Duterte stands pat on budget regularity in House hearing

Metro Manila, Philippines — Vice President Sara Duterte stood her ground during a House of Representatives hearing on Wednesday, Sept. 18, that her office has done nothing wrong in spending its budget.

Duterte faced the House committee on good government and public accountability which discussed the budget utilization of the Office of the Vice President (OVP), particularly confidential funds used in 2022.

The committee tackles “all matters directly and principally relating to malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance” of public officials. It is equivalent to the Senate blue ribbon committee.

“There is no misuse of funds,” Duterte said in her opening speech. “If there are audit findings, we shall gladly respond to them before the Commission on Audit (COA). And if there are legitimate cases to be filed, then we shall gladly respond to them before the appropriate courts.”

Deliberations for the proposed 2025 budget revealed that COA issued a notice of disallowance on the ₱73 million out of the ₱125 million in OVP confidential funds in 2022.

Secret funds at the center

Lawmakers have grilled Duterte on several occasions over the spending of ₱125 million in confidential funds in 2022, even if the office was not expressly provided with the funding in that fiscal year. Petitions against this controversial transaction have been brought to the Supreme Court.

Present in the deliberations were representatives from the OVP, COA, the Department of Budget and Management.

When asked to take the oath, Duterte did not comply, citing she was invited as a resource person and not a witness. She explained that under House rules, only witnesses are expected to do the oathtaking.

Manila 3rd District Rep. Joel Chua, the panel chairperson, insisted that the two were the same — something that prompted former president and Pampanga 2nd District Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to make a point of order.

“We cannot just trivialize,” Arroyo said. “‘Pareho na rin ‘yon [They are the same] witness, resource person’ — they are not the same. The Supreme Court says they are not the same and somebody who appears to be the accused has a different tier of protection.”

Bukidnon 2nd District Rep. Jonathan Kieth Flores said the inquiry was in aid of legislation and “no one is technically accused of any wrongdoing here.”

“Mr. Chair, look at the speech, look at the privilege speech!” Arroyo interjected.

In her opening message, Duterte reiterated her allegations that the House was just making political attacks and attempts to file an impeachment case against her. She said the privilege speech was “empty” and simply meant “Do not vote for Sara in 2028.”

“So you may try to destroy me,” Duterte said. “You can skin me alive, burn me, and throw my ashes to the wind. But let it be known: You will find me unbowed.”

“I, therefore, request this committee to terminate this inquiry for its clear lack of any proposed legislation or substantive matter for discussion,” the vice president said.

Chua said the committee hearing would proceed.

Where is this coming from?

With the disintegration of the Uniteam alliance — or the partnership between Duterte and President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. during the 2022 national elections — more lawmakers have been vocal in criticizing the vice president.

As a matter of fact, Manila 2nd District Rep. Rolando Valeriano delivered a scathing privilege speech at the House plenary on Sept. 3 to attack Duterte, especially her behavior during the chamber’s budget hearing.

RELATED: Repetitive VP responses in budget hearing an insult — lawmaker

Valeriano made accusations in his speech that Duterte’s “real bosses” might be not the Filipino public but those promoting Philippine Offshore Gaming Operations, those ships blocking Filipino fishermen, or those who have conducted “Oplan Tokhang.”

As committee chair, Chua took cognizance of this speech and led the good government panel hearing, saying that the “power of the purse directly affects the lives of the people.”

He also said: “There may be arguments of extending parliamentary courtesy to several high offices of the executive. But I ask this: Is parliamentary courtesy more important than safeguarding the budget to ensure proper utilization and allocation than asserting the power of the purse?”