Solons warn fund misuse ground for plunder

Over 400 individuals listed as recipients of confidential funds of Vice President Sara Duterte have no birth records in any Philippine Statistics Authority database, a House panel revealed yesterday.

Another 200 individuals who were supposedly handed funds have duplicate names in PSA records, the committee also found.

“Out of the 677 names we submitted, more than 400 had no birth records. Meanwhile, more than 200 of them had the same names as other individuals,” Manila Rep. Joel Chua told TeleRadyo Serbisyo in Filipino.

These were some of the latest findings of panel members as they wrapped up their controversial investigation, unveiling a long list of potential crimes, including plunder, committed at the agencies led by Duterte.

The Manila solon delivered a scathing summation, focusing on the central question of the months-long inquiry: “Where did the confidential funds go?”

Chua, who chairs the House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability, denounced the “abuse of public trust” connected to the alleged misuse of P612.5 million in confidential funds entrusted to Duterte.

“Perhaps it is about time we face the reality that not all those elected to public office can be trusted,” he said in Filipino.

He stressed the need for more safeguards in allocating confidential and intelligence funds (CIFs).

Chua said that his committee exposed the secretive nature of CIFs has been exploited to misappropriate taxpayers’ money for unknown purposes.

For his part, Antipolo Rep. Romeo Acop cited the sheer scale of the funds that went unaccounted for, saying there is definitely grounds for a plunder complaint.

“Let me remind the public of what is at stake here: it would constitute graft and corruption if public funds are misused or misappropriated or worse, if funds are diverted to personal use or benefit. And given the amount we are talking about here, this is clearly plunder,” Acop declared in his opening statement.

He underscored the gravity of the inquiry, describing the lack of transparency and accountability in the use of public funds as a blatant disregard for the law.

Other members of the panel enumerated a litany of possible including malversation, falsification, bribery and perjury, highlighting the scale of corruption uncovered in the investigation.

Assistant Majority Leader and Ako Bicol Party-list Rep. Jil  Bongalon stressed the gravity of the crimes committed, starting with technical malversation under the Revised Penal Code.

“Simply stated, it means that an accountable officer applies public funds to another purpose. Even if that is for public purpose, [but] different from which they were originally appropriated for by law or ordinance. In other words, public funds are squandered,” he explained in a mixture of Filipino and English.

He also pointed out that penalties for this offense include imprisonment of six years and one day to 12 years.

Bongalon further explained that the law presumes malversation took place when an accountable officer cannot explain where public funds under their care were spent.

“When you are asked where did the funds go and you could not answer, the law presumes that you pocketed the money,” he noted.

The lawmaker cited how their investigation revealed that Special Disbursing Officers (SDOs) Gina Acosta of the OVP and Edward Fajarda of DepEd handled millions in confidential funds without clear documentation.

Acosta encashed P125 million per quarter for three quarters in 2022-2023, while Fajarda encashed P37.5 million quarterly for three quarters in 2023.

Both SDOs admitted they handed the funds to security officers supposedly without knowing how the money was spent or who received it, Bongalon pointed out.

Batangas Rep. Gerville  Luistro said that while the hearings of the panel were undertaken in aid of legislation, the lawmakers cannot turn a blind eye on the violations of law committed.

“I just want to reiterate that … our ultimate objective here in conducting this inquiry in aid of legislation is to be able to enhance existing laws, come up with new ones, if the needs are determined,” she noted.

“Nevertheless, we cannot brush aside certainly all the abuses and infractions that we have identified during the course of our inquiry in aid of legislation,” Luistro stressed.

“In addition to the offenses raised already by our esteemed colleagues, I wish to add perjury,” she said.

Luistro explained the elements of written perjury, citing the certifications submitted by the SDOs to the Commission on Audit (COA) regarding the liquidation of confidential funds.

She said the SDOs signed a certification submitted to the COA, duly notarized, for the P125 million confidential funds when they said they did not know where the funds went.

Luistro also raised the issue of bribery, explaining its elements and pointing out that the public officials involved could be liable for accepting bribes in exchange for illegal acts.

Furthermore, she pointed out that officers involved can be charged with the crime of plunder if they continue to fail to explain where some P612.5 million in confidential funds went.

For his part, Surigao del Sur Rep. Johnny Pimentel delved into the falsification of public documents, outlining its elements and penalties.

“Falsification occurs when public officers, like the resource persons who were invited in previous hearings, take advantage of their positions and falsify documents,” he explained in Filipino.

He cited the cases of the apparently non-existent ‘Mary Grace Piattos’ and ‘Kokoy Villamin’ as clear examples of falsification carried out by Duterte’s staff.

Pimentel further explained the use of falsified documents, where public officials knowingly utilized fraudulent records to justify their actions.

The committee found that from late 2022 to the third quarter of 2023, the OVP spent P500 million and the DepEd disbursed P112.5 million in confidential funds, all without a clear explanation of how they were allocated.

Editor’s Note: This is an updated article. Originally posted with the headline “PSA: Over 400 alleged recipients of Sara-led DepEd confidential funds ‘nonexistent'”