Latest news with #P612.5
GMA Network
13 hours ago
- Politics
- GMA Network
Lawmaker: Confidential funds should be regulated, not banned
"We cannot judge a fund based on people who abused it," Tingog Party-list Rep. Jude Acidre said in a House press conference on Wednesday, July 2, 2025. The allocation of confidential funds to government agencies as well as local government units should be regulated, not banned, Tingog party-list Representative Jude Acidre said Wednesday. Acidre made the response when asked if the LGUs should still be allocated confidential funds in light of former vice president and Naga City Mayor Leni Robredo's announcement that she will remove confidential funds from the city's budget to ensure proper spending of public funds. Robredo's lead was followed by Dumanjug, Cebu Mayor Gungun Gica, who said, 'Effective immediately, no more confidential funds for LGU Dumanjug. Public funds must serve the people—openly, clearly, and with integrity.' Acidre, however, said any fund allocation, including confidential funds, should stand on merits. 'We cannot judge a fund based on people who abused it. We must also be able to ascertain the usefulness of certain mechanisms with the merits, with the good that they are able to do. And the same is the case with confidential funds,' he said in a press conference. 'There are LGUs wherein confidential fund allocation is of significant help, especially if there are security threats involved. We cannot do a one-size-fits-all policy for all our LGUs.' Rather than prohibition, Acidre said, strict regulations should be in place to ensure that the disbursement of confidential fund is above board. He cited bills filed during the 19th Congress—in the aftermath of the House inquiry into the confidential fund use of Vice President Sara Duterte, including during her tenure as Education Secretary—requiring the disclosure of audit findings on confidential funds once flagged by state auditors, and limiting the allocation and disbursement of confidential and intelligence funds (CIF). 'The joint memorandum circular [on confidential fund use] should be passed into law, and we need legislation focusing on the accountability of special disbursement officers, including provision for their qualifications and the fidelity fund for those who have custody of confidential funds,' Acidre said. 'We saw regulatory gaps that we need to fix during the House inquiry, and we need to address that. For one, state auditors should have enough oversight [pero] hindi naman po natin pwedeng alisin totally ang [but we cannot totally remove] confidential funds, especially in some municipalities or LGUs, or even agencies of government where its use is based on merit and in related to ensuring public order and safety, including anti-insurgency measures,' he added. Duterte is facing an impeachment complaint accusing her of betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the Constitution, graft and corruption, and other high crimes, mainly over alleged misuse of P612.5 million worth of confidential funds. Prior to the filing of the impeachment complaint, the House good government and public accountability panel inquiry revealed that the Office of the Vice President Duterte and DepEd submitted acknowledgment receipts riddled with wrong dates, signatories with no birth records, unnamed signatories and non-readable names of signatories before the Commission of Audit (COA) to justify the disbursement of around P612.5 million worth of confidential funds. — BM, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
5 days ago
- Politics
- GMA Network
VP Sara answers alleged fund misuse before Ombudsman
Vice President Sara Duterte on Friday filed a counter-affidavit before the Office of the Ombudsman in response to allegations of fund misuse in her office and during her tenure as Secretary of the Department of Education. The counter-affidavit responded to allegations of technical malversation of public funds, falsification of public documents, perjury, bribery, corruption of public officers, plunder, betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution against the Vice President and her subordinates. The same allegations were levelled against Duterte by the House committee on good government and public accountability which conducted a series of inquiries. Based on the information provided to GMA News Online by the Vice President's camp, the reply to the Ombudsman's order was filed by lawyers Paul Lim and former Department of Education spokesperson Michael Poa at 1:10 pm on June 27, 2025. The Ombudsman on June 19 directed Duterte to comment on the allegations. The House panel was named the complainant. The House panel, however, said it did not file a complaint against the Vice President before the Ombudsman but merely recommended the filing of charges. The panel had said that it found that the OVP and DepEd submitted acknowledgment receipts riddled with wrong dates, signatories with no birth records, unnamed signatories, and non-readable names of signatories before the Commission of Audit (COA) to justify the disbursement of around P612.5 million worth of confidential funds. The Vice President has maintained that she never misused public funds. But as a result of the panel's findings, the Vice President is now facing an impeachment trial before the Senate. Earlier, House prosecution panel spokesperson and lawyer Antonio Audie Bucoy said that the Ombudsman should wait for the verdict of the Senate impeachment court on Duterte before deciding whether she should face criminal prosecution. "The impeachment proceedings are of primordial consideration," Bucoy said in a press conference. "'Yan ho ang pinakamataas na antas tungo sa [hakbang na] panagutin ang impeachable official. Under the Ombudsman Act, Republic Act 6770, meron hong dalawang provisions doon na sinasabi na ang Ombudsman ay hindi pwedeng imbestigahan ang impeachable official because sapagkat ang mekanismo na nakasaad sa saligang batas [ay] impeachment, na ang may jurisdiction ay ang Senado, sitting as an impeachment court,' he said, referring to Section 21 of the Ombudsman law. (The impeachment is the highest-ranked accountability tool for an impeachable official. The Ombudsman Act has two provisions stating that the Ombudsman cannot investigate an impeachable official because the process for that is impeachment, which is under the jurisdiction of the Senate impeachment court.) 'Pangalawa, meron din diyan provision na nagsasabi kung iimbestigahan, maaaring imbestigahan ng Ombudsman ang impeachable official kapag ang layunin nito ay mag-file ng verified impeachment complaint. Yun lang ho,' Bucoy added, referring to Section 22 of the Ombudsman law. (Secondly, the same law states that if the Ombudsman investigates an impeachable official, the goal must be to file a verified impeachment complaint. That's it.) The Office of the Ombudsman is headed by Samuel Martires, a former Supreme Court and Sandiganbayan Associate Justice. His tenure will end in July this year. —LDF, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
6 days ago
- Politics
- GMA Network
House prosecutors ask Senate: Junk VP Sara's bid to dismiss impeach raps
The House of Representatives prosecution panel asked Friday the Senate impeachment court to reject Vice President Sara Duterte's bid to dismiss the impeachment case against her, saying the severity of the charges require no less than a full and transparent trial and her conviction. The prosecution panel made the assertion in its response to Duterte's answer ad cautelam, wherein she called the verified impeachment complaint against her a mere "scrap of paper." Lawyer Regie Tongol, spokesperson of the Senate impeachment court, confirmed receipt of the House prosecutors reply at 1:38 p.m. Friday. Prosecutors said the articles of impeachment against Duterte "are thoroughly drafted and contains sufficient allegations and evidence justifying a full-blown trial." In addition, prosecutors said the House of Representatives is not required to hold committee hearings with respondent Duterte's participation if it initiates impeachment by direct resolution of at least one-third of all of its members, which was met by the House in this case since over 200 lawmakers endorsed the impeachment complaint. "The Honorable Impeachment Court should reject respondent Duterte's desire for a dismissal without trial. A trial is not only warranted but necessary to reinforce justice… and affirm that no individual–regardless of rank or influence–stands above the law," the House prosecution panel said. It also branded as "false" Duterte's claims that there are no articles of impeachment currently with the Senate impeachment tribunal since it ordered the return of the same to the House. "The Honorable Impeachment Court should ignore respondent's claims that are tantamount to a motion to dismiss, including her prayer to resolve her affirmative defenses, and proceed to trial as directed by the plain text and meaning of the Constitution. These Articles of Impeachment highlight respondent Duterte's unfitness for public office. The gravity of the allegations and the public leave no room for technical evasion," the panel added. "Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that the Honorable Impeachment Court proceed to trial, render a judgment of conviction against respondent Vice President Sara Zimmerman Duterte, decree her removal from the Office of the Vice President, and order her perpetual disqualification from holding any public office in the Republic of the Philippines," it said. Duterte is accused of betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the Constitution, graft and corruption, and other high crimes mainly over alleged misuse of P612.5 million worth of confidential funds and for threatening to kill President Ferdinand Marcos, Jr., his wife Liza and his Speaker Martin Romualdez of Leyte, among others. The Vice President has denied the allegations. — VDV, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
6 days ago
- Politics
- GMA Network
Dismissal of impeachment raps vs. Sara without hearing evidence a disservice, solons say
'At the end of the day, ano ba yung basis ng motion to dismiss? Each Senator should act as an impartial judge, whether or not they are in favor of the accused or not," Manila Rep. Ernix Dionesio said. The Senate impeachment court dismissing the complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte without hearing the evidence is a disservice to the Filipino people and a clear partiality, House members said on Thursday. Senate President Francis Escudero said the day before that the impeachment court may vote to dismiss the impeachment complaint against the Vice President outright by a majority vote in the event such motion is put forward, given that there is no motion that is prohibited. 'At the end of the day, ano ba yung basis ng motion to dismiss? Each Senator should act as an impartial judge, whether or not they are in favor of the accused or not," Manila Rep. Ernix Dionesio said. "Doon mo makikita na may pinapanigan agad kapag nagmo-motion to dismiss without hearing a piece or pieces of evidence. Wala pang pinipresentan, gusto na nalang i-dismiss,' he added. (What is the basis of motion to dismiss to begin with? If a Senator-judge will make a motion to dismiss without hearing the pieces of evidence, then that Senator-judge is clearly partial because he or she wants a dismissal without hearing the evidence.) 'The people are watching, history will write itself now. We don't want to overstep, but it is our opinion that the impeachment is the best way to see whether or not guilty or not guilty after [the Senator-judges] seeing the pieces of evidence,' Dionesio added. Lanao Del Sur Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong said senator-judges should base their decision whether to convict or acquit an impeachable official on the merits of the complaint rather than dismissing it outright. 'I still maintain my optimism that they will decide based on the merits of the evidence. There are senators who have already prejudged the outcome or already have their own leanings, their own biases," Adiong said. "Wala naman problema if they vote for either to convict or to acquit. Basta ang position lang po namin is to respect what the Constitution says and let the impeachment process proceed,' he added. (If the motion to dismiss will be put is no problem if a Senator-judge want to acquit or convict. But our position that we should respect what the Constitution says remains.) The impeachment complaint filed by over 200 lawmakers back in February 5 accuses the Vice President of betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the Constitution, graft and corruption, and other high crimes mainly over alleged misuse of around P612.5 million worth of confidential funds and threatening to kill President Ferdinand Marcos, Jr., his wife Liza and the President's cousin and Speaker Martin Romualdez of Leyte. 'It's not the question of can they do it? It's the question of why should they do it?" Adiong said as regards the impeachment court dismissing the complaint without hearing the evidence. "There is a verified impeachment na complaint... allegations that constitutes high crimes, tantamount to betrayal of public trust, among others, laid down in the public deserves to know the truth," Adiong said. The full-blown presentation of evidence in an impeachment trial, Adiong said, will also serve justice to the Vice President. 'The only way for us to find out the truth and at the same time give due process to the defendant is to continue with the impeachment trial,' Adiong said. –NB, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
24-06-2025
- Politics
- GMA Network
Sara Duterte pleads ‘not guilty' in impeachment case
'Stripped of its 'factual' and legal conclusions, it is nothing more than a scrap of paper,' Vice President Sara Duterte said of the verified impeachment complaint filed against her by the House of Representatives. File photo Vice President Sara Duterte has entered a 'not guilty' plea in the verified impeachment complaint filed against her by the House of Representatives, which she called merely a 'scrap of paper.' In the 35-page answer ad cautelam (with caution) submitted by Duterte's camp to the Senate impeachment court on Monday, the Vice President argued that the fourth impeachment complaint must be dismissed for being illegal, saying that it violated the one-year bar rule under the 1987 Constitution. This was in reference to the Constitutional provision allowing only one impeachment complaint to be filed against an impeachable official per year. Duterte also said that there are 'no statement of ultimate facts' in the fourth impeachment complaint. 'Stripped of its 'factual' and legal conclusions, it is nothing more than a scrap of paper,' the document read. 'Being laden with conclusions of 'facts' and law, the fourth impeachment complaint is a clear abuse of the impeachment process,' it added. The House of Representatives impeached Duterte on February 5, with over 200 lawmakers endorsing the complaint. On June 10, the Senate impeachment court convened, with the trial proper expected to begin in the 20th Congress. The seven Articles of Impeachment against Duterte are: Conspiracy to assassinate President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Marcos, and Speaker Martin Romualdez; Malversation of P612.5 million in confidential funds with questionable liquidation documents; Bribery and corruption in the Department of Education (DepEd) during Duterte's tenure as Education Secretary, involving former DepEd officials; Unexplained wealth and failure to disclose assets in her Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN), with her wealth reportedly increasing fourfold from 2007 to 2017; Involvement in extrajudicial killings in Davao City; Destabilization and public disorder efforts, including boycotting the State of the Nation Address (SONA) while declaring herself 'designated survivor,' leading rallies calling for Marcos Jr.'s resignation, obstructing congressional investigations, and issuing threats against top officials; and The totality of her conduct as Vice President. Duterte submitted the answer ad cautelam, following the summons served to the Office of the Vice President (OVP) on June 11, which ordered her to answer the articles of impeachment against her. In the document, the Vice President said there should be no reason for the issuance of the summons considering that the articles of impeachment were returned to the House by the Senate impeachment court, after getting 18-5 votes from the senator-judges. 'Thus, the Vice President cannot be compelled to answer allegations in Articles of Impeachment that had been ordered returned to its source,' it read. 'Without the Articles of Impeachment in the chamber of the Court consequent to its order to return it to the HOR, requiring the Vice President to answer allegations therein is tantamount to requiring an accused to answer criminal charges which the Court has not yet decided to act upon or receive,' it added. Duterte, however, denied allegations against her, which include bribery, corruption, betrayal of public trust, misuse of confidential funds, contracting an assassin, and political destabilization—calling them 'false, misleading, impertinent, and mere conclusions of fact and law.' Contract to kill? Duterte's camp said that the allegation in relation to her previous statement that she had contracted someone to kill Marcos, his wife, and Romualdez if she herself gets killed, 'does not offer any proof thereof [and] does not show what acts allegedly constitute such 'high crimes.'' 'Worse, this conclusion is used as the basis for further unsupported assertions that the Vice President allegedly undermined peace and order, destabilized the government, and forwarded unconstitutional means of removing the President. This line of reasoning lacks any factual foundation. Such unsubstantiated allegations have no place in impeachment proceedings, or any legal proceeding,' the document read. 'Even worse, the Fourth Impeachment Complaint proceeded to form another conclusion that accuses the Vice President of allegedly committing sedition, terrorism, 'among other crimes.' However, there was no allegation made to state how the elements of these crimes were committed by the Vice President or whether these elements exist at all,' it continued. Duterte made the controversial statement in November 2024 when her chief of staff Undersecretary Zuleika Lopez was ordered transferred from the House detention facility to the Correctional Institution for Women in Mandaluyong City. Following this, Marcos issued a strong statement, vowing to block "criminal attempts" amid the alleged threat of Duterte to him and his family. Duterte then maintained that her statement was "taken out of logical context." Confidential funds Duterte also maintained that any assertion that the confidential funds of the OVP and DepEd were misappropriated for personal gain or use or were malversed 'is not a statement of fact but a mere conclusion of law that only a court on the basis of evidence presented can make.' 'No final decision exists declaring the disbursements illegal, unjustifiable, exorbitant, excessive, extravagant, and/or unconscionable. The 19th HOR thus cannot arrogate upon itself the functions belonging exclusively to the Commission on Audit and ultimately, the Supreme Court,' the document noted. To recall, the House of Representatives filed a complaint against Duterte and several other officials, stemming from the recommendation of the House Committee on Good Governance and Public Accountability over the alleged misuse of P500 million in confidential funds of the OVP and P112.5 million in confidential funds of DepEd from 2022-2024. The House prosecutors have five days from the receipt of Duterte's answer ad cautelam to provide their own reply. Since June 28 falls on a Saturday, they could still submit up to June 30, Monday. — BM, GMA Integrated News
