Senator-judge Robin Padilla has raised a pointed question during Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial: Can confidential funds be justified as a tool to prevent security threats before they happen?
Padilla’s remarks came as the Senate impeachment court examined the controversial use of confidential funds allocated to the Office of the Vice President (OVP) during Duterte’s tenure. The issue has become one of the most closely watched portions of the proceedings because the funds are intended for sensitive intelligence and security-related activities, but their use remains subject to government accounting and auditing rules.
Padilla links confidential funds to security operations
Padilla has previously argued during the trial that confidential funds could have been used for activities intended to prevent attacks and address threats, particularly those connected to communist insurgency.
In an earlier hearing, he pointed to several dates associated with anniversaries of communist organizations and suggested that the absence of attacks on those dates could be connected to security operations funded through confidential funds.
However, a Commission on Audit witness said he had no personal knowledge establishing that the OVP confidential funds were actually used to prevent communist attacks. The claim therefore remains an argument raised during the proceedings, rather than an independently established finding.
That distinction is crucial as the Senate evaluates whether the expenditures complied with the rules governing confidential funds.
What are confidential funds actually for?
Under Joint Circular No. 2015-01, confidential funds may be used for specified activities such as obtaining information relevant to national security and peace and order, maintaining safe houses, supporting confidential operations, and providing qualified rewards to non-government informants under prescribed conditions.
The same rules require strong internal controls and strict accounting and auditing because the money remains public funds, despite the confidential nature of the activities involved.
The controversy surrounding Duterte’s funds therefore goes beyond the question of whether an activity was related to security. Auditors and lawmakers have also questioned whether the expenditures were properly documented and whether there was sufficient evidence connecting the money to legitimate confidential activities.
P500 million OVP confidential funds under scrutiny
COA auditor Roderick Wamil testified that the OVP received ₱500 million in confidential funds from the fourth quarter of 2022 through the third quarter of 2023.
He also testified that the Department of Education, when Duterte was education secretary, received ₱112.5 million in confidential funds during the first three quarters of 2023. Wamil stressed that confidential funds are still subject to strict accounting and auditing requirements because they involve taxpayer money.
The prosecution has challenged whether some of the spending was sufficiently connected to legitimate intelligence operations.
House Deputy Speaker Janette Garin, for example, argued that confidential funds are intended to protect the public from threats such as terrorism, illegal drugs, kidnapping and organized crime—not simply to provide additional security funding for an individual government official.
Security operations versus personal protection
The question became even more contentious after witnesses described security-related activities involving Duterte’s movements and protection.
The prosecution has questioned why confidential funds were allegedly used for security-related operations when the Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group (VPSPG) already had the responsibility of providing protection to the Vice President.
The defense, meanwhile, has presented protective intelligence reports describing surveillance, coordination with security forces, threat assessments and the deployment of personnel and informants around Duterte’s activities.
The central issue, therefore, is not simply whether security activities took place. The Senate must determine whether the particular expenditures met the legal and administrative requirements for confidential funds.
Lachica emerges as a key figure
Another major development is the repeated appearance of former VPSPG chief Col. Raymund Dante Lachica in testimony surrounding the funds.
OVP Assistant Chief of Staff Lemuel Ortonio testified that, apart from Duterte, Lachica was the person he understood to have knowledge of how the confidential funds were implemented.
Earlier testimony also indicated that confidential-fund cash was turned over to Lachica. The Armed Forces of the Philippines has since terminated its own inquiry into allegations involving Lachica after the Office of the Ombudsman took cognizance of the complaints. The AFP has said it will make Lachica available to the Senate impeachment court if he is properly summoned.
Senator-judge Erwin Tulfo has described Lachica as a potentially important “missing link” in the testimony because several witnesses have referred to his role in the handling and implementation of the funds.
The bigger question facing the Senate
Padilla’s argument highlights the fundamental debate at the center of the confidential-funds controversy:
Can spending be considered legitimate simply because it was supposedly connected to preventing a security threat, or must government officials also demonstrate that the spending complied with the specific rules governing confidential funds?
The ongoing impeachment proceedings have produced competing accounts from the defense, prosecution, auditors and OVP officials.
For now, allegations and defenses presented during the trial should not be treated as final findings of guilt or wrongdoing. The Senate impeachment court continues to evaluate testimony and documentary evidence, while separate questions involving COA findings and the Ombudsman’s proceedings remain relevant to the broader controversy.
And with Lachica repeatedly emerging in testimony, the next question may be even more consequential: what can the former security chief say about where the confidential funds actually went—and whether they were used for the purpose claimed?
Leave a Reply