黑料社

MANILA, Philippines 鈥� Taking a cue from actions by their principal, 19 executives of the Office of the Vice President (OVP) are refusing to appear in a House inquiry on the alleged misuse of public funds by Vice President Sara Duterte, telling the lawmakers that their presence would be 鈥渦nnecessary鈥� and 鈥渘ot needed.鈥�

Instead of explaining their stand in front of members of the House committee on good government and public accountability, six senior OVP officials spoke for the group in a seven-page position paper they submitted to the panel on Thursday.

The position paper was signed by OVP chief of staff and lawyer Zuleika Lopez; Assistant Secretary and assistant chief of staff Lemuel Ortonio; lawyer Rosalynne Sanchez, director of OVP administrative and financial services office; OVP special disbursing officer Gina Acosta; and former Department of Education (DepEd) special disbursing officer Edward Fajarda.

Hearings unnecessary

The OVP executives stressed that the House committee hearings were 鈥渦nnecessary and that the attendance of the officials and personnel of the Office of the Vice President is therefore not needed.鈥�

They said they were skipping the inquiry because the 鈥渟ubject matter鈥� was 鈥渘ot in aid of legislation.鈥�

They questioned the committee鈥檚 jurisdiction and insisted on the right of invited 鈥渞esource persons鈥� included to refuse to attend.

They also cited the sub judice rule, saying that Duterte鈥檚 use of her controversial confidential funds was pending in the Supreme Court.

The OVP officials pointed out that, like other government offices, the OVP was 鈥渞egularly audited鈥� by the Commission on Audit (COA) and that whatever data would be sought from them 鈥渃ould easily be verified through COA reports.鈥�

鈥淚n other words, it becomes completely unnecessary for the Committee to belabor and pursue a legislative inquiry into the budget utilization and accomplishment of the Office because the data has already been provided during the budget deliberations in the Committee on Appropriations, and that further information needed may be verified through the COA,鈥� they said.

They were first invited by the House panel on Sept. 12 to appear during the committee鈥檚 initial deliberation on Sept. 18. They said their 鈥渁uthorized representative鈥� then was the Vice President herself.

The second invitation was sent on Sept. 20. Duterte wrote the committee, saying her officials would not be attending the hearings.

The OVP executives expressed doubts about where the hearings would lead.

鈥淚t lacks clear legislative objective or contemplated legislation that is expected as an outcome of the deliberations,鈥� they said, noting that a 鈥渄raft bill for consideration鈥� should have been attached to the invitation 鈥渇or us to be informed of the aid we can provide to the deliberations.鈥�

Confidential funds

In raising the jurisdiction issue, the officials pointed out that the budget utilization of the OVP should be 鈥減roperly taken up鈥� in the appropriations committee.

But the Vice President herself had refused to directly answer questions during the House appropriations panel鈥檚 deliberation in August on her proposed budget for 2025.

Duterte was quizzed about how she spent her 2022 confidential funds worth P125 million, which state auditors said was used up in just 11 days. The budget committee also questioned her confidential funds for the OVP and DepEd in 2023.

The appropriations committee deferred the next OVP budget hearing when neither Duterte nor any official from her office showed up. Instead, she sent a letter to House leaders, leaving the fate of the OVP budget entirely to the lawmakers.

Duterte and her officials were also absent during the plenary discussions on the OVP budget.

When she was asked about her confidential funds during her appearance at the budget hearing, Duterte repeatedly responded that everything had been coordinated with the COA and that there was a pending case before the Supreme Court about the secret funds.

In their position paper, the OVP executives said they were being 鈥渆xtremely cautious鈥� in not discussing the pending case, saying that the sub judice rule 鈥渞estricts comments and disclosures pertaining to judicial proceedings.鈥�

鈥淪peaking or commenting on the matter may directly or indirectly impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice,鈥� they said.

They said the Supreme Court had ruled that a 鈥渞esource person鈥� in a congressional inquiry was 鈥渘ot an accused in a criminal proceeding鈥� and should be 鈥渁ccorded with respect and courtesy since they were under no compulsion to accept the invitation鈥� by the House.

鈥淲e are guided by this ruling of the Supreme Court in our position that invitations from the Committee may be declined, and that we have the right to respectfully refuse to participate in the proceedings,鈥� they said.