EVEN if Vice President Sara Z. Duterte returned amounts disallowed by the Commission on Audit (COA), repayment would not automatically extinguish the separate constitutional questions being tried by the Senate Impeachment Court, private prosecutor Atty. Benjamin “Jay” Tolosa Jr. said Wednesday.
During a noontime press conference, Tolosa was asked whether the prosecution’s confidential funds case would be weakened if Duterte restituted the disallowed amount for the Office of the Vice President, citing reports it totalled around P448 million.
“Well, definitely not,” Tolosa answered.
He distinguished the COA process for recovering improperly supported expenditures from impeachment, which determines whether official conduct constitutes betrayal of public trust or another constitutional ground for removal.
“Ang allegation namin is misuse and fraudulent liquidation of the confidential funds. They already constitute betrayal of public trust,” Tolosa said.
Under COA’s procedural rules, an aggrieved party may appeal the auditor’s decision to the director with jurisdiction over the audited agency. Later review may reach the Commission Proper.
“But of course, at the end of the day, we’ll leave it to the discussion and appreciation of the Impeachment Court,” Tolosa added.
Deputy Speaker Paolo Ortega V said the next part of the prosecution’s presentation would continue examining where the money went and who ultimately received it.
“Doon naman patungo ito: kung nasunod ’yung proseso, saan napunta ’yung pera, sino ’yung mga nakatanggap ng pera,” Ortega said.
Asked whether voluntarily returning a disallowed amount would itself amount to an admission that the original spending had been improper, Tolosa said a party confronted with a notice of disallowance faces a choice between settling the amount and contesting the audit action through an appeal.
“Upon issuance of the Notice of Disallowance, ang magiging options ay dalawa: either to restitute—ibalik niya—or mag-appeal siya,” Tolosa said.
He then expressed the prosecution’s view that choosing restitution would acknowledge a defect in the expenditure.
“Necessarily, if you’re returning it, you’re admitting na hindi naging tama ’yung paggasta,” Tolosa said.
However, Tolosa cautioned that the prosecution did not want to preempt how the senator-judges would evaluate a repayment or the events that produced the audit findings, adding that the defense remains free to argue that restitution had a different legal or evidentiary significance.
metrosundaily
