OVP says it has yet to get COA memo on 2022 spending
Vice President Sara Duterte (Photo from her Facebook page)
MANILA, Phililppines — Smarting from criticism over its huge request for secret funds, the Office of the Vice President (OVP) said on Wednesday it has not received any notice from the (COA) flagging its use of P125 million in confidential expenses in 2022.
Vice President Sara Duterte’s office also clarified that it spent the amount in 19 days and not 11 days, contrary to what Marikina Rep. Stella Quimbo said during the House plenary deliberations on the COA’s budget on Monday.
During the debate on the OVP’s budget on Wednesday, the office said it has not received any audit observation memorandum (AOM) on its confidential expenses in the last three weeks of 2022.
An AOM is sent to a government agency to notify it of its audit deficiencies and to allow it to submit supporting documents to justify expenses.
“As to the AOM for the 2022 confidential funds, the OVP has not received an AOM from the Commission on Audit. In case there is an AOM the OVP will respond to it,” said Davao de Oro Rep. Maria Carmen Zamora, who was the sponsor of the OVP budget.
Article continues after this advertisementDuterte was present during the budget deliberation, but under House rules, it is the sponsoring lawmaker who defends the agency’s proposed appropriations.
Article continues after this advertisementNot denying
On Monday, the COA, through its budget sponsor Quimbo, said an AOM was sent to Duterte on Sept. 18, and that its audit of the OVP’s 2022 confidential funds was to be finished by Nov. 15.
Upon hearing Zamora’s reply, ACT Teachers Rep. France Castro asked: “So is the COA lying?”
Zamora replied: “The OVP is not denying anything. But records will show that there is no AOM received by the OVP as we speak.”
The sponsor also said it was inaccurate to say the OVP spent its confidential funds in 11 days.
“The COA report for the utilization of the fund starts from Dec. 20 to 31, 2022, and that is 11 days. However, the implementation of the programs started on the day that the [Saro] was released on Dec. 13, 2022,” Zamora said.
She said the OVP “maintains full accountability for the use of its funds and remains committed to observing accounting and budgeting rules and procedures.”
On Tuesday, it was revealed during the plenary deliberation on the Office of the President’s (OP) budget that Duterte sought an additional P403.46 million in funding to augment her expenses for the remainder of that year, more than half or P250 million of it in confidential funds.
However, the OVP was granted only P221.424 million of the total request, of which P125 million was earmarked for confidential expenses.
A special allotment release order (Saro) dated Dec. 13, 2022, showed that the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) approved P125 million for the OVP’s confidential funds and another P96.424 million for financial assistance or subsidy.
The money, which Malacañang and the DBM later said came from the P7-billion contingent fund for 2022, was covered by Saro-BMB-C-22-0012004.
‘Damning proof’
But former OVP spokesperson and lawyer Barry Gutierrez said the Saro itself was “damning proof” that the transfer of funds to the OVP had been irregular.
He noted the absence of an explicit line item for confidential funds in the Saro signed by Budget Secretary Amenah Pangandaman.
Instead, the P125 million that was spent for secret expenses by the OVP was transferred to a line item for the OVP’s Good Governance Program, Gutierrez said.
“This only proves that even the DBM could not transfer funds to an item for CIF because it does not exist,” he said.
“They could not put confidential funds in there because their reference was the maintenance and other operating expenses.”
Gutierrez, along with Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman and former Justice Secretary and Sen. Franklin Drilon, has argued that the transfer is unconstitutional.
Lagman earlier noted that the 1987 Constitution “prohibits the transfer of funds except with respect to constitutional officers like the president relative to savings for augmentation of allocation which are deficient in his office, not in any other office.”
“Consequently, it is unconstitutional for any transfer by one office to another, like the transfer of funds from the OP to the OVP. Transfer from augmentation must be from savings,” he said.
