Confidential or Controversial? Unpacking VP Duterte’s Defense on P612M in Secret Funds

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C Biraogo — December 13, 2024

CONFIDENTIAL funds were meant to safeguard the nation, but do they now shield something else? Vice President Sara Duterte’s refusal to publicly disclose how she utilized P612.5 million in confidential funds (CFs) allocated to the Office of the Vice President (OVP) and Department of Education (DepEd) has sparked significant legal and ethical debate. At the heart of the issue are competing principles: the need for transparency and accountability in public fund use, as enshrined in the Philippine Constitution, and the protection of national security and intelligence operations, which necessitate secrecy. Below, we examine her stance, the legal arguments for and against it, and recommend pathways forward for involved stakeholders.

A Look Behind the Scenes: A Contextual Overview

In 2022 and 2023, VP Duterte’s offices received substantial CFs, a departure from previous administrations. These funds are ostensibly for intelligence and national security purposes, including addressing insurgency threats and vulnerabilities in education. However, the House of Representatives’ investigation revealed discrepancies in receipts and questionable names of fund recipients, raising red flags about possible misuse or lack of proper oversight.

Duterte has asserted that explaining these expenditures would compromise national security and has invoked the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019) as a basis for withholding information. She has also declined to answer allegations before the House committee, asserting that the Commission on Audit (COA) is the only body authorized to scrutinize CFs.

1. The Defense of VP Duterte: Arguments Supporting Her Refusal to Explain CFs

Confidential Nature of Funds
- CFs are, by definition, allocated for activities requiring secrecy, particularly related to intelligence and national security. Joint Circular No. 2015-01 allows for the use of CFs without detailed public disclosure, limiting reporting requirements to COA in aggregate form.
- Public disclosure could inadvertently reveal operational methods, informant identities, or strategic priorities, potentially endangering lives and compromising missions.
Legal Protections Against Unauthorized Disclosure
- Duterte cites Section 3(k) of RA 3019, which prohibits officials from divulging confidential information obtained by virtue of their office.
- Precedents from the Supreme Court of the Philippines, such as Senate v. Ermita (2006), affirm executive privilege in cases where disclosure could harm national security or public interest.
Mandated Oversight by COA
- Duterte emphasizes COA’s constitutional role as the primary auditor of public funds. Given that CF reporting requirements are already limited, additional scrutiny by the House could overstep its mandate.
Focus on Outcomes, Not Process
- Duterte argues that the use of CFs should be judged based on their tangible outcomes, such as improved national security or education system resilience. She links these expenditures to broader societal goals like poverty alleviation, which she claims are inseparable from security concerns.

The Arguments Against VP Duterte’s Position: Challenging Her Refusal to Explain CFs

Constitutional Mandates for Transparency
- Article II, Section 28 of the 1987 Constitution mandates transparency in government transactions, while Article III, Section 7 guarantees citizens the right to information on public fund use. These principles ensure accountability and deter corruption.
- Supreme Court rulings, such as Chavez v. Public Estates Authority (2002), stress the importance of disclosure in matters involving public interest.
Potential for Misuse or Abuse
- The unusual recipient names (e.g., “Mary Grace Piattos”) and the Philippine Statistics Authority’s confirmation of non-existent identities heighten suspicions of fund misuse.
- Without sufficient checks, CFs could be diverted for personal or political purposes, undermining the principle of ethical governance outlined in RA 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees).
Scope of Legislative Oversight
- While COA audits CFs, the legislature has the constitutional mandate to ensure the proper use of appropriated funds under its power of the purse. The House’s inquiries are therefore lawful and necessary to safeguard public interest.
Inappropriate Use of CFs in DepEd
- Critics argue that DepEd, a civilian agency focused on education, lacks a direct mandate for national security functions, raising questions about why CFs were allocated to it in the first place. The absence of clear statutory or operational justification undermines the validity of Duterte’s claims.

Weighing the Arguments: Who Has the Stronger Case?

While Duterte’s reliance on national security concerns is a valid legal defense, the lack of transparency and alleged irregularities weaken her position. The Constitution’s clear mandates on accountability and transparency, coupled with COA’s findings, tilt the legal argument in favor of public disclosure. Jurisprudence underscores the need for balance between operational secrecy and accountability—a balance that Duterte has yet to demonstrate convincingly.

Recommendations

For VP Duterte
- Provide an independent, high-level summary of CF allocations without compromising operational details. Transparency, even in limited forms, builds public trust and can dispel allegations of impropriety.
- Strengthen internal controls and ensure compliance with existing guidelines for CF use to avoid irregularities.
For the House of Representatives’ Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability
- Establish stricter legislative parameters on CF allocation, including clearer reporting requirements and limits on allocations to agencies without direct security mandates.
- Collaborate with COA to audit CFs comprehensively while respecting operational confidentiality.
For the Filipino Public
- Advocate for institutional reforms that enhance oversight of CFs, such as creating an independent oversight body.
- Demand transparency and accountability from all public officials to prevent potential abuse of discretionary funds.

Conclusion

While VP Duterte’s reliance on national security and intelligence confidentiality is grounded in valid legal principles, the lack of transparency and irregularities surrounding the funds undermines public trust. The constitutional principles of accountability and transparency hold greater weight in this case, suggesting that limited disclosure is not only necessary but also legally and ethically justified. The controversy underscores the urgent need for reforms to balance secrecy and accountability in CF management.