MANILA, Philippines — The controversy surrounding the alleged recipients of confidential funds from the Office of the Vice President (OVP) is widening once again, as prosecutors say more unusual names found in acknowledgment receipts could emerge during the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte.
The issue has become one of the most closely watched parts of the proceedings involving allegations over the use and liquidation of ₱612.5 million in confidential funds from the OVP and the Department of Education (DepEd), which Duterte also headed during part of the period covered by the allegations.
During recent trial proceedings, names appearing on acknowledgment receipts — including Mary Grace Piattos, Renan Piatos, Mico Harina, Patty Ting, Andy Lim and Alejandro Pikit — were brought into focus as prosecutors questioned who the listed recipients were and whether the documents accurately reflected the disbursements.
Private prosecutor Lorna Kapunan has said that more unusual names could still surface, including names such as “Mango” and “Keso,” as the prosecution continues presenting its evidence.
The Big Question: Who Actually Received the Money?
The controversy is not simply about unusual-sounding names. At the heart of the issue is a question repeatedly raised by lawmakers and prosecutors: If a listed recipient cannot be verified as an actual person, who received the public funds reflected in the receipt?
Rep. Terry Ridon previously said the prosecution planned to present Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) records concerning several names listed as recipients, while also presenting audit findings and other evidence before the Senate impeachment court.
The prosecution has alleged that questionable documentation and recipients form part of a broader pattern of improper liquidation of confidential funds. The impeachment article involving the funds accuses Duterte of misuse and improper liquidation and alleges betrayal of public trust — allegations that remain subject to the impeachment process and have yet to be finally adjudicated.
What the COA Witness Said About Aliases
But recent testimony also added an important layer to the controversy.
Former Commission on Audit (COA) auditor Roderick Wamil told the impeachment court that the agency’s audit of confidential funds was document-based and did not include independently verifying whether names listed on acknowledgment receipts belonged to real people or were aliases.
According to Wamil, the government rules governing confidential and intelligence funds are silent on the use of aliases. Auditors therefore focused on whether the required documents reflected the expenses, dates and amounts involved.
That testimony means the unusual names alone do not automatically establish wrongdoing. However, prosecutors and lawmakers argue that questions surrounding the identities of supposed recipients, combined with other alleged documentation deficiencies, deserve closer scrutiny.
Receipts Under the Microscope
The confidential funds issue has drawn intense attention because of the sheer volume of documents involved. The prosecution presented thousands of documents and acknowledgment receipts as it opened its case on the confidential funds allegations.
Wamil testified that, during his years auditing numerous government agencies, it was the first time he encountered an agency relying solely on acknowledgment receipts rather than official receipts to support confidential fund liquidation, according to recent reporting from the proceedings.
The Senate impeachment court has also ordered further examination of thousands of acknowledgment receipts submitted by the OVP and DepEd as disputes over the documentary evidence continue.
A separate issue involves a COA notice of disallowance covering about ₱73 million in OVP confidential fund expenditures in 2022, which Wamil testified had become final at the COA level, subject to any action by the Supreme Court.
A Controversy Far From Over
The emergence of more names is likely to keep the confidential funds controversy in the national spotlight as the impeachment proceedings continue.
For the prosecution, the receipts raise serious questions about accountability and the identities of people who allegedly received public money. For the defense, the rules surrounding confidential operations — including the possible use of aliases — could become a critical part of challenging how prosecutors interpret the documents.
One thing is clear: the debate is no longer just about strange names on a piece of paper. It is about whether the government’s system for monitoring confidential funds is strong enough to answer the most basic question of all — where did the money go?
As more evidence is presented, the impeachment court will ultimately have to weigh the documents, testimony and competing explanations before reaching its conclusions.
Leave a Reply