FORMER senator-turned Mamamayang Liberal Party-list Rep. Leila de Lima on Tuesday defended the sufficiency in substance of the third impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Z. Duterte, pointing to documentary evidence, House records, and Commission on Audit (CoA) findings to support the first ground involving the alleged anomalous use of confidential funds.
“Although I wish to state first at the outset that in dealing with the issue on sufficiency in substance, we do not really inquire first into the evidence but of course, in terms of really substantiating the essential grounds, the essential facts as pleaded, we can always check whether there are supporting evidence or annexes as submitted, as attached to the complaint, and later to be supplemented by other evidence in the proper time and the proper time is during the evidentiary hearings,” De Lima told the House Committee on Justice deliberating on the sufficiency in substance of the 3rd and 4th complaints against the Vice President.
The third complaint, filed by priests, nuns and lawyers and likewise endorsed by De Lima, raises similar allegations over the alleged misuse of about P612 million in confidential funds and claims of corruption within the Department of Education during Duterte’s tenure as secretary.
It also revives accusations that she threatened to assassinate President Marcos, First Lady Liza Araneta Marcos and former Speaker Ferdinand Martin G. Romualdez.
De Lima stressed that additional evidence may still be introduced after the filing of the answer, reply and rejoinder.
“Kasi pagkatapos ho kasi ng pag-file ng answer, pag-file ng reply, pag-file ng rejoinder kung meron pwede pa hong magdagdag ng mga ebidensya, including affidavits doon. Yes, we have supporting documents, supporting evidence,” she said.
De Lima said the complaint carries attachments from “Annex A to Annex CC, or Double C,” most of which are photocopies of public records, including documents already uploaded to official websites.
Among these, she said, are liquidation reports, accomplishment reports of the Office of the Vice President (OVP), Commission on Audit (COA) notices of disallowance, certifications, letters, documents evidencing payments and audit observation memoranda.
“So meron po, dito po, nakalakip naka attached most or many of those documentary evidence, pero ngayon, photocopies lang muna ang pinipresent dito sa ating complaint sa third complaint. Kasi hindi naman po kailangan at this stage na mag-presenta na ng photocopies,” she said.
De Lima cited Sections 3 and 4 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, as amended, saying photocopies may be admitted unless their authenticity is genuinely questioned or it would be unjust to admit them in lieu of the originals.
“So that is our position, na hindi kailangan unless authenticity is questioned at the proper time. And again, that would be at the evidentiary stage. But even that, handa po ang complainants to present ‘yung certified two copies which actually form part already of the records of this House,” she said.
Committee chair Atty. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” Luistro of Batangas sought confirmation that the attachments include COA documents and transcripts of House hearings.
“Yes, Madam Chair,” De Lima replied.
Cagayan de Oro Rep. Lordan Suan later asked how the annexes and affidavits establish a clear nexus between the respondent and the alleged acts to justify advancing the complaint.
“Yes, I have actually explained, Madam Chair, I have actually explained that earlier, that as the head of office, as the Vice President, the Office of the Vice President, she approves the disbursements, she approves the liquidation, and she approves the accomplishment reports. So there is control on her part of the disbursements and there is testimony to the effect that the instruction to give to various persons not contemplated within the object of confidential funds, are through the orders of the vice president,” De Lima said.
She pointed to what she described as a “pattern of disbursement without verifiable documentation, documentary irregularities, and stipulated liquidation,” adding that “under the principle of command responsibility, it is clear that she is the head of office, she approves those disbursements.”
Luistro also asked whether Duterte was the signatory in all the necessary forms.
“There are some that she is the signatory, but also many that she’s not the signatory, but that is supported. The fact that it is within her imprimatur that those disbursements are made, those liquidation vouchers were approved, were actually testified on by the proper officials of the Office of the Vice President in the course of the previous house hearings,” De Lima said.
Asked if several attached documents bear the vice president’s signature, she replied: “Some of them, some of them.”
De Lima maintained that the vice president is the “ultimate responsible officer or accountable officer” for the confidential funds.
“Malinaw po na isinaad sa paragraphs 149, 151, and 153 that VP Sara was the accountable officer for over P500 million and that no disbursement could occur without her approval,” she said.
She added that it was also alleged Duterte “directed the preparation and cashment and delivery of P125 million,” citing testimony that the funds were not used for purposes allowed under confidential funds.
Addressing claims that there was no finding of misuse, De Lima directed the panel’s attention to specific annexes.
“May I direct the attention of the Honorable Committee and access C, F, H, and I are certifications that says expenses were incurred with agencies, intel, and confidential operations. And based on the audit observation memoranda issued by the COA, ay ito ay hindi naman talaga ginamit dun sa mga totoong purposes of the confidential and intel funds, but actually were wrongly disbursed to wrong persons and for the wrong purposes,” she said.
She cited expenses for “safe houses, sa tables and chairs, sa laptops,” saying these, as reflected in the documents, constitute misuse of confidential funds.
De Lima also alleged obstruction when the committee previously sought certifications from COA.
“Remember when the committee then requested from COA any finding, any certification with respect to the spending of the OVP’s funds, pinigilan pa nga ito ng kanyang Chief of Staff na huwag gawin ng COA. This is a form of obstruction and that is under her instructions,” she said.
She further pointed to acknowledgment receipts bearing “questionable and fictitious names,” saying: “These were approved by the Vice President herself. May pirma siya sa certain documents as attached.”
“So I don’t see the validity of the argument na walang proof, na may kinalaman si VP sa paggastos na nang mali ng confidential funds ng Office of the Vice President,” De Lima said.
