CONFIDENTIALITY is not an excuse to pocket public funds, the House prosecution panel argued Wednesday as it began presenting evidence on the allegation that Vice President Sara Z. Duterte misused P612.5 million in confidential funds.
Delivering the prosecution’s opening statement before the Senate impeachment court, House prosecutor and Mamamayang Liberal Party-list Rep. Leila de Lima stressed that confidentiality exists to protect legitimate operations and informants—not to shield officials from transparency, scrutiny and accountability.
“Ang confidentiality ay para protektahan ang lehitimong operasyon at informant. Hindi ito pahintulot para mag-imbento ng pangalan at dokumento. Hindi ito palusot para ibulsa ang pera,” De Lima said.
She said that while confidential funds are intended to support sensitive intelligence and surveillance-related activities of civilian agencies, officials entrusted with such funds remain accountable for how they are spent.
“That the budget is intended for confidential operations does not mean that the conduct of the officials involved in the handling of people’s money is exempted from the demands of transparency, scrutiny and accountability,” she stressed.
The former senator and justice secretary also reiterated that public office is a public trust, a constitutional principle that applies to all government officials regardless of the nature of the funds they administer.
“If ‘confidential’ ang pondo, lalo pa ngang mataas ang pananagutang kaakibat nito,” De Lima said.
The prosecution said the evidence would show that Duterte committed culpable violation of the Constitution, graft and corruption, and betrayal of public trust in her handling of confidential funds.
Article I accuses Duterte of misusing P612.5 million in confidential funds during her tenure as Vice President and Education secretary.
House investigations earlier uncovered alleged irregularities, including acknowledgment receipts bearing names such as “Mary Grace Piattos,” “Milky Secuya” and “Kokoy Villamin,” along with hundreds of others that prosecutors said could not be verified against Philippine Statistics Authority records.
The prosecution said it would prove that more than half a billion pesos in confidential funds were spent within a short period, including P125 million in just 11 days, and that the Commission on Audit issued notices of disallowance ordering the return of improperly disbursed funds.
Rejecting any suggestion that the case stemmed from mere bookkeeping lapses, De Lima said the evidence would reveal a pattern of wrongdoing.
“This is not about one missing receipt. This is not about a clerical error or accounting mistake. The evidence will reveal a pattern—a systemic course of conduct—that, taken as a whole, demonstrates graft and corruption, and betrayal of public trust,” explained the lawyer-legislator.
She told the impeachment court that the case would ultimately be decided not by politics or public statements, but by the evidence presented during the trial.
“That question will not be answered by politics, by general denials, by press releases. It will be answered by the witnesses. By the documents. By audit. And by the evidence. The Prosecution is ready to present it.”
metrosundaily
