Secrecy vs. Scrutiny: Who Holds the Vice President Accountable?

By Louis “Barok” C. Biraogo — December 18, 2024

BENEATH the legal and procedural debate surrounding Vice President Sara Duterte’s use of confidential funds lies a deeper, more troubling dilemma: when public trust is on trial, can accountability afford to hide behind closed doors? At the heart of this debate lies a critical question: Does the Vice President’s invocation of confidentiality exempt her from the scrutiny of Congress, the very institution entrusted with the power of the purse? Heidi Mendoza, a former COA commissioner and respected authority in government audit, has delivered a clear and cautionary message—no government official, even one shielded by confidentiality, can escape the reach of Congress.

To dissect this matter, let us first anchor the discussion on the legal frameworks governing confidential funds and the powers of Congress, balancing Mendoza’s assertions against the Vice President’s defense.

The Legal Basis: Congress and the Power of the Purse

The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines is unequivocal on the role of Congress in overseeing government expenditures. Article VI, Section 24 gives Congress the authority to craft appropriations laws—an embodiment of its “power of the purse.” This legislative power includes the right to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation (Article VI, Section 21) and to exercise oversight functions over public funds. These functions are not symbolic but essential to ensuring accountability and preventing misuse.

Mendoza’s assertion finds support in Joint Circular 2015-01, which sets guidelines for the disbursement of confidential and intelligence funds. This circular mandates the submission of accomplishment reports to the Office of the President, Senate President, and House Speaker. Such reporting presupposes an obligation to answer questions arising from those reports. To argue otherwise would render the entire exercise meaningless—accountability without inquiry is no accountability at all.

Confidential Funds: An Exception or a Shield?

Confidential funds are uniquely sensitive by nature. They are designed to fund activities related to surveillance, national security, and other clandestine operations. The joint circular indeed allows the use of aliases in acknowledgment receipts to protect the identities of operatives or recipients. However, Mendoza’s argument is critical here: the use of aliases does not absolve officials from maintaining control measures—like journals linking aliases to real identities—which can be examined when necessary.

Herein lies the tension: Vice President Duterte’s claim of confidentiality invokes a necessary protection but raises a legal question—Can confidentiality trump legislative oversight?

The answer requires a delicate balance. While confidentiality ensures operational security, it cannot serve as a blanket exemption to evade accountability. The Supreme Court has long recognized in cases such as Senate v. Ermita (2006) that executive privilege, including claims of confidentiality, is not absolute. The Court ruled that oversight functions of Congress are essential to its constitutional mandate. Thus, refusal to cooperate without justifiable cause risks undermining this principle.

The Role of the Vice President and Legal Accountability

The Office of the Vice President (OVP), while largely ceremonial in function, remains an integral part of the executive branch. Like all other government agencies, the OVP is subject to legislative scrutiny, particularly when public funds are involved. Confidential funds are not “personal” funds but public money, allocated by Congress with the presumption of oversight. To exempt the Vice President’s office from accountability simply because of “confidentiality” would set a dangerous precedent—one where public funds can be spent without checks and balances.

Mendoza is right to ask: If not Congress, then to whom will the Vice President be accountable?

The refusal to submit to Congressional scrutiny raises two significant legal implications:

Violation of Oversight Powers: If Congress is denied access to critical details on the use of confidential funds, it would amount to an infringement of its constitutional mandate.
Risk of Abuse: Lack of transparency risks opening doors to misuse, inefficiency, and corruption—issues that confidential funds are historically vulnerable to.

The courts would likely affirm Congress’s oversight role, especially given its foundational role in ensuring government accountability.

Transparency vs. National Security: A Dangerous Precedent

The greater danger lies in the broader implications of the Vice President’s defense. If Congress is prevented from asking questions or scrutinizing the OVP’s confidential expenditures, what stops other agencies or officials from hiding behind the veil of confidentiality? Such a precedent erodes transparency, the bedrock of democratic governance. It would allow officials to disburse public money with impunity, shielded from accountability under the guise of national security.

While it is true that confidentiality is necessary in some cases, it must be paired with mechanisms for traceability—control measures like journals, as Mendoza pointed out, ensure that funds remain accountable without compromising security.

The Impact on Public Trust and Perception

At its core, this controversy transcends legal arguments. It strikes at the public’s trust in their government. When a high-ranking official evades inquiries into the use of public funds, doubt takes root. The media, as Mendoza observes, plays a crucial role in shaping public perception. Reports suggesting evasion can paint an image of wrongdoing, justified or not. In a country grappling with corruption scandals, the refusal to cooperate with Congress—regardless of the justification—invites suspicion.

Public trust is fragile. A government that fails to uphold transparency risks not only its legitimacy but the very foundations of democracy.

Conclusion: Between Obligation and Evasion

To deny Congress its oversight role over confidential funds is not just legally questionable but constitutionally indefensible. Vice President Duterte may invoke confidentiality as a defense, but this cannot operate as a shield to silence the inquiries of the people’s representatives. As Mendoza aptly asks, if not Congress, then to whom will she be accountable?

The answer is clear: Congress holds the purse strings, and with that power comes an irrevocable duty to demand answers. Refusal to comply is not just an affront to legal principles—it is an assault on transparency and public trust. If confidentiality prevails without accountability, what we gain in secrecy may cost us far more in integrity.

This is not merely a debate about funds—it is a defining moment for accountability in our nation. If transparency falls here, the shadows of secrecy will claim far more than budgets; they will claim the people’s trust. We cannot afford to look away.