Senate Impeachment Court Can Rule on VP Sara Duterte Confidential Fund Case Ahead of COA Final Ruling

In a recent ANC 24/7 report, the House prosecution panel asserted that the Senate impeachment court can render a verdict on Vice President Sara Duterte's alleged misuse of confidential funds even if the Commission on Audit (COA) has not yet issued a final ruling on its findings. This legal position, articulated by House prosecution panel spokesperson and Kabataan party-list Rep. Renee Co, underscores a critical distinction between administrative audit procedures and the constitutional process of impeachment. For millions of Filipinos following the historic trial, this development clarifies that the Senate's judgment will not be held hostage by bureaucratic timelines.

Senate Impeachment Court Can Rule on VP Sara Duterte Confidential Fund Case Ahead of COA Final Ruling, Prosecution Insists

Manila, Philippines — The Senate impeachment court has the authority to decide on Vice President Sara Duterte's alleged misuse of confidential funds even if the Commission on Audit (COA) has yet to issue a final decision on its findings, the House prosecution panel said this week. Rep. Renee Co argued that the standard for impeachment differs from administrative audit rules, emphasizing that the trial's outcome hinges on evidence of betrayal of public trust, not solely on COA's administrative conclusions.

Prosecution: Different Standards for Impeachment and Audit

In a press conference held in Quezon City, Rep. Co explained that COA rules and regulations deal with administrative functions, but the impeachment process takes stock of whether the acts of the Vice President constitute betrayal of public trust. "The standard is different," Co said, noting that the impeachment court can decide based on testimony and evidence presented during the trial, regardless of whether COA has issued a final ruling. This distinction is crucial for the proceedings, which began on July 6, 2026, marking the first impeachment trial of a vice president in Philippine history.

Accountability Rests on the Vice President's Signature

Rep. Co, speaking partly in Filipino, drove home the point of personal accountability: "At the end of the day, si VP Sara ang may accountability dahil 'yung pirma niya ay visible naman sa ating lahat." (At the end of the day, Duterte is the one who is accountable because her signature on the liquidation documents is visible to all of us.) This statement directly addresses the core of Article I of the impeachment complaint, which concerns the alleged misuse of confidential funds. The prosecution's case relies heavily on documentary evidence, including liquidation documents bearing the Vice President's signature.

House Panel: Senate Verdict Should Not Be Substituted

House prosecution spokesperson Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong of Lanao del Sur reinforced the panel's stance during the same press conference on August 27-28. "Whatever the decision of other agencies should not be a substitute of the Senate's verdict," Adiong said. He also addressed the possibility of fund restitution, stating, "Regardless if the fund has been restituted [returned], it does not condone the fact that she violated, from the very start, the Joint Memorandum Circular governing the use of confidential funds." This position signals that the prosecution will pursue the case even if the OVP attempts to return or replenish the funds in question.

COA Findings and the P73-Million and P375-Million Disallowances

The COA has been central to the allegations, having issued a notice of disallowance (ND) on the OVP's P73-million confidential fund spending in 2022, which was affirmed with finality in April 2026. Additionally, COA issued an ND on the OVP's P375-million confidential fund spending in 2023, a decision the OVP has appealed. Prosecution witness Xylene del Campo, a state auditor from the COA-Intelligence and Confidential Funds Audit Office, testified that the 2023 ND was issued because former OVP special disbursing officer Gina Acosta delegated her duty to disburse the fund to former security chief Col. Raymund Lachica, an action prohibited under the 2015 guidelines on confidential fund use. Del Campo also noted that the OVP used confidential funds for reimbursement of activities conducted ahead of receiving their allocation, another prohibited practice.

Hostile Witnesses Detail Irregular Disbursement

The trial has featured testimony from hostile witnesses, including former OVP special disbursing officer Gina Acosta and OVP Assistant Secretary Lemuel Ortonio. Both testified that Lachica disbursed and spent the P375-million confidential fund in 2023 and the P125-million confidential fund in 2022, even though he was not an accountable officer. Acosta, who later said she acted on the instruction of the Vice President, also stated there is no documentary evidence that Lachica actually received the funds. Ortonio added that the request for confidential funds was the call of the Vice President, and that only Duterte and Lachica knew how the P500 million in OVP confidential funds spanning 2022 to 2023 were spent. The OVP camp disputes these findings, including the allegation that it used P125 million in confidential funds within 11 days in December 2022.

Senator-Judges Seek COA Guidance, But It's Not Mandatory

Senator-Judge Juan Miguel Zubiri has called on COA to immediately resolve the OVP's appeal for better guidance in deciding the case. However, Senate President Chiz Escudero said such a resolution is not mandatory for the impeachment court to proceed. This difference of opinion among senator-judges highlights the legal complexities of the trial. Meanwhile, Malacañang has stated that existing rules governing confidential and intelligence funds (CIF) are clear but may need tighter safeguards to prevent officials from exploiting loopholes, a signal that the executive branch is watching the proceedings closely.

Public Perception: Bribery Tops List of Serious Allegations

A July 2026 Tugon ng Masa survey found that 43% of adult Filipinos consider bribery the most serious impeachment allegation against Duterte, ahead of alleged misuse of confidential funds at 28%. This public perception underscores the broader concerns about governance and accountability that have animated the trial. For ordinary Filipinos, the case is not just about legal technicalities; it is about whether public officials can be held accountable for the use of taxpayer money, especially funds intended for security and intelligence operations.

What to Watch For

As the trial continues, the Senate impeachment court is expected to weigh the testimonies of hostile witnesses and the documentary evidence presented by the prosecution. The defense is likely to challenge the credibility of witnesses and the interpretation of COA guidelines. The key question remains whether the prosecution can prove that the Vice President's actions constitute betrayal of public trust, a standard that goes beyond administrative lapses. With the COA appeal still pending, the Senate's decision will set a precedent for how impeachment courts handle cases involving audit findings.

The outcome of this trial will resonate far beyond the halls of the Senate. It will determine whether the constitutional mechanism of impeachment can serve as a check on executive power, even when administrative bodies have yet to finish their work. For the Filipino people, this case is a test of the nation's commitment to accountability and the rule of law, and the Senate's verdict will shape public trust in government institutions for years to come.

By Bella Reyes, Staff Writer

This article was produced with AI-assisted research and editorial support. Reporting is based on sources cited in the article.