COA flags fund misuse at OVP

The Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, resumed the trial of Vice President Sara Duterte on August 11, 2026 with state auditor Xylene Del Campo of the Commission on Audit – Intelligence and Confidential Funds Audit Office (COA-ICFAO) continuing her testimony regarding their findings. (Courtesy: Senate of the Philippines)

The Office of the Vice President (OVP) used P73.287 million in confidential funds for activities and expenses that were either not allowed under government rules or lacked sufficient supporting documents, a Commission on Audit (COA) supervising auditor testified before the Senate impeachment court in the trial of Vice President Sara Duterte on Tuesday.

COA-Intelligence and Confidential Funds Audit Office (ICFAO) supervising auditor Xylene Mae Del Campo said the OVP charged confidential funds for Christmas activities, gift-giving, tree planting, medical missions and other events that did not fall under the allowable uses of such funds under Joint Circular No. 2015-01.

“Based on the joint circular, this was not included among the activities under Section 4.8 where confidential funds may be used,” Del Campo said.

Asked specifically whether the Christmas activities, tree planting, gift-giving and other events listed in the OVP documents were allowed, Del Campo answered, “Hindi po (No).”

She also pointed to discrepancies in the dates of some activities, noting that expenses incurred from Dec. 13 to 18, 2022, were charged against a cash advance released only on Dec. 21.

Del Campo said funds released on Dec. 21 could not be used to reimburse expenses incurred before that date. The audit findings resulted in a P73.287-million notice of disallowance covering OVP confidential fund expenditures for Dec. 13 to 31, 2022.

Del Campo said P69.787 million involved payments for rewards, while P3.5 million covered tables, chairs, desktop computers and printers charged to confidential funds without proof that they were intended for confidential operations.

‘No specific accomplishments to support payments’

She said the OVP had submitted 105 activities in response to the notice of disallowance but failed to show specific accomplishments demonstrating the success of information-gathering and surveillance activities, which are required to support reward payments.

“Based on this document, there is no indication of the successful outcome of the information-gathering activities. Furthermore, there are activities listed for December 13, 15, 17 and 18 that fall outside the utilization period of the cash advance, which covered December 21 to 31, 2022,” Del Campo said.

Excerpt of a document presented at the impeachment trial on August 11, 2026 on the confidential fund liquidation of the Office of the Vice President (OVP). (Courtesy: Senate of the Philippines) 

She identified Vice President Duterte as primarily liable for the disallowed expenditures as head of the agency and approving authority for the transactions and cash advances.

Also cited as liable were Gina Acosta, the OVP special disbursing officer who disbursed the cash advances, and Julieta Villadelrey, the agency’s chief accountant who certified the supporting documents.

The OVP challenged the disallowance, filing a petition for review with COA on Feb. 5, 2025.

Del Campo said the COA Commission Proper affirmed the P73.287-million disallowance on April 10, 2026. The OVP subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration, which remains pending.

23 new names surface in receipts

During Tuesday’s proceedings, Del Campo also testified on acknowledgment receipts submitted by the OVP to support its confidential fund expenditures in 2023.

At least 23 names, some resembling those of public figures and others referring to food, appeared on selected receipts. Among them were Pia Piattos-Lim, Ralph Josh Bacon, Anne Ongpauco, Heart Santiago, Feonna Villegas, Beth Revilla, Clarisse Hontiveros, Jose Diokno Jr., Diane Maple Lapid Jr., John A. Lapid Jr., Jay Kamote and Miggy Mango.

The prosecution said Del Campo’s tabulations for the first two quarters of 2023 covered 1,049 acknowledgment receipts.

Del Campo stressed that the ICFAO conducted a compliance audit and did not verify whether the named recipients actually existed or were related to similarly named public figures.

“At the ICFAO, what we conduct is a compliance audit. We check for compliance with the Joint Circular and verify whether the liquidation documents are complete and in order,” she said.

She said the purchase of information is an allowable confidential fund expense, but acknowledgment receipts for supplies did not establish where the items were purchased or how they were used.

“Regarding the acknowledgment receipts for the purchase of supplies, I requested additional documentation to verify that the funds were indeed used to purchase supplies,” Del Campo said.

She also said reports submitted to support reward payments did not show specific accomplishments that would justify the expenditures.

“I didn’t see the specific accomplishments that would warrant the payment of rewards,” Del Campo said. “The certification merely contained a general statement that there were no untoward incidents. But this was not enough,” she added.

Defense: Separate COA credit notice is proof

The Duterte camp, meanwhile, cited a separate COA credit notice as proof that the Department of Education’s use of confidential funds had been allowed in audit.

Defense spokesperson Atty. Michael Poa said the credit notice, issued in August 2024, covered DepEd’s confidential fund expenditures for the first and second quarters.

The lawyers of Vice President Sara Duterte led by Atty. Shiela Sison (center) and Atty. Michael Poa (left, 2nd row) attend her impeachment trial on August 11, 2026. (Courtesy: Senate of the Philippines) 

“In fact, we used to say during the committee hearings that DepEd actually had a credit notice. Obviously, that was not something being highlighted even by the media, but that is a fact. I think it was Aug. 9, 2024, when DepEd received its credit notice,” Poa said.

He said the credit notice meant COA had found no issue with DepEd’s liquidation after reviewing its submissions and responses to audit observations.

“A credit notice simply means that following the Commission on Audit’s evaluation of the liquidation report, the submitted documents, and the response to the Audit Observation Memorandum, the utilization of confidential funds was deemed valid in the audit. In other words, they found no issues regarding the use of the confidential funds,” Poa said.

Poa acknowledged, however, that the account could still be reopened if new material evidence emerged.

“Meaning, even if the account is settled, it may be reopened. Let’s see what happens with the credit notice because I noticed that emphasis was also being made on whether a credit notice can be reopened,” he said.

Del Campo earlier testified that the OVP’s documents were irregular and noncompliant with the Joint Circular, while those submitted by DepEd were compliant, although a settled account could still be reopened.

The testimony formed part of the House prosecution panel’s evidence in the impeachment case against Duterte over the alleged misuse of confidential funds.

In other developments:

• Senator-Judge Francis Escudero, the presiding officer of the impeachment court, described House prosecutors as having been “ghosted” by VP Duterte’s defense team after their repeated attempts to arrange a court-directed comparison of 4,492 acknowledgment receipts tied to her confidential funds went unanswered.
• The prosecution would likely bring to the attention of the Senate impeachment court the issue of delay in the impeachment trial, said lawyer Benjamin Tolosa Jr., counsel for the House prosecution panel and spokesperson. Tolosa said he does not want to accuse the defense of intentionally delaying the trial, but their recent actions resulted in a slower pace of the proceedings.
• What has VP Duterte’s office accomplished with P612.5 million in confidential funds? Deputy Speaker Janette Garin posed this question as she noted that while the identities of the OVP informants may be protected, the output from spending public money cannot remain secret.

— Maricel Cruz & Katrina Manubay