Analysts frequently debate whether the aggressive congressional scrutiny is an attempt to establish a uniform standard of public trust, or if it is a politically motivated effort leveled disproportionately at a prominent opposition figure.
That is exactly what God wants you to do, and what the state auditors of the Commission on Audit (CoA) are trying their best to do, in obedience to the Constitution, the law, and the best minds of the Supreme Court.
Analysts frequently debate whether the aggressive congressional scrutiny is an attempt to establish a uniform standard of public trust, or if it is a politically motivated effort leveled disproportionately at a prominent opposition figure.
That debate highlights the longstanding clamor from transparency advocates for comprehensive reforms to make all confidential and intelligence funds more transparent across the entire bureaucracy rather than focusing scrutiny on a single official.
The sentiment reflects a widely debated political reality in the Philippines. Observers, including legal and auditing professionals, point out that the rigid standards currently applied to the confidential funds of Vice President Sara Duterte highlight broader structural flaws in government auditing agency exemptions and fund disbursement rules.
This argument is rooted in several systemic factors:
1. Pervasive Systemic Disallowances: The CoA regularly issues notices of disallowance to various government agencies, not just the Office of the Vice President. Critics argue that if the strict documentary proof and national security relevance required of the Vice President’s secret funds were suddenly enforced across all departments, almost no government official would pass a flawless audit.
2. Exemptions and Joint Circulars: Historically, Confidential and Intelligence Funds (CIF) were governed by broad rules like CoA-DBM-DILG-GCG-DND Joint Circular No. 2015-01. The fluid definitions and vast discretion embedded in these historical guidelines make it difficult to penalize any single official for discretionary spending without implicating the wider administrative framework.
According to public opinion, which side of the impeachment trial has the upper hand?
Public opinion is highly divided regarding the impeachment of Vice President Duterte, though the side supporting the accountability and trial process currently holds the upper hand. Polls indicate strong demand for a trial, but a large portion of the public remains against conviction or is undecided on her ultimate guilt.
1. Support for a Trial: Public opinion is heavily in favor of the Vice President facing a Senate trial to clear her name, with surveys by OCTA Research indicating that a significant majority of Filipinos (74%) want the Vice President to face a Senate impeachment trial to address the allegations, rather than having the charges dismissed.
2. Conviction vs Acquittal: A WR Numero Research poll revealed that while the public wants the process to proceed, 53% of respondents disagreed with the impeachment itself, while 32% agreed with it. A separate Social Weather Stations (SWS) survey similarly showed 42% opposed to impeachment and 32% in favor, with the rest undecided.
3. Public Skepticism: Nearly 80% of Filipinos doubt the Senate will render an impartial judgment based strictly on the evidence, reflecting a skepticism over political maneuvering. Because the public favors a trial but is split on the outcome, neither the prosecution nor the defense holds an undisputed upper hand in public opinion, with many citizens waiting for the trial evidence to solidify their views.
Email: arturobesana2@gmail.com
