The House Committee on Good Governance and Public Accountability will look into whether Vice President Sara Duterte gave the go-signal to Atty. Zuleika Lopez, her chief of staff, to flee the country amid the panel’s ongoing investigation into the alleged misuse of funds of the Office of the Vice President (OVP) and the Department of Education (DepEd).

Committee chairperson Joel Chua disclosed that they are verifying reports that it was Duterte herself who signed the travel authority of Lopez, enabling her to leave Manila for Los Angeles, California on Sunday evening—two days before the House investigation on Tuesday.

"It is unfortunate that there seems to be an effort to prevent OVP officials from facing our investigation. We are still finding out if it is true that VP Duterte himself signed the travel authority of his chief-of-staff to fly to the US before our hearing," Chua said.

Lopez was among the seven OVP officials who were subpoenaed by the panel for their repeated refusal to attend the investigation despite show-cause orders.

The probe is primarily centered on the confidential funds of the OVP and DepEd amounting to P500 million and P112.5 million, respectively. To recall, Duterte headed the DepEd for nearly two years until she resigned on 19 July.

The Commission on Audit (COA) has flagged a significant portion of these secret funds and even disallowed P73.287 million of the P125 million that the OVP spent in merely 11 days during the last quarter of 2022, Duterte’s first year in office.

Chua lamented that the COA findings have to be addressed by the OVP and that the continuing defiance of its seven officials to attend the probe undermines the committee’s efforts to shed light on the alleged fund mismanagement.

“Bukod sa pagpigil sa kanyang mga opisyal, tinangka pa ng OVP na kumbinsihin ang COA para hindi ipasa sa amin sa House of Representatives ang mga dokumento sa amin,” Chua said, referring to a letter from the OVP requesting COA to withhold audit documents from the House of Representatives.

"Besides restraining the officials, the OVP even tried to convince the CoA not to pass in the House of Representatives the documents [we required to be submitted],” Chua said, referring to a letter from the OVP requesting the auditing body to withhold audit documents from the House panel.

An immigration lookout bulletin had already been issued against the seven over the weekend amid concerns they may flee the country. Acting Bureau of Immigration Commissioner Vicente Uncad, however, said they did not receive the request before Lopez left Manila.

According to Lanao del Sur Rep. Zia Adiong, the timing of Lopez’s departure was “very suspicious” regardless of whether it involved personal matters.

“As a public officer and a public official working in the government, it is your duty to respond to an official invitation by your co-equal branch, especially if it discusses a very important matter which is the utilization of public funds,” Adiong said. “It is incumbent upon COS Zuleika to appear before the committee because that’s her duty,” he told reporters.

In the same vein, Ako Bicol Rep. Jil Bongalon, Cagayan de Oro Rep. Lordan Suan stressed that Lopez’s is already an attempt to evade accountability, highlighting that “flight is an indication of guilt.”

“Good faith is presumed in every act but the presumption does not apply in this case. Meaning, there is bad faith. They were invited several times. She left the country the night before the scheduled hearing,” Bongalon in the same briefing.

“The guilty flee when no one pursues them, but the innocent are bold as a lion. So as Atty. Jil said, if there is nothing to hide, there is no reason for us to avoid it," Suan chimed in.

The OVP officials have asserted that the subpoena was not valid and the hearing was not in aid of legislation, and violative of their rights.

They also raised the jurisdictional issue and their right to decline invitation and subjudice because of a pending case before the Supreme Court of the OVP’s alleged questionable use of its P125 million confidential funds.

Further, they argued that the documents they are asking for could be easily accessed and verified through reports by the CoA.