MANILA — A call for greater government transparency has triggered a sharper confrontation in Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial, with House prosecution counsel Lorna Kapunan telling the vice president to “start with yourself.”
Kapunan made the pointed remark on Wednesday, August 19, after Duterte challenged Malacañang to disclose government travel authorities and the public funds used for official trips.
“If you want transparency, start with yourself,” Kapunan said, urging Duterte to account for the public funds handled by her office and to face the allegations before the Senate impeachment court.
The clash has pushed the issue of transparency, accountability and confidential funds back to the center of Duterte’s ongoing impeachment trial.
Kapunan: Account for the billions first
Kapunan specifically pointed to the Office of the Vice President’s budget during Duterte’s tenure, including confidential funds that have become a major subject of the impeachment proceedings.
The OVP had an approved P2.3-billion budget for 2023, which included a requested P500 million in confidential funds, according to the Tribune report. Prosecutors have argued that questions surrounding the use and liquidation of these funds must be answered before Duterte can credibly demand greater transparency from other government offices.
Kapunan also invoked the familiar principle that accountability should begin with the person making the demand.
Her message came as the Senate impeachment court continued hearing evidence related to allegations that Duterte and her offices misused confidential funds.
The P612.5-million question
At the heart of one impeachment article is P612.5 million in confidential funds — P500 million associated with the OVP and P112.5 million from the Department of Education during Duterte’s tenure as education secretary.
Prosecutors have been presenting documents and witnesses to establish how the money was released, withdrawn and allegedly distributed.
The case remains an allegation being tested in the impeachment court; Duterte has denied wrongdoing and her defense has challenged the prosecution’s claims.
One of the most significant developments came from former OVP special disbursing officer Gina Acosta, who testified that Duterte instructed her to release P125 million in confidential funds to Col. Raymund Lachica in December 2022.
Acosta said she personally encashed the check and handed the money to Lachica, adding that she would not have released the funds without Duterte’s approval.
Acosta’s testimony becomes a major prosecution point
Acosta’s testimony has become a central part of the prosecution’s effort to connect Duterte directly to the movement of the confidential funds.
The prosecution has said the witness testimony could help establish Duterte’s role in the release of the funds. GMA News reported that Acosta testified that P500 million in OVP confidential funds was released to Lachica in 2022 and 2023 on Duterte’s orders.
However, the testimony has also come with complications.
The Senate impeachment court declared Acosta a hostile witness after questions arose over her employment relationship with the OVP and statements she previously made in connection with complaints involving the confidential funds.
That designation does not automatically invalidate her testimony. Rather, it allows the party calling the witness greater latitude in questioning because the witness is considered adverse or unwilling to support the case as expected.
COA scrutiny adds another layer
The confidential-fund controversy is not limited to testimony in the impeachment court.
Commission on Audit records and testimony have also been cited during the proceedings. In earlier hearings, COA officials discussed the auditing of confidential funds allocated to Duterte’s OVP and DepEd offices.
In another development, an auditor testified that part of the OVP’s confidential funds had been used to purchase medicines — an expenditure that the auditor said was not allowed under the applicable rules governing confidential funds. The amount involved was reported at about P40 million.
These findings are being examined alongside the prosecution’s broader allegations concerning the release, utilization and liquidation of confidential funds.
House records raise questions over OVP cooperation
The prosecution has also pointed to House records that it says show repeated resistance by the OVP to congressional scrutiny.
House prosecution legal spokesperson Benjamin “Jay” Tolosa Jr. said records presented during the impeachment proceedings documented instances in which Duterte and OVP officials declined to attend congressional hearings and an attempt was made to prevent COA from providing documents requested by lawmakers.
Another House prosecutor, Rep. Joel Chua, meanwhile argued that Duterte had repeatedly relied on confidential funds during her time as Davao City mayor and later as vice president and education secretary, describing the pattern as something that warranted scrutiny.
The defense, however, has disputed the prosecution’s characterization of the evidence and has continued to defend Duterte against the allegations.
Duterte’s transparency challenge
The latest exchange began after Duterte herself called for broader transparency.
On Tuesday night, she challenged Malacañang to disclose travel authorities issued to government officials and the expenses and public funds connected to their trips, after the Palace confirmed she had been authorized to travel to Japan.
Duterte argued that transparency and accountability should not be demanded from only one government office.
That statement drew Kapunan’s response the following day.
For the prosecution lawyer, the impeachment trial provides Duterte with the opportunity to answer questions about her own office’s handling of public money.
The bigger battle: transparency versus accountability
The confrontation illustrates how the impeachment proceedings have evolved beyond a dispute over individual transactions.
The prosecution is attempting to establish whether Duterte personally directed or participated in the questioned transactions, while the defense is expected to challenge the interpretation of documents, witness testimony and the legal basis for the accusations.
Meanwhile, the political fight surrounding the trial continues outside the Senate chamber, with both camps using press briefings and public statements to frame the proceedings for the public.
Kapunan’s message effectively puts the issue in simple terms: before demanding transparency from other officials, Duterte should first answer questions about the funds entrusted to her own offices.
But whether the evidence presented in the Senate impeachment court ultimately proves the allegations is a matter for the impeachment proceedings — not political sound bites.
And with more witnesses and documents still expected to be examined, the biggest question may now be whether the next testimony will further strengthen the prosecution’s case or give Duterte’s defense a new opening.
For now, Kapunan has thrown the challenge back to the vice president: if transparency is the standard, will Sara Duterte be willing to apply it to the confidential-fund questions at the center of her impeachment trial?
Leave a Reply