The name is Piattos, Mary Grace Piattos

The name is Piattos, Mary Grace Piattos | Daily Tribune

The hilarious ideas that come out of Sara Duterte and her fanatics to justify her embezzlement of confidential and intelligence funds never cease to amaze me. Sara Duterte and her staff actually began to lay the basis for these during the hearing where the responsibility for explaining where the funds went was placed by Inday Sara on the lap of the Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group (VPSPG) chief who is presently in the active military service.

The gist of it is that the VPSPG chief was the one procuring and handling the intelligence funds for VP Sara. This is how they justify the use of the name Mary Grace Piattos et al. The argument, delivered with straight-faced conviction, insists the secrecy of “intelligence operations” requires anonymity, or in this case the fabrication of names.

Their troll army populating social media tells us sarcastically that “requiring that intelligence assets be exposed is not really intelligent.” In fact, in a press briefing yesterday, VP Sara said, “I will not explain (Mary Grace Piattos), I will not give an explanation because it will entail that I explain intelligence operations, which will compromise the offices that do intelligence operations.”

Clearly, Sara Duterte and her troll armies are painting us a picture of covert operations straight out of a James Bond movie. After all, who would dare demand receipts from Agent 007? However, this is not a James Bond movie. Public funds are not a license to fabricate, especially in a third world country where funds are scarce.

The Duterte narrative insists that revealing the identities of “intelligence assets could jeopardize national security,” especially in a House committee hearing where Gabriela, ACT Teachers, Kabataan partylist groups that are allegedly infiltrated by “reds” are actively participating.

This cloak-and-dagger argument collapses, however, when set against the basic principles of transparency, accountability, and, dare we say, logic. Intelligence work is secretive, but even the most thrilling James Bond films have to justify their box office returns to get to production.

Confidential and Intelligence Funds (CIFs) exist precisely because the government recognizes the need for discretion in certain operations. But discretion is not a free pass to concoct imaginary names and file them as expenses. Even the most covert of missions requires traceability within legal and institutional boundaries. Every peso of CIF belongs to the people, not a fictional secret service bank account benefiting only Piattos, Mary Grace Piattos.

Governments worldwide with legitimate intelligence operations implement rigorous internal controls and post-mission audits. The CoA, I understand, does not demand classified details but it has guidelines on validating expenditures through proper documentation. In fact, there is the ICFAU or the office that audits the use of CIFs. This office is not just a bureaucratic formality; it is a safeguard against abuse. The idea that intelligence assets must be invented rather than anonymized raises a question: Is this espionage or lazy bookkeeping?

Let’s imagine James Bond in the Sara Duterte narrative. Would he submit expense claims listing “Potato Chips, Q Division Operative” as a beneficiary? Never. Even Bond’s expenses for hi-tech gadgets have to pass MI6’s internal audit. The truth and the reality Inday Sara is trying very hard to suppress is that fictional names are not a hallmark of operational secrecy — they are a red flag for fraud.

Intelligence funds for legitimate operations are reviewed following parameters that protect national security and ensure accountability. This is the reason for the existence of the ICFAU and is the same audit practice in other jurisdictions with far more extensive intelligence operations. If fictional names can be freely used to liquidate billions, what would stop public officials from fabricating entire operations? Where is the line between safeguarding security and enabling corruption?

The claim, too, that the House investigations are compromised by the leftist groups or the “reds” and therefore cannot be trusted adds an absurd layer of intrigue where Sara and all her vlogger fanatics are experts. The reality is that this assertion undermines the very institution tasked with representing the Filipino people and holding the government and its officers accountable.

If Inday Sara believes the House is an enemy of the state, what does this say about her commitment to democracy upon which this country was founded? Accountability of a government official requires engagement, not conspiracy theories.

The real issue here isn’t about revealing Mary Grace Piattos’ and all the spies’ identities — it’s about ensuring that the funds meant for national security are not diverted to personal fiefdoms.

CIFs are not supposed to fund imaginary covert agents or pay for overzealous ambitions, like funding troll armies on social media. The misuse of these funds erodes public trust, weakens institutions, and, ironically, compromises the very security they are meant to uphold.

In fact, one would note that news articles on Facebook concerning government offices and institutions are received with laughing emoji reactions. The government institutions have become a laughingstock and are met with public ridicule.

To the public mind, this is not James Bond; it’s a poorly executed charade, with Mary Grace Piattos replacing Q or M. The only thing being shaken (not stirred) here is the public trust.

Inday Sara can no longer distract the public with smoke and mirrors. She and her followers are fully aware that this intelligence operations narrative is less about saving the country and more about saving face. Indeed, Sara and her supporters are an existential threat to national intelligence.

Filipinos deserve more than fictional spies and fabricated narratives.