Sara Duterte trial: On Day 12, prosecution tries to tell a tale of accountability

MANILA, Philippines – There was nary a trace of regret or even apology on lawyer Lorna Kapunan’s face on Tuesday, August 4, and she explained to reporters a remark before the impeachment court that was stricken off the record almost immediately. “Ang iniiscam, taong-bayan. Ang worth ng scam na ‘yan, P612.5 million…. Gusto ko lang sabihin ‘yun para maintindihan natin,” she told reporters in a quick chance interview past 12:30 pm, just minutes after she wrapped her direct examination of state auditor Roderick Wamil. (You’re scamming the public. This scam is worth P612.5 million…. I just wanted to say that out loud so we all understand what’s happening.) In closing her direct examination of Wamil, Kapunan quizzed him on his audit conclusions, based on a joint circular governing confidential funds. Based on the circular, since Duterte’s Office of the Vice President (OVP) and Department of Education (DepEd) were found repeatedly lacking in their documentation and non-compliance in the liquidation of the confidential funds, “[there is a] presumption that the fund was converted into personal use or benefit.” “Your honor, please, ang tawag ko lang do’n, hindi prima facie evidence…. Kung ako ang tatanungin, scam ito (Your honor, in my view, this is not prima facie evidence…. If you ask me, this is a scam),” said Kapunan amid protestations before and after her quip by Duterte’s counsel, Michael Poa. Speaking to Rappler after the trial was suspended for the day, prosecution spokesperson Lanao del Norte 1st District Representative Zia Alonto-Adiong said Kapunan “did not only speak to the judges but she also spoke directly to the people.” “She was able to narrate the presentation in a way that it became a story, a narrative that the public can more easily understand…that there was really that effort to abuse public funds,” he added. Twelve trial days in, and the battle of narratives wages on — a reality that the prosecution seems to be keenly aware of. In a video summary of the August 3 trial, the prosecution panel concluded, “Confidential ang operation, pero hindi confidential ang pananagutan.” (The operation may be confidential, but accountability should not be confidential) Article 1, the second in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, centers on her alleged misuse of confidential funds allocated to both the OVP and DepEd in the last quarter of 2022 and the first three quarters of 2023. All in all, the two agencies that Duterte headed in that 12-month period accessed over P612.5 million in confidential funds. Wamil, on both August 3 and 4, went into detail about the work that dealt with a high degree of discretion: the accounting of conditional funds by the Commission on Audit (COA) Intelligence and Confidential Fund Audit Office (ICFAO), which he was part of for over 10 years between September 2014 and February 2024. It was Wamil who either issued or drafted audit observation memos on Duterte’s use of confidential funds after COA supposedly found her offices’ liquidation of these funds wanting. COA’s process is both technical and cumbersome. After the issuance of an audit observation memorandum, an agency is given time to reply to the observations and comply with requirements found missing. If those are not met satisfactorily, COA issues a notice of suspension. More time is given to the agency until COA issues a notice of disallowance. The notice of disallowance means COA found the use of funds “illegal, irregular, unnecessary, or extravagant.” The agency must then either return the money or file an appeal. In Duterte’s case, the COA’s ruling on the P73 million it disallowed in the 2022 confidential funds is final. While COA also issued a notice of disallowance for P375 million in 2023 confidential funds, this is not yet final. The prosecution has said that the point of questioning both the OVP and DepEd’s paperwork — or lack thereof — in accounting for confidential funds under Duterte is not about questioning the speed of spending or the ridiculousness of some supposed reward money recipients. For legislators and the private counsels, it’s about how that money was spent. Ace Barbers, a former legislator who serves as both spokesperson and adviser to the House prosecution panel, admitted that theirs is a story that doesn’t always reach the communities and circles of Philippine society that they want to. “Well, our strategy really is just to present the evidence and pound on the evidence. Kasi (Because) that’s the best sustainable narrative. We cannot speculate or even conclude or come up with conclusions unless there’s a strong basis, meaning we have strong evidence,” Barbers told Rappler. “We tell ourselves, whatever you say, if you cannot rebut or debunk the evidence that we presented, therefore, we’re winning the narrative. They cannot even question it. That’s why what they do is that they divert. They do not debunk. They divert. What do they do? They hit on the personality ad hominem,” he added. In some corners of social media, for instance, the argument is that confidential funds should not be questioned because of their nature — even if a joint circular precisely spells out the processes agencies with these kinds of funds must comply with in their usage. Barbers, in particular, worries about the masses — the poorest sectors of Philippine society who might not have access to quality information. “We have to focus, maybe strengthen, and maybe try to attempt to dominate social media in terms of the narrative of the prosecution. To be able to do that, we have to fight — a team of bots and maybe perhaps trolls that carry the narrative of the defense,” said Barbers. Wamil returns to the witness stand one more time on Wednesday, August 5, this time for interpellation by senator-judges. The prosecution may also present as their next witness COA-ICFAO supervising auditor Celine May del Campo. – Rappler.com