Calling it ‘intelligence’ doesn’t settle fund rules — Kapunan

THE defense’s effort to classify activities described in Office of the Vice President reports as intelligence or surveillance work does not by itself establish that the confidential fund expenditures were properly supported under audit rules, counsel for the House prosecutors Atty. Lorna Kapunan said Wednesday.

During the cross-examination of Commission on Audit witness Xylene Mae del Campo, defense counsel Atty. Kristine Ferrer presented protective intelligence operations reports submitted with the OVP’s responses to audit observations covering the first three quarters of 2023.

Ferrer questioned del Campo about listed activities such as coordination with police and military intelligence operatives, threat assessment, surveillance of venues, profiling of participants, and deployment of informants along the Vice President’s routes.

“Tingnan natin isa-isa kung ito ba talagang intelligence work o hindi,” Ferrer said before going through the entries.

Del Campo agreed that several activities described in the documents could fall under intelligence gathering, surveillance, or confidential work.

Kapunan objected, saying the impeachment article and the witness’s audit testimony concerned the OVP’s use of confidential funds.

“We are not talking about intelligence funds. We’re talking about confidential funds,” Kapunan said. “All the questions referred to intelligence funds, when the topic today is confidential funds.”

The distinction was significant because the witness’s acknowledgment that a described activity could be classified as surveillance did not resolve whether the particular payment was supported by the documents required for its reported purpose.

When asked why the expenses remained disallowed despite the protective intelligence reports (PIOR) and certifications submitted by the OVP, Del Campo maintained that the documents did not sufficiently demonstrate the success required for the questioned payments of rewards.

“Hindi po sufficient iyong PIOR and certification na evidence na nagpapakita ng success ng information gathering,” del Campo testified.

The defense then asked if a successful surveillance that prevented an incident from occurring could itself demonstrate that an operation succeeded. Kapunan objected to the question, describing it as hypothetical.

However, Presiding Officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero allowed the inquiry to continue, noting that the reports themselves stated that no untoward incident had occurred.

Del Campo distinguished payments for information, which she said were not disallowed, from payments of rewards, for which required proof of success.

When the exchanges became tense, Escudero reminded both lawyers that they were members of the Bar and would be treated equally, urging them not to let what he described as a seeming generational divide increase courtroom tension.

Kapunan responded in jest: “I am preventing myself from giving her a spanking, Your Honor.”

After Escudero again called for restraint, Kapunan said, “I promise to henceforth behave.”

The House prosecution called Del Campo to the witness stand as part of their presentation of evidence in the impeachment case against Duterte involving the alleged misuse of confidential funds.