House prosecutor Leila De Lima stressed before the Senate impeachment court on Wednesday that confidential funds are meant to protect legitimate operations, not to justify the use of fictitious names or shield officials from accountability.
Delivering the prosecution’s opening statement on the charge involving the alleged misuse of P612.5 million in confidential funds, De Lima argued that confidentiality does not excuse the misuse of public money.
However, her opening statement on Article I of the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte was cut short after repeated objections from the defense.
Article I Duterte of misusing P612.5 million in confidential funds during her tenure as vice president and Education secretary.
In the brief statement that she managed to deliver, De Lima stressed that the confidential nature of the funds does not exempt public officials from transparency and scrutiny.
“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.
(Confidentiality is to protect legitimate operations and informants. It is not permission to invent names and documents. It is not an excuse to pocket money.)
Still subject to transparency, accountability
She explained that confidential funds are intended to support sensitive intelligence and surveillance-related operations, but officials entrusted with such funds remain subject to transparency, scrutiny and accountability.
“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 argued further.
De Lima also invoked the constitutional principle that public office is a public trust, saying officials handling confidential funds bear an even greater responsibility.
“If ‘confidential’ ang pondo, lalo pa ngang mataas ang pananagutang kaakibat nito,” she said.
(If the fund is ‘confidential’, the liability associated with it is even higher.)
The prosecution said it would present evidence showing that Duterte committed culpable violation of the Constitution, graft and corruption, and betrayal of public trust through the alleged misuse of confidential funds entrusted to the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education.
Pattern of misconduct
De Lima said the case was not about isolated bookkeeping errors but an alleged pattern of misconduct.
“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, as well as betrayal of public trust,” she said.
However, De Lima was unable to complete her supposed five-minute opening statement after defense counsel Michael Poa repeatedly objected, arguing that she was making conclusions of fact and law that should instead be established through witnesses and documentary evidence.
“I think we have to object to the statements being made by the Honorable De Lima. With all due respect, Your Honors, they can do that through the offer of their evidence,” Poa said.
He added that allowing such statements to continue would be “grossly unfair” and contrary to fair play.
Before the opening statements began, President officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero reminded both parties to avoid making conclusions of fact and law and instead limit their remarks to outlining what they intended to prove.
Despite the reminder, De Lima proceeded to argue that the evidence would establish Duterte’s liability and questioned whether an impeachable official who had allegedly abused public trust should remain in office.
“When the Filipino people entrusted their money to Vice President Sara Duterte, was that trust honored? 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,” she said.
Escudero then interrupted her.
“I would have to stop you at this point. The continued objection of the respondent is duly noted. I would have to stop you at this point,” Escudero said.
“My due apologies, but kindly call your witness already,” he added.
The prosecution panel then presented former Land Bank of the Philippines Shaw Boulevard branch manager Violeta Constantino as its first witness to testify on the alleged release of P125 million in confidential funds to the OVP.
Article I of the Articles of Impeachment accuses Duterte of committing culpable violation of the Constitution, graft and corruption, and betrayal of public trust through the alleged misuse of P612.5 million in confidential funds during her tenure as vice president and concurrent Education secretary.
House investigations previously cited acknowledgment receipts bearing names such as “Mary Grace Piattos,” “Milky Secuya” and “Kokoy Villamin,” along with hundreds of other recipients that prosecutors said could not be verified against Philippine Statistics Authority records.
Prosecutors also alleged that P125 million in confidential funds was spent within 11 days in December 2022 and that the Commission on Audit issued notices of disallowance directing the return of improperly disbursed funds.
The prosecution is expected to present more witnesses and documentary evidence to support the first article of impeachment before proceeding to the remaining charges against Duterte.
