The Senate impeachment court resumed proceedings on Tuesday, August 11, 2026, with the prosecution continuing its presentation on Vice President Sara Duterte’s alleged misuse of confidential funds. The hearing focused on Commission on Audit (COA) evidence involving the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education during the period from late 2022 through the third quarter of 2023. The Senate’s official summary identified the day’s witness as another COA auditor testifying on Duterte’s confidential-fund spending in both offices.
The central question: how could one officer cover so many locations?
COA–ICFAO supervising auditor Xylene Mae Del Campo discussed Department of Education acknowledgment receipts that recorded payments on the same dates in provinces spread across the country, from Abra to Agusan del Sur. The records identified one designated special disbursing officer, prompting the court to question how payments could have been made in distant locations on the same day.
The issue was not simply geography. It went to the reliability of the documents and whether the disbursement process followed the government’s rules for confidential and intelligence funds. Del Campo also brought back an earlier account that funds had been handed to a security officer. She testified that transferring the disbursing responsibility in that manner was inconsistent with Joint Circular No. 2015-01. These were evidence and compliance issues for the impeachment court to assess—not a final finding of guilt.
COA witness points to ₱73.3 million in disallowed OVP transactions
Del Campo also identified Sara Duterte and two OVP officials—special disbursing officer Gina Acosta and chief accountant Julieta Villadelrey—as potentially liable for ₱73.3 million in transactions disallowed by COA. The amount was part of roughly ₱125 million in confidential funds that the OVP reportedly spent over 11 days in December 2022. The finding was tied to alleged non-compliance with the rules governing confidential and intelligence funds.
The report also noted that the OVP had challenged the disallowance through a petition for review and a motion for reconsideration. In other words, the ₱73.3 million figure was part of an audit dispute and testimony about potential liability—not a final ruling by the impeachment court.
The testimony formed part of Article I of the impeachment case, which concerns the alleged misuse or irregular liquidation of ₱612.5 million in confidential funds—₱500 million attributed to the OVP and ₱112.5 million to DepEd.
Unusual names appear in acknowledgment receipts
The prosecution also displayed selected acknowledgment receipts bearing unusual or food-related names, including “Pampano,” “Keso,” and “Kamote,” alongside other names that drew attention during the hearing.
The receipts became a major talking point, but the presence of an unusual name was not, by itself, proof that a payment was fictitious. The larger question before the court was whether the documents, certifications, and audit trail adequately established who received the money, what was delivered, and whether the spending complied with the rules.
Prosecution and defense clash over exhibits
The day also featured a procedural dispute over documentary evidence. House prosecution counsel Lorna Kapunan told the court that the defense had not responded to efforts to arrange a meeting to compare marked exhibits. The defense, represented by Kristine Ferrer, argued that the court should determine authenticity after the prosecution formally offered its evidence.
Presiding officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero directed the defense to submit its marked documents directly to the impeachment court so the senator-judges could compare and evaluate them. He also made a lighthearted remark that the prosecution may have been “ghosted” by the defense team. (Politiko report)
What happened next?
There was no verdict on August 11. The case remained in the evidence-presentation stage, with the prosecution’s COA testimony raising questions about the movement of funds, the use of acknowledgment receipts, the identity of recipients, and compliance with disbursement rules. The defense continues to have the opportunity to challenge the prosecution’s interpretation of those records.
The practical takeaway from Day 14 was straightforward: the trial moved beyond the size of the confidential-fund allocations and into the details of how the money was documented. Whether those records ultimately prove wrongdoing will be decided by the impeachment court after both sides have presented and contested the evidence.
0 Comments