THE AUDITOR IDENTIFIED DIFFERENT KINDS OF PROBLEMS

Confidential funds are governed by Joint Circular No. 2015-01, issued by the Commission on Audit and several government agencies.

The circular identifies the activities that may be paid for using confidential funds and requires agencies to submit reports and supporting records for audit.

Wamil testified that some OVP submissions did not adequately show how the reported spending was connected to authorized confidential operations.

Some purchases were supported only by acknowledgment receipts when auditors expected invoices, sales receipts or other documents appropriate to the transaction.

These findings should not be compressed into a single accusation.

An expense may fall outside an allowable category. Another may belong to a permitted category but lack enough proof connecting it to a particular operation. A separate transaction may have incomplete proof of payment.

Each defect raises a different audit question.

Wamil’s testimony supports allegations that the OVP failed to comply fully with confidential-fund rules. The impeachment court must still evaluate his testimony, the underlying records and the defense response.

SOME EXPENSES WERE EITHER NON-ALLOWABLE OR POORLY CONNECTED TO CONFIDENTIAL OPERATIONS

Wamil discussed reported spending involving medical and food assistance, furniture, office equipment, rewards and incentives.

He testified that ordinary medical and food assistance did not appear among the allowable confidential expenses under the joint circular.

The issues involving furniture, printers, computers and similar purchases were more specific. According to reports on his testimony, the OVP did not submit records sufficiently connecting those items to confidential operations.

Wamil also said purchases should have been supported by the appropriate sales documents, rather than acknowledgment receipts alone.

Rewards and incentives can fall within permitted categories under particular circumstances. Auditors would still expect records showing the confidential activity, information gathered or result connected to the payment.

The absence of such support does not automatically prove that the payment never occurred. It means the submitted records may be insufficient to establish that confidential funds were used in accordance with the rules.

THE 2022 RECORDS INCLUDED LATE-DATED RECEIPTS, UNDATED RECEIPTS AND A ₱150,000 DIFFERENCE

The OVP reported using ₱125 million in confidential funds during the final days of 2022.

Wamil testified that acknowledgment receipts covering approximately ₱25.66 million were dated in December 2023, about one year after the spending period they supposedly supported.

He also identified approximately ₱3.27 million in acknowledgment receipts without dates.

According to the records discussed during the hearing, the receipts totaled approximately ₱125.15 million. That was ₱150,000 more than the ₱125 million stated in the accomplishment report.

These discrepancies require explanations.

A receipt dated long after the reported transaction raises a question about when the document was prepared. An undated receipt cannot, on its face, establish when payment occurred. A total exceeding the reported fund amount also has to be reconciled.

The discrepancies do not reveal their cause. The OVP’s formal explanations and COA’s later action must be examined before concluding whether they resulted from defective documentation, duplicate entries, false records or another problem.

USING ₱125 MILLION IN 11 DAYS WAS NOT ILLEGAL BY ITSELF

The OVP’s use of ₱125 million within 11 days has become one of the best-known facts in the controversy.

During cross-examination, Wamil agreed that no provision automatically made the spending illegal simply because it occurred within that period.

The number of days does not settle whether the money was properly used.

The relevant audit issues concern the purposes of the payments, whether they belonged to an allowable category and whether the OVP submitted the required records.

The short period may still lead senators to examine how the reported activities were conducted and documented. It cannot serve as proof of misuse without evidence about the transactions.

The testimony concerning late-dated receipts, missing dates, questionable expense categories and incomplete operational support provides more specific grounds for scrutiny.

THE EVIDENCE MUST STILL BE CONNECTED TO DUTERTE PERSONALLY

The questioned funds belonged to the OVP during Duterte’s tenure as vice president.

That establishes the institutional setting. It does not automatically answer who prepared the records, selected recipients, approved individual payments or knew about any defect.

The prosecution must identify the documents and decisions attributable to Duterte.

A document bearing her signature may become significant, but its meaning depends on what she signed or certified. The actual wording of the document, her authority over the transaction and other evidence would have to be examined.

The defense has disputed the prosecution’s interpretation of the records. It also declined to stipulate to the authenticity of 845 acknowledgment receipts covering the OVP’s fourth-quarter 2022 spending, saying the documents were too numerous to authenticate immediately.

Refusing to stipulate does not prove that the receipts are false. It means the prosecution may have to authenticate and establish the evidentiary value of the disputed documents through witnesses or other proof.

Wamil’s testimony can explain what the OVP submitted and why he found parts of it deficient. Other evidence is needed to establish Duterte’s knowledge, instructions, participation or constitutional responsibility.