Daily Tribune
VICE President Sara Duterte has been at the center of corruption allegations, particularly the alleged misuse of her P612.5 million in confidential funds. She has long dismissed it as a political attack, derailing her alleged plan to succeed President Marcos Jr.
Photo by Analy Labor for DAILY TRIBUNE
Vice President Sara Duterte and several subordinates have been given 10 days by the Office of the Ombudsman to respond to allegations of corruption — including plunder, bribery, and technical malversation — stemming from the alleged misuse of P612.5 million in confidential funds.
The Ombudsman’s directive, dated 19 June, follows a recommendation from the House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability, which earlier investigated the disbursement of P500 million to the Office of the Vice President (OVP) and P112.5 million to the Department of Education (DepEd), which Duterte headed from 1 June 2022 to 19 July 2024.
Also included in the complaint are charges of falsification, perjury, betrayal of public trust, and culpable violation of the Constitution.
From the DepEd, the respondents are Undersecretary for Administration Nolasco Mempin, Undersecretary for Finance Annalyn Sevilla, Assistant Secretary Sunshine Charry Fajarda (also Director for Strategic Management), and Special Disbursing Officer Edward Fajarda.
From the OVP: Undersecretary and Chief of Staff Zuleika Lopez, Assistant Secretary and Assistant Chief of Staff Lemuel Ortonio, Special Disbursing Officer Gina Acosta, Lt. Col. Dennis Nolasco, and Col. Raymund Dante Lachica of the Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group.
They were given 10 days from receipt to file their counter-affidavit along with the affidavit of their witnesses and other supporting documents.
“Failure to file Counter-Affidavit within the aforesaid period shall be deemed as waiver of respondents’ right to submit controverting evidence and the preliminary investigation shall proceed,” the order read. “No motion to dismiss or bill of particulars shall be entertained.”
The Ombudsman was furnished a copy of the committee report on 16 June, six days after the House plenary adopted the same on the floor.
According to House spokesperson Princess Abante, while it was the House that made the recommendation through the committee report, it doesn’t automatically make the lower chamber the complainant.
“Ombudsman can initiate investigations on its own. Again, it was an initiative of the Ombudsman acting upon the recommendation of the House committee,” Abante said in a briefing Friday. “I repeat, it was not the House that initiated the complaint.”
The copy of the Ombudsman’s order labeled the House panel as the “complainant.” But Abante insisted that the House's committee report was not a formal complaint.
“What we sent to the Ombudsman was the furnished copy of the committee report. The heading may state that way, but the body states otherwise,” referring to the order.
Moreover, she mentioned that aside from the Ombudsman, other relevant agencies received copies of the report, and it’s up to their discretion which will pursue the probe and the subsequent pressing of charges.
Abante, nevertheless, said the House expects that Ombudsman Samuel Martires will remain impartial, given the alleged “suspicious” timing of the release.
“The person will not be the one to do the investigation, it is the body—the Ombudsman as the institution. If the institution starts the investigation, it will proceed regardless of the personalities in it,” she averred.
Speculations have suggested that the corruption charges risk dismissal because Martires—former Supreme Court associate justice—is an appointee of former president Rodrigo Duterte, the father of the VP.
The committee report pertains to the alleged questionable utilization of Duterte’s confidential funds, a huge chunk of which was flagged by the Commission on Audit (COA).
From 21 to 31 December 2022, the Duterte’s office spent P125 million, averaging P11.36 million per day. Of the sum, P73.287 million was disallowed by state auditors due to the lack of "documents evidencing the success of information gathering and/or surveillance activities" for which the funds were intended.
According to the auditing body, the OVP spent P69.8 million on reward payments, including P10 million in cash, P34.857 million on various goods, and P24.93 million worth of medicines.
The remaining P3.5 million was used to pay for chairs, desktop computers, and printers, but the OVP failed to specify that the funds were intended for confidential operations or activities.
As for DepEd, P112.5 million in confidential funds reportedly remain unaccounted for. This, despite being withdrawn as cash advances by Edward Fajarda during the first three quarters of 2023 — Duterte’s first full year in office. The funds in question were withdrawn via three separate checks, with each amounting to P37.5 million.
At the height of the congressional hearing last year, Acosta admitted that she encashed P125 million in OVP's secret funds in four installments from the Land Bank of the Philippines, and safekeep the same in a duffle bag.
Acosta and Edward Fajarda earlier told lawmakers that they turned over to Lachica and Nolasco the P125 million and P37.5 million in confidential funds, on 20 December and during the first quarter of 2023, respectively, under Duterte's marching orders.
Lawmakers said this violated Joint Memorandum Circular No. 2015-01, which states that only the Special Disbursing Officer — not security personnel — is authorized to handle confidential fund disbursement.
