‘Funny’ names in confidential funds receipts not issue for COA – Sara Duterte’s defense

EVIDENCE. Senate staff carry boxes labeled 'confidential funds' outside the Senate plenary hall during the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte on August 12, 2026. Senate Social Media Unit The defense also points out that the Commission on Audit did not mind that the funds were spent in different places on the same day MANILA, Philippines – The defense team of Vice President Sara Duterte highlighted two major points during the impeachment trial’s 15th day on Wednesday, August 12: that there was nothing irregular about the names used in the confidential funds acknowledgement receipts and the simultaneous disbursement of these funds on the same day. Defense lawyer Kristine Ferrer repeated the names “Mary Grace Piattos,” “Andy Lim,” “Christine Applegate Estrada,” among others, during her cross-examination of Commission on Audit (COA) Intelligence and Confidential Funds Auditing Office (ICFAO) state auditor Xylene del Campo. Ferrer asked Del Campo if these names were found in the COA’s two notices of disallowance against the Office of the Vice President. The COA disallowed or disapproved the liquidation of the Office of the Vice President’s (OVP) 2022 (P73 million) and 2023 (P375 million) confidential funds. “None,” Del Campo replied. The defense lawyer then asked the COA auditor if the funny nature of the names made them fictitious. Before Del Campo could respond, counsel for the prosecution Lorna Kapunan objected, arguing that the question was misleading. Presiding officer Chiz Escudero intervened and said the prosecution “had fun” mentioning the names in the past, then allowed Ferrer to cross-examine the witness about these names. Later, Escudero asked Del Campo himself. “Did you mention anything about the funny names in your notice of disallowance?” Escudero asked in Filipino. “Nothing,” Del Campo replied. “No mention even on the audit observation memorandum (AOM)?” said the presiding officer. “None too,” Del Campo said. Ferrer then showed a portion of the transcript of the House committee on good government’s hearing on confidential funds. The portion showed the explanation of Gloria Camora from the COA-ICFAO on why the OVP funds were disallowed, and the names being “funny” was not one of the grounds cited: Non-submission of documents on the payment of rewards Charging of some items that are not compliant with Joint Circular No. 2015-01 (rule on how confidential funds should be audited) Non-submission of the OVP’s revised accomplishment report to the Office of the President, Senate president, and House speaker. “We had our targets. We had to establish certain things, certain facts. We had to show what’s in the notice of disallowance and what’s not. But if we were able to establish it or not, that will be up to the appreciation of the impeachment court,” defense spokesperson and counsel Michael Poa told reporters in a briefing. No issue on different places On Tuesday, August 11, the prosecution flagged the OVP and Department of Education’s nationwide disbursements of confidential funds on the same day. For example, certain acknowledgment receipts were issued on February 21, 2023, but the addresses were from different places such as Bulacan, Makati City, Davao City, and Agusan del Sur, among others. Ferrer, during her cross-examination, poked holes in this theory and highlighted that the COA had no issue with these same-day, nationwide disbursements. She specifically asked Del Campo if the place of payment matters to the COA-ICFAO. “We did not include it in our findings,” said Del Campo. “Such that, if there are disbursements on the same date and they occurred in different places, the findings of COA-ICFAO will not cover them?” the defense lawyer said. “Because we presume regularity because of the certification under oath of the SDO (special disbursing officer) that it was for confidential operations, it is necessary, and for legal purposes,” the state auditor explained. Escudero himself also asked whether the COA-ICFAO mentioned in the notice of disallowance or AOM the places where the funds had been disbursed. “None,” said Del Campo. – Rappler.com How does this make you feel? Loading