."

"Tingin ko, wala naman pong violation of due process pagka po mga COA proceedings kasi, alam po ninyo, in each and every step naman po of an audit, binibigyan naman po ng pagkakataong sumagot yun pong atin pong mga opisina. Not just the OVP, kundi [but] each and every agency that is subject to an audit," Ridon said.

(I don't think there is a violation of due process when it comes to COA proceedings, because in each and every step of an audit, the agency is given a chance to reply.)

"I think it is really more of a difficulty to actually justify the expense. Ibig sabihin, baka nahihirapan din sila talaga to create out of thin air yung mga justifications. Kasi for example, yung mga Mary Grace Piattos, fictitious names, as stated by the NBI and the PSA, tingin ko mas madali yung i-manufacture yun, hindi ba?

(Maybe they also found it difficult to create the justifications out of thin air. For example, Mary Grace Piattos, fictitious names, as stated by the NBI and the PSA, I think are easier to manufacture, right?)

"Pero yung [But the], for example, proof of actual activities, proof of the relation between the fund use and the success of a confidential operation, tingin ko po, mas mahirap po gumawa po ng justification for that. Kasi [Because] you will have to manufacture actual activities, actual programs that have been undertaken pursuing confidential operations," Ridon added.

Disallowance proof of irregularity

Ridon believes the COA decision will support a finding of probable cause against Duterte, who has been ordered by the COA along with two other officials of the OVP to return the funds.

"The fact that the Vice President and two of her OVP officials are being asked to return P73 million, it's already the proof that the use was improper, that the use was irregular, that there was a misuse of confidential funds. And therefore, I think as far as the House is concerned, it will basically rise to a level of an impeachable offense, particularly betrayal of public trust. Kasi siyempre, public office is a public trust. Yun pong ganito pong paggamit ng pera, people have been jailed for less," Ridon said.

Even if the vice president returns the P73 million confidential funds, he added, the impeachment proceedings will continue.

"Kahit magsauli po ang pangalawang pangulo at yung kanyang mga kasama ng P73 million na hinihingi ng COA pabalik papunta sa Kaban ng Bayan, hindi ho maa-absolve kung meron pong impeachment proceedings laban sa kanya," he said.

(Even if the Vice President and her camp return the P73 million that the COA has disallowed back to the national treasury, this will not absolve her of the impeachment proceedings against her.)

Kasi nga, yun pong [Because the] acts ng misuse of confidential funds would constitute already a betrayal of public trust and impeachable offense. So we will continue to proceed against the Vice President even if she actually returns yung [the] P73 million," he stated.

If the money is not returned, Ridon warned, "I think ang penalty po nito ay kukunin po yung kayamanan po ng mga nasasangkot pong mga tao. So magkakaroon po ng, I guess, mga forfeiture proceedings or mga civil proceedings laban po sa estate at pag-aari ng mga involved po na officials after magkaroon na po na if it attains finality."

(I think the penalty for this is to take the money of the people involved. So I guess there would be forfeiture proceedings or civil proceedings against the estate of the officials involved, if it attains finality.) 

Duterte called on to face the Justice committee

House Deputy Speaker Paolo Ortega V, who endorsed the impeachment complaint filed by lawyer Nathaniel Cabrera, called on Duterte to return the money.

"Kung talagang nais ni VP Sara na ipakita ang kanyang accountability bilang public servant, mas mabuting isauli na lang ang pondong ipinapabalik ng COA. Dapat siyang managot sa pera ng bayan na ipinagkatiwala sa kanya at kilalanin kung saan nagkulang sa proseso," Ortega said in a statement today.

(If VP Sara really wants to show accountability as a public servant, then it would be best that she returned the funds that the COA wants returned. She must be answerable for the country's money that was entrusted to her, and recognized where they fell short in the process.)

Ortega's co-endorser of the Cabrera complaint, Representative Bienvenido Abante, meanwhile, called on the Vice President to face the House Committee on Justice instead of replying on social media or through press releases.

"Ibigay niya ang kanyang paliwanag sa Committee on Justice. Hindi iyong puro propaganda lang siya. Ang komite—at ang Senado kung doon ito mauuwi—ang tamang forum para sa kanyang paliwanag. Hindi lamang press release, social media post o press conference ang kanyang dapat gawin.  Kung ganyan lang, malinaw na pag-iwas sa responsibilidad at accountability ito," Abante said in a statement today.

(She should explain to the Committee on Justice. Not just offer propaganda. The committee—and the Senate, if it ends up there—is the proper forum for her explanations. Not press releases, social media posts or press conferences. If she's just doing those, it's a clear avoidance of responsibility and accountability.)

The Makabayan bloc in the House of Representatives called on the committee to consider the COA decision as crucial evidence in the impeachment proceedings against the vice president.

"We call on the House Committee on Justice and all relevant oversight bodies to treat COA’s ruling as crucial evidence of breach of public trust, not as a mere technical finding. The public is entitled to a full accounting, the return of disallowed amounts, and reforms that prevent confidential funds from becoming a shadow budget for expenses that should never be hidden from scrutiny," the Makabayan bloc said in a statement today.

House Committee on Justice member Representative Joel Chua said the revelations before the committee may be considered strong evidence against the Vice President, but she can still refute these before the committee.

"Well, kung sa bigat at bigat, masasabi natin may puntos, nakakapuntos, di ba? Pero siyempre, hindi mo naman pupuwedeng sabihin na may probable cause na agad kasi hindi pa naman tapos yung committee hearing. And in fact, until now, pupuwede pang magsumite ang defense ng kanilang mga ebidensya to disprove or to rebut lahat ng mga allegations sa kanila. Kaya nga po yung determination ng probable cause, sa dulo pa yan," Chua said in an online interview also on Thursday. — BM, GMA News