11 Days, P125M Gone: Duterte’s Cash Dash or a Setup for 2028?

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — June 3, 2025

THE Philippine political stage is ablaze with drama, and Vice President Sara Duterte is caught in the spotlight, juggling a P125 million confidential fund (CF) scandal while dodging accusations of forged receipts and a congressional lynching. A viral Facebook post lays bare the chaos, alleging selective justice, procedural shenanigans, and a Marcos-Duterte feud that screams 2028 election maneuvering. Let’s carve through the mess with a legal machete, a pinch of ethical venom, and Kweba ng Katarungan’s signature sardonic swagger. Is this accountability or a masterclass in political sabotage? Grab your popcorn.

Legal Dissection: Did Sara’s P125M Break the Constitution’s Bank?

Constitutional Smackdown: Was the Transfer Legal?

The 1987 Constitution, Article VI, Section 25(5), is blunt: no fund transfers without Congress’s blessing. The P125 million plopped into the Office of the Vice President (OVP) in December 2022, greenlit by the Office of the President (OP) and the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), smells like trouble. The 2022 OVP budget, drafted for Leni Robredo, had zero CF allocation. So, where’s the congressional nod? The Supreme Court’s Araullo v. Aquino (G.R. No. 209287, 2014) slammed unauthorized fund transfers as unconstitutional, torching the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP). Sara’s P125 million, pulled from the OP’s contingent fund, looks like DAP’s shady sibling. Her defense? “I asked, they gave.” That’s not a legal argument—it’s a dodge.

COA’s P73M Smackdown: Fake Receipts and Snack-Chip Shenanigans

The Commission on Audit (COA), mandated by Article IX-D, Section 2, to police public funds, flagged P73 million of the OVP’s P125 million for irregularities, including receipts signed by “Mary Grace Piattos”—yes, like the snack chip Rappler, 2024. This isn’t just sloppy; it’s a potential violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019). The Supreme Court’s Melloria v. Jimenez (G.R. No. 245894, 2023) demands CFs tie directly to law enforcement or national security. Spending on vague “anti-crime programs” with dubious receipts? That’s a legal faceplant. Duterte’s excuse—can’t spill on “intelligence ops” due to RA 3019’s confidentiality clause—feels like a convenient shield.

Due Process or Kangaroo Court?

The Facebook post screams “no due process” in the House’s one-day impeachment sprint against Duterte. Article XI, Section 3 gives Congress impeachment powers, but Francisco v. House of Representatives (G.R. No. 160261, 2003) insists on procedural fairness—notice, hearing, the works. A 24-hour impeachment blitz, as alleged, reeks of a railroad job. Yet, Duterte’s refusal to answer House queries, hiding behind COA’s audit authority GMA News, 2024, doesn’t scream innocence. She’s a lawyer; stonewalling only fans the flames. Due process is a two-way street—Congress must play fair, but Sara’s not helping herself.

Political & Ethical Takedown: Witch Hunt or Just Desserts?

Sara Singled Out: Selective Justice or Political Payback?

The Facebook post nails the hypocrisy: Duterte’s P125 million is under a congressional microscope, while the OP’s P4.5 billion annual CF DBM, 2024 glides by untouched. Agencies like DSWD, DILG, and DND pocket hundreds of millions in CF, yet Congress stays mum. Article III, Section 1’s equal protection clause demands fairness, but this selective probe stinks of political targeting. The Marcos-Duterte alliance, fractured by Rodrigo Duterte’s ICC woes and Sara’s 2028 ambitions Geopolitical Monitor, 2024, fuels suspicions of a hit job. But let’s not canonize Sara—COA’s findings of fake receipts aren’t political fanfiction. Selective? Sure. Legit concerns? Absolutely.

11-Day Spending Spree: Fiscal Frenzy or Forced Hand?

The P125 million hit the OVP on December 13, 2022, and vanished by December 31—P11 million a day Inquirer, 2024. The Facebook post claims fiscal year-end rules forced the rush. True, funds lapse if unspent, but burning through millions on “anti-crime, anti-terror” programs without ironclad receipts? That’s not prudence; it’s panic. Belgica v. Ochoa (G.R. No. 208566, 2013) slammed opaque, rushed spending as a betrayal of public trust. A lawyer-reservist like Duterte fumbling this? The irony’s thicker than Manila traffic.

Demolition Derby or Accountability Rodeo?

The Facebook post cries “political demolition,” alleging the probe aims to disqualify Duterte from future office. The Marcos-Duterte rift, with Sara as a 2028 contender, supports this Rappler, 2024. Yet, COA’s P73 million disallowance and “Piattos” receipts scream accountability issues. Congress’s obsession with Sara while ignoring Marcos’s P4.5 billion CF is textbook double standards. Is this about cleaning house or clearing Sara’s path to 2028? Both, and it’s messy.

Fixing the CF Circus: Reforms to Stop the Madness

This scandal demands a cleanup:

Lock Down CF Rules: Joint Circular 2015-01 needs claws—mandatory, detailed reports for CFs, even sensitive ones, with COA breathing down everyone’s neck.
Supreme Court Smackdown: Judicial review of impeachment processes, per Francisco v. House of Representatives, to stop politicized pile-ons.
Audit Everyone: COA must probe all CFs—OP, DSWD, DILG, no exceptions. Equal scrutiny shuts down selective justice cries.
Cap the Cash: Congress should slap hard limits on CF allocations to curb abuse.

Closing Jab: Transparency or Bust

Confidential funds are the Philippine government’s dirty little secret, and Sara Duterte’s P125 million mess is the latest episode in this political telenovela. Marcos’s P4.5 billion escapes scrutiny, but Sara’s roasted for a fraction. Hypocrisy? Check. Legit issues with fake receipts? Double check. If secrecy is the lifeblood of CFs, transparency is the cure. Will Congress audit the big dogs, or is this just a warmup for 2028’s cage match? One thing’s clear: the Filipino people deserve better than this fiscal farce.