HOUSE impeachment adviser and trial spokesperson Robert “Ace” Barbers on Sunday said the confidential nature of government intelligence funds requires stricter—not weaker—accountability, stressing that secrecy cannot be used to shield the use of public money from constitutional scrutiny.
Barbers, a former Surigao del Norte congressman and governor, said confidential funds demand stronger internal controls because public disclosure of operational details is naturally limited.
“Kapag mas lihim ang paggastos, mas mataas ang dapat na antas ng dokumentasyon at pananagutan. Confidential ang operasyon, pero hindi maaaring maging confidential ang accountability,” Barbers said.
He stressed that while sensitive operational information may be withheld from the public to protect legitimate security interests, government agencies must still be able to account for every peso before constitutionally mandated oversight bodies.
“Mas lihim ang pera, mas mahigpit dapat ang audit trail. Kung hindi maaaring ilantad sa publiko ang buong detalye, dapat naman itong maipaliwanag nang sapat sa mga institusyong inatasan ng Konstitusyon na magsuri,” he said.
Barbers said the impeachment proceedings should examine not only individual actions but also whether existing systems governing confidential funds contain safeguards strong enough to prevent abuse.
“Hindi lang ito usapin ng isang tao. Usapin ito kung sapat ba ang ating sistema upang matiyak na ang confidential funds ay nagagamit lamang para sa tunay na layunin nito,” he said.
He noted that the use of aliases, bulk cash withdrawals and confidential transactions makes independent verification more difficult, making reliable documentation even more important.
“Ang alias ay proteksyon para sa tunay na informant, hindi lisensya para mawala ang pananagutan. Kapag mahirap nang i-verify ang pinagkagastusan, mas kailangan ang malinaw na records at ebidensiya,” Barbers said.
According to Barbers, similarities between questioned public fund transactions and past controversies should be treated as matters that warrant closer examination, not as proof of wrongdoing.
“Hindi pa ito hatol at lalong hindi ito awtomatikong konklusyon. Pero kapag may mga pangyayaring dapat ipaliwanag, tungkulin nating siyasatin ang bawat piso ng pera ng bayan,” he said.
“A subpoena is not a conviction. Pero ang hindi maipaliwanag na paggamit ng pampublikong pondo ay hindi rin maaaring ituring na sapat na sagot.”
Barbers also underscored that liquidation documents alone do not automatically establish that public funds were lawfully and properly spent.
“Ang liquidation ay hindi pa katumbas ng accomplishment. Ang pag-withdraw ng pera ay hindi rin awtomatikong patunay na nagamit ito ayon sa batas. Ang mahalagang tanong ay kung may totoong operasyon, may totoong benepisyaryo at may totoong resulta,” he said.
He added that the central issue before the Impeachment Court is whether public funds can be independently verified as having achieved their intended purpose.
“Sa pera ng bayan, maaaring maging lihim ang operasyon. Pero hindi maaaring maging lihim ang pananagutan. Kailangang mapatunayan na may totoong tao, may totoong operasyon, may totoong resulta, at walang perang nawala,” Barbers said.
metrosundaily
