Prosecution emphasizes implication of COA's disallowance notices on OVP's use of confi fund

The prosecution panel in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte on Thursday emphasized the serious implication of the Notices of Disallowance (ND) issued by the Commission on Audit (COA) on the P448 million worth of confidential fund disbursements of Office of the Vice President (OVP).

Private prosecutors Amando Ligutan and Benjamin Tolosa, Jr. as well as lead prosecutor Gerville Luistro of Batangas were referring to the ND issued by the COA to the OVP over its P73 million confidential fund disbursement in 2022 and another ND issued on OVP’s disbursement of P375 million worth of confidential funds in 2023.

“That is not a conviction, pero mabigat na iyong ibig sabihin ng notice of disallowance,” Ligutan added.

(But the implication of a notice of disallowance carries a serious meaning.)

It was COA-ICFAO head and lawyer Gloria Camora who disclosed before the House justice panel in April that the ND on the P73 million has been affirmed by the COA, and that another ND was issued to the OVP for its P375 million 2023 confidential fund disbursements.

An ND is issued when an expenditure is “either irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable" and orders the concerned agency to return such amount to government coffers.

“The issuance of the ND is the end of the auditing process. If COA already found irregularities in spending public funds based on the documents submitted by the agency, an ND will be issued. In the case of the OVP, the documentary evidence they submitted are non-complaint with the Joint Circular 2015-01 governing use of confidential funds, and they are asked to return that money [through the ND issuance],” Ligutan said in a press conference.

TRO

Ligutan said that while the OVP can appeal the COA’s decision before the Supreme Court, the validity of the NDs stays unless the High Court issues a TRO on its implementation.

“If the SC does not issue a TRO, tapos na po ang boxing. The ND should be implemented,” Ligutan added.

(The fight is over.)

“These two NDs issued by the COA saying the money should be returned due to irregularities in spending, we leave that to the appreciated of the Senate impeachment court. Pero ibig sabihin nito ay ang pagkakamali ay hindi lang nangyari sa isang installment ng pagbibigay at paggamit ng confidential unfolds. These are worth almost half a billion, so mabigat ang nagiging violation,” Tolosa said.

(The mistake did not only happen once, so the violation is really grave.)

Lead prosecutor Luistro, for her part, said the Vice President cannot use former special disbursing officers, Gina Acosta (for OVP) and Eduard Fajarda (for DepEd) who withdrew hundreds of millions of confidential funds in cash, as possible scapegoat when it comes to confidential fund disbursements.

Luistro cited that based on the testimonies of Acosta and Fajarda during the House good government and public accountability panel inquiry on the OVP’s budget use in 2024, both Acosta and Fajarda told lawmakers that it was the Vice President who instructed them to give the confidential fund to military officials Raymond Lachica (for OVP) and Eduard Nolasco (for DepEd), respectively, for the military officials’ disbursement.

The Joint Circular 2015-01 does not authorize military officials in the disbursement of confidential funds.

“Klaro ang sagot, utos po ng boss ko, referring to Vice President Sara Duterte,” Luistro said.

(Their answers were clear. They were asked to do it by their boss.)

Acosta and Fajarda are set to be fielded by the prosecution as hostile witnesses next week.

Tolosa then said that while these two are hostile witnesses, the prosecution is confident that their evidence against the Vice President will stand even if Acosta and/or Fajarda decide to shield the Vice President from liability.

“Isa pang pwedeng posibilidad, paano kung biglang magkalaglagan na dito, sabihin na lang nila, actually kami lang ang may problema dito, kami lang may kasalanan dito. Ang maganda diyan, sinagot na 'yan ni Atty. Wamil. Ang sabi niya, napakaliwanag under the law, under the Joint Circular, ang accountable officer dito ay hindi lang ang SDO, kundi pati ang head of agency,” Tolosa said, referring to state auditor and lawyer Roderick Wamil formerly of COA’s Intelligence and Confidential Funds Audit Office.

(Another possibility is—what if they suddenly claim that we are the only ones at fault? Fortunately, Atty. Wamil has already addressed this. He stated that it is very clear under the law and the Joint Circular that the accountable officer in this instance is not just the SDO, but also the head of the agency.)

“The same is clear under the Government Auditing Code. The head of the agency is the person who is directly and primarily liable for all of the funds pertaining all. All of the funds and properties are pertaining to her office. At in all the documents that was signed by the Vice President, it says she’s accountable for those funds,” Tolosa added. —VAL, GMA News