MANILA (July 20) — The impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte enters its third week with a question that could resonate far beyond the Senate chamber:
Where did more than half a billion pesos in confidential funds go—and were they properly used?
The prosecution is set to spend the biggest chunk of its trial time examining the alleged misuse of P612.5 million in confidential funds allocated to two offices headed by Duterte—the Office of the Vice President (OVP) and the Department of Education (DepEd).
The amount covers P500 million in OVP confidential funds and P112.5 million in DepEd funds.
For ordinary Filipinos, the issue is not simply about accounting documents or acknowledgment receipts. At stake is whether public money intended for sensitive government operations was properly spent, properly documented and ultimately accounted for.
The House prosecution said Friday, July 17, that the confidential funds charge will likely take at least 31 of its 62 trial dates, making it the longest portion of its case against Duterte.
The reason, prosecutors said, is the sheer volume of documents and witnesses needed to trace the alleged money trail—from the release of cash advances and the movement of funds to the liquidation reports submitted to the Commission on Audit (COA).
The trail also leads to a COA ruling that eventually ordered the return of P448 million, according to the prosecution.
“There are so many documents involved in this… We have many witnesses whose testimony needs to be heard to explain the whole process,” House prosecution legal spokesperson Benjamin Tolosa Jr. said in mixed English and Filipino.
The question behind the receipts
The prosecution intends to present evidence showing how the confidential funds were allegedly withdrawn, distributed and liquidated.
Among the documents expected to be scrutinized are acknowledgment receipts that allegedly identify individuals who received the funds.
House prosecutor Rep. Terry Ridon (Bicol Saro) said the prosecution will present evidence involving recipients such as Mary Grace Piatos, whose name has figured prominently in the controversy.
Prosecutors are also expected to present Philippine Statistics Authority records that they claim raise questions about the identities of some individuals named in the receipts.
The defense, however, will have an opportunity to challenge the prosecution’s witnesses, documents and interpretation of the evidence.
The Senate impeachment court will ultimately decide whether the evidence establishes the charges against Duterte.
A trial of documents, money and accountability
The prosecution could begin presenting its confidential funds evidence as early as Wednesday, provided National Bureau of Investigation Director Melvin Matibag completes his direct and cross-examination on the grave threats article on Tuesday.
Presiding officer Senate President Chiz Escudero said the prosecution will finish presenting evidence on all four articles of impeachment before the defense begins presenting its own witnesses.
That means the prosecution’s 31 trial dates for the confidential funds article are only for its side of the case. The defense has 30 trial dates for its entire presentation.
Senator-judges will vote on each article only after both sides have completed their presentations, made formal offers of evidence and delivered their closing arguments.
What happens in the third week?
Monday — Bank and financial records
Senator-judges will question both prosecution and defense lawyers before deciding whether to subpoena tax records, bank accounts and Anti-Money Laundering Council documents involving Duterte and her husband, Mans Carpio.
The issue could become another test of how far the impeachment court can go in examining the financial records of the Vice President and her family.
Malacañang earlier said President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. had not received any request to authorize the opening of sealed Bureau of Internal Revenue documents.
The prosecution maintains that presidential approval is not necessary for a subpoena issued by the impeachment court. If the court rules otherwise, Ridon said the prosecution would comply.
Tuesday — NBI investigation
Matibag is expected to become the final prosecution witness on the grave threats charge.
The prosecution said it expects the NBI chief to present the bureau’s broader investigation into the threats, beyond the cybercrime findings previously discussed by NBI regional director Jeremy Lotoc.
Wednesday — The money trail begins
If Matibag’s testimony is completed without delay, the prosecution is expected to begin its presentation on the confidential funds.
Three subpoenaed witnesses are initially expected to appear: House archives chief Marivic Pareja and former Land Bank branch managers Violeta Constantino and Nenita Camposano.
Their testimony is expected to focus on the movement of the controversial funds through Land Bank branches in Shaw Boulevard and the DepEd.
The prosecution is also expected to present documents involving acknowledgment receipts and alleged discrepancies in signatures and recipient identities.
No ‘star witness’ yet
The prosecution has also downplayed speculation that former aide Ramil Madriaga could emerge as a “star witness.”
Madriaga, who identified himself as a former aide and alleged bagman of Duterte, previously claimed to have personally handled and transferred P125 million in confidential OVP funds within less than 24 hours.
His allegations played a key role in the House’s second impeachment attempt against Duterte.
But Ridon said the prosecution has not identified any single witness as central to the case.
“There is no star witness on any of the articles of impeachment,” he said, adding that the prosecution will decide as the trial progresses.
For communities watching the proceedings, however, the most important witness may ultimately be the paper trail itself.
The coming weeks will put hundreds of millions of pesos in public funds under the microscope. The central issue is straightforward: Can the prosecution prove that the money was used legally and for its intended purpose—or did the system fail to account for funds entrusted to public officials?
The Senate impeachment court, after hearing both sides, will have the final say.
