By Jose Cielito Reganit | Philippine News Agency
Three members of the House of Representatives on Wednesday questioned Vice President Sara Duterte’s commitment to public accountability after she refused to testify under oath at a congressional probe over her office’s alleged misuse of public funds.
Zambales 1st District Rep. Jay Khonghun, Batangas 2nd District Rep. Gerville Luistro, and Kabataan Rep. Raoul Manuel criticized Duterte for her act of defiance at the first hearing of the House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability.
Khonghun stressed that taking the oath is not just a legal requirement but a fundamental act of transparency and accountability for public officials.
“Taking the oath is not just a legal formality, it is a commitment to honesty. Any refusal to do so undermines trust in public statements,” Khonghun said during the hearing.
“Refusing to testify under oath sends a signal that there is something to avoid. If there is nothing to conceal, why not take the oath? It is the basic act of accountability that all public officials must be willing to undertake,” he argued.
Luistro echoed Khonghun’s concerns, pointing out the implications of Duterte’s refusal.
“I wish to manifest that the refusal of Her Excellency Vice President Sara Duterte to take her oath in today’s hearing in the conduct of inquiry in aid of legislation is an affirmation of her stand, her position during the budget briefing of the OVP,” Luistro said.
She said the lack of an oath diminishes the credibility of any statements made.
“When the resource speaker does not take her oath, then it follows that whatever statement she will provide, it could not hold any water,” Luistro added.
Meanwhile, Manuel expressed disappointment, saying Duterte’s refusal to take the oath is a public spectacle of defiance of established norms of accountability.
“Gusto ko munang i-manifest na sobrang disappointed po tayo. We took the time for this committee pero yun nga po, nalaman natin na hindi nag-take ng oath. At bago tayo makapagtanong para din marinig ng nakaupong bise presidente, umalis na rin po,” Manuel said.
He said even former presidents took the oath when invited to congressional hearings, citing former Presidents Fidel Ramos, Joseph Estrada, and Benigno Aquino III.
Khonghun, meanwhile, reiterated that the inquiry is not intended to attack anyone personally but to ensure accountability.
“The purpose of this inquiry is not to attack anyone, but to shed light on matters that affect our nation’s governance,” he clarified.
DBM: No confidential, intel fund item in OVP 2022 budget
In the same hearing, the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) informed the House of Representatives that there was no confidential and intelligence fund (CIF) item in the 2022 budget of the Office of the Vice President that supported Duterte’s request for P125 million in CIF.
“No such item or appropriation in the OVP budget,” DBM Undersecretary Rolando Toledo told the lawmakers.
Toledo was responding to questions raised by ACT Teachers Party-list Rep. France Castro, who said the grant of CIF to the OVP in 2022 was illegal since there was no item of appropriation in the OVP budget to support it.
Toledo said Duterte’s request for CIF was justified as part of her “governance engagement and socio-economic programs.”
He said the P125 million was taken from the contingent fund in the 2022 national budget, since there was no specific appropriation for the purpose.
The constitutionality of the grant of this amount in CIF to the OVP has been challenged before the Supreme Court.
The Commission on Audit (COA) has reported that the P125 million was used up in 11 days, or an average of PHP11.364 million a day, between Dec. 21 up to the end of the year in 2022.
The COA has also found numerous irregularities in the use of the money and has in fact disallowed expenses amounting to more than P73 million, or almost half of the contested CIF.
More than P59 million of the disallowed amount were for the purchase of “various goods” amounting to P34.857 million and “medicines” costing P24.930 million, which were declared by OVP as “payment for rewards” for informants.
An additional P3.5 million described as “payment for chairs, tables, desktop computers, and printers” was also not allowed in the audit.
A COA representative told the good government committee that Duterte and two other OVP officials “liable” for the questionable expenses have the option of appealing the disallowance decision with the COA proper or return the money to the government.
The official said the Vice President has 180 days or six months to make an appeal, while the COA proper has two months to make a final decision.
Cagayan 3rd District Rep. Joseph Lara said the eight-month period in deciding on disallowances causes delays in the filing of criminal charges against public officers mishandling public funds.
“Worse, you are being perceived as [being] in cahoots with these officials or employees, which is not fair to you,” he told COA representatives.
