House prosecutor: Ombudsman probe into Sara’s fund use ‘speaks volumes’

The Ombudsman’s swift launch of a preliminary investigation into the alleged unlawful use of Vice President Sara Duterte’s confidential funds “speaks volumes” about the seriousness and weight of the findings by the House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability, which heavily centered on corruption claims, a House prosecutor said Sunday.

Manila Rep. Chua, the panel chairperson who initially spearheaded the four-month probe into the fund disbursement, posited that the committee report — which contained documentary evidence and recommended the filing of charges — may have prompted Ombudsman Samuel Martires to backpedal on his previous statement that he saw “no grounds” to investigate the Vice President.

“It is both unusual and significant that the Ombudsman proceeded directly to preliminary investigation and issued subpoenas to the respondents — skipping the usual fact-finding phase — all within the same week that we furnished them with a copy of the committee report,” said Chua, one of the 11 members of the House prosecution panel in Duterte’s impending impeachment trial in the Senate. “This kind of swift response sends a clear signal: the Ombudsman has found prima facie evidence to warrant a preliminary investigation.”

Duterte and her current and former subordinates have been given 10 days from receipt to respond to allegations of corruption — including plunder, bribery, technical malversation, falsification, and perjury — stemming from the alleged misuse of P612.5 million in confidential funds allocated to the Office of the Vice President (P500 million) and the Department of Education (P112.5 million), which the VP headed for two years.

The directive, issued by the Ombudsman on June 19, came after the House panel furnished the anti-graft body with the committee report on June 16. But Chua, a lawyer, argued that the document was a mere recommendation and therefore not a formal complaint.

The Ombudsman acting purely on the basis of the committee report — in the absence of full supporting evidence — demonstrates a “strong affirmation” of the committee’s findings, according to Chua.

However, Rep.-elect Leila de Lima viewed this as a “cause for concern,” warning that if the Ombudsman dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, it could compromise the strength of the prosecution’s evidence against the VP in her impending impeachment trial in the Senate.

She pointed out that the sequence of actions — from the Ombudsman’s abrupt move to require a counter-affidavit to the pending petition before the Supreme Court questioning the impeachment’s transmittal — suggests a pattern: to preempt the trial.

“Everything seems to match up. It could really [be] part of the strategy, and now it’s starting to show and be noticed,” said De Lima, who is set to join Chua and the rest of the prosecution panel once the 20th Congress opens on July 28.

Echoing De Lima’s concerns, House Deputy Minority Leader France Castro expressed fear that Martires’ connection with former President Rodrigo Duterte, who appointed him as Ombudsman in 2018, may undermine the investigation.

“We would just like to warn the Ombudsman that, being a Duterte appointee, the people are extra vigilant in watching him as they fear that there may be a whitewash of the case against VP Duterte even if the evidence [is] overwhelming,” Castro averred.

The Daily Tribune has reached out to Martires for comment on the allegations of perceived bias, but he has yet to respond as of press time.

Nevertheless, since the Ombudsman has effectively treated the committee report as a formal complaint, Chua said the House is willing to assume the responsibility of pursuing the case.

“The Ombudsman will need to see the evidence supporting the committee report. We want to make sure this is not just a speedy process — but a credible one,” Chua stressed. “We will cooperate fully to ensure that all parties are given fair and reasonable opportunity to present their side, as we likewise present the truth uncovered through months of legislative inquiry.”

The committee report focuses on the alleged questionable utilization of Duterte’s confidential funds, a large portion of which was flagged by the Commission on Audit.

Aside from Duterte, named respondents include 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.

From the DepEd: 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.

Duterte was impeached by the House of Representatives for allegedly misappropriating millions in confidential funds. She has repeatedly denied the allegations of corruption, dismissing them as a political attack aimed at derailing her possible presidential bid in the 2028 elections.