“There are numerous unanswered questions in Duterte’s vice presidency.”
In just 11 days, millions of pesos in confidential funds from the Office of the Vice President allegedly vanished—a revelation that has triggered an intense probe by the Philippine House of Representatives. The investigation, focused on Vice President Sara Duterte’s spending practices, took a sharp turn when Chief of Staff Zuleika Lopez departed for the U.S. as scrutiny grew. With calls for a DOJ lookout bulletin on Lopez and six other officials refusing to testify, the public is left wondering: Is this a case of gross mismanagement, or something far darker?
The investigation into the OVP’s budget began with a privilege speech by Rep. Rolando Valeriano, where he questioned the OVP’s handling of P125 million in confidential funds, P73 million of which was subsequently disallowed by the Commission on Audit (COA). The COA’s findings show that these funds were expended at an alarming rate, averaging over P11 million per day over the last 11 days of 2022. This fast-paced expenditure has raised red flags, especially considering that public funds were involved. The House’s concerns are amplified by the resistance of Duterte’s office to submit to oversight. Their reluctance casts doubt on the OVP’s transparency and accountability in handling public resources, especially funds designated for critical public services.
The House Committee on Good Government, headed by Rep. Joel Chua, has summoned Duterte’s officials several times, only to be met with repeated absences and refusals to testify. Citing this pattern of non-cooperation, the Committee recently issued subpoenas and reasserted that failure to comply could lead to contempt charges, including detention. Flight has historically been viewed as circumstantial evidence of guilt in the Philippine justice system, from cases like People v. Berame to People v. Tanchoco, where the courts have held that unexplained flight can indicate a guilty conscience. Lopez’s departure in this context is thus raising the same concerns.
The House has formally requested the DOJ to issue a lookout bulletin for the seven OVP officials to prevent them from leaving the country while under investigation. An ILBO alerts authorities to an individual’s attempts to exit the country without outright banning them from travel, unlike a hold departure order which requires a court’s approval. The rationale for an ILBO here lies in the OVP’s officials’ repeated absences from hearings, their potential involvement in fund misuse, and the risk that their flight could further obstruct accountability efforts.
To justify the ILBO, the House Committee has pointed to the officials’ absences as undermining the legislative process, and the Philippine Supreme Court has upheld legislative oversight over public funds. The 2014 case Senate v. Ermita emphasized Congress’s right to summon officials to ensure public accountability. The ILBO, then, serves as a legal mechanism to mitigate the risk of obstruction in cases of alleged misuse of public resources.
The OVP argues that Lopez’s travel is personal, authorized by the Vice President herself, and conforms to procedural requirements for government officials’ travel. The OVP’s stance, however, falls short of addressing the broader issue of transparency and accountability. They might argue that the investigation lacks a legitimate legislative purpose or that COA’s findings already cover the information sought. While these defenses might be legally valid to some degree, they overlook the importance of public accountability—a key component of the legislative probe.
Should the DOJ Grant the ILBO?
Granting the ILBO appears necessary given the serious nature of the allegations, the OVP officials’ consistent non-cooperation, and the potential impact of their testimony on the investigation’s outcome. Courts in the Philippines have recognized circumstantial evidence as relevant in investigations, especially in cases of public interest where public funds are at stake. Although an ILBO would not restrict the officials from traveling indefinitely, it would allow the DOJ to monitor their movements, preventing potential flight that could hinder justice.
Recommendations
• For VP Duterte, to uphold public trust, Duterte should encourage her staff to participate in the probe, ensuring transparency. By cooperating with legislative inquiries, she can mitigate public perception of guilt or cover-up.
• For the DOJ, to issue the ILBO as requested. This measure will protect public interest by helping prevent further obstruction of accountability.
• For the House Committee, to maintain its commitment to transparency and pursue legal channels to enforce attendance, including contempt citations if necessary.
• For the Filipino Public, to demand accountability from public officials, particularly in cases involving public funds. As stewards of taxpayer money, they must uphold integrity and transparency.
This investigation isn’t just about the OVP’s budget—it’s about setting a precedent for accountability. Every official, every peso spent, must be subject to scrutiny if democracy is to hold. Without transparency, government is nothing more than power unchecked. The OVP’s response will either bolster or break the public’s trust.
