Not that I am uninterested in the ongoing impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte. I simply do not have the luxury of watching the proceedings almost the whole day. Like many others, I read the news reports the following day to find out what transpired during the trial.
And frankly, it can be wearisome to watch when some senator-judges, with due respect, ask questions that appear trivial or even act as though they were prosecutors or defense counsel rather than judges. Senator-judges may, of course, ask clarificatory questions, just as judges do in regular courts. But there is a difference between seeking clarification and actively participating in the prosecution or defense.
A judge, after all, is expected to exercise what the courts have often described as the “cold neutrality of a magistrate.”
The ongoing impeachment trial has brought renewed attention to one particularly controversial issue: the disbursement of P125 million in confidential funds by the Office of the Vice President (OVP) within 11 days — from Dec. 21 to 31, 2022.
That means an average expenditure of more than P11 million a day.
The figure alone is enough to make taxpayers raise an eyebrow. But the real question should not simply be: Was P125 million spent in 11 days?
The more important questions are: For what purpose was it spent? Was it authorized? Was it properly documented and liquidated? Were the rules governing confidential and intelligence funds followed? And, most importantly, did the spending serve a legitimate government purpose?
These are not merely political questions. They are questions of public accountability and fiscal governance that the impeachment court is mandated to look into.
Confidential and intelligence funds are not ordinary government appropriations. They exist precisely because certain government operations — particularly those involving intelligence gathering, surveillance, security and the protection of sensitive information — cannot be publicly itemized in the same manner as ordinary expenditures.
Secrecy, therefore, is not necessarily synonymous with misuse.
There are legitimate reasons why the government cannot disclose the identities of informants, intelligence sources, surveillance targets, or operational methods. Requiring government agencies to publicly reveal every detail of legitimate intelligence operations could defeat the very purpose for which such funds were created.
But secrecy cannot become a blank check.
Public funds remain public funds, even when their expenditure is confidential.
This is where the Commission on Audit (COA) enters the picture. The fact that an expenditure involves confidential funds does not place it beyond the constitutional mandate of government auditing. The public may not be entitled to know every operational detail, but there must still be mechanisms to determine whether the money was actually spent for a lawful and authorized government purpose.
COA auditors have raised questions concerning the documentation of the OVP’s expenditures, including acknowledgment receipts and other supporting documents. Such deficiencies matter because auditing rules exist not merely to create paperwork but to establish accountability over money belonging to the Filipino people.
The defense, on the other hand, has argued that the OVP submitted the required liquidation reports within the period prescribed by the applicable rules, including Joint Circular 2015-01 and that the expenditures were for legitimate administrative and security-related purposes.
That argument deserves to be heard. But so do the questions raised by the auditors.
This is precisely why impeachment proceedings should not be reduced to a political shouting match. The Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, must examine the evidence dispassionately and determine whether the questioned acts constitute an impeachable offense — not merely whether the public finds them suspicious, unusual, or politically distasteful.
There is also a broader policy question that Congress should confront.
Should civilian offices that do not have primary defense, intelligence, or national security functions be entrusted with substantial confidential or intelligence funds in the first place?
If the answer is yes, then there must be clear safeguards. If the answer is no, then Congress should reconsider how such funds are appropriated and who should be authorized to use them.
The controversy also reminds us that “confidential” does not mean unaccountable and “intelligence” does not mean exempt from audit.
There must always be a delicate balance between operational secrecy and public accountability. The government must be able to protect legitimate intelligence activities without allowing secrecy to shield questionable expenditures.
Ultimately, the issue is not whether confidential funds should be secret. They should be, when secrecy is genuinely necessary. The issue is whether that secrecy is being used to protect national security — or to protect someone from accountability.
The P125 million controversy gives Congress, COA and the Senate an opportunity to draw that line clearly.
Because in a democracy, the people’s money may sometimes have to be spent in secret. But it must never be spent without accountability.