As the Senate impeachment court prepares to scrutinize how more than P600 million in confidential funds were spent, a former law school dean on Saturday dismissed as a “lame excuse” Senator-Judge Alan Peter Cayetano’s defense of the controversial transactions, arguing that secrecy cannot be invoked to shield public officials from constitutional accountability.

Speaking in a television interview, former FEU Institute of Law dean Mel Sta. Maria rejected Cayetano’s assertion that the unusual cash withdrawals from the Office of the Vice President (OVP) and the Department of Education (DepEd) could be explained by the fact that Vice President Sara Duterte had been granted confidential funds not typically allocated to previous vice presidents or education secretaries.

“Grasping at straws. It’s a lame excuse. We should not confuse confidentiality with accountability. Accountability is primordial. Confidentiality is merely a methodology,” Sta. Maria said.

The controversy traces its roots to 2023, when lawmakers questioned the OVP’s use of P125 million in confidential funds within 11 days of receiving the allocation. 

Congressional inquiries later expanded to include P112.5 million in confidential funds granted to DepEd while Duterte served as education secretary, drawing scrutiny to liquidation documents and acknowledgment receipts submitted to justify expenditures.

Duterte has denied wrongdoing and maintained that confidential funds under both the OVP and DepEd were used in accordance with government rules. But Sta. Maria said confidentiality cannot become a blanket defense against accountability.

“The Constitution is very clear,” he said. “Public office is a public trust. Public officers must at all times be accountable to the people.”

Following the money

Last week, the Senate impeachment court heard testimony from former Land Bank officials detailing the withdrawal of at least P612.5 million in confidential funds from OVP and DepEd accounts between December 2022 and July 2023.

The transactions included four P125-million checks encashed for the OVP and additional withdrawals linked to DepEd while Duterte concurrently served as education secretary.

The defense has not disputed that the withdrawals occurred, arguing instead that they complied with procedures governing confidential funds.

Under government rules, confidential funds may be used for surveillance, intelligence gathering and other activities where public disclosure could compromise operations. 

Unlike intelligence funds, which are generally reserved for military and law enforcement agencies, confidential funds may be granted to civilian offices for activities related to their mandates. Even so, expenditures remain subject to auditing and liquidation requirements.

For Sta. Maria, however, proving that money left the bank is only the beginning.

“What they proved was the extraction of public money,” he said, referring to the prosecution's presentation of evidence.

The more important question, he argued, is what happened after the cash was withdrawn.

“Once a big chunk of money leaves a bank, the only way to determine where it went is through liquidation documents,” he said.

That distinction could prove pivotal as prosecutors shift from proving withdrawals to examining expenditures.

Unlike electronic transactions, large cash withdrawals leave fewer independent records, making liquidation reports the primary means of verifying how government funds were spent.

“Cash that is traceable becomes untraceable,” Sta. Maria said. “That creates the environment for ghost expenditures and malversation.”

‘Mary Grace Piattos’

The next phase of the trial is expected to revisit one of the most contentious episodes in the confidential funds controversy: the appearance of names such as “Mary Grace Piattos” in acknowledgment receipts submitted to justify expenditures.

Officials from the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) previously testified before Congress that searches of civil registry databases found no birth, marriage or death records matching the name. Lawmakers later raised similar concerns over other names appearing in liquidation documents, including “Miggy Mango” and “Dodong Gang.”

The findings fueled allegations that some recipients listed in confidential fund records may have been fictitious, casting doubt on whether certain expenditures had actually been made.

Sta. Maria acknowledged that operational secrecy may be necessary but argued that it cannot override accountability indefinitely.

“Aliases can never forever remain secret, especially when you're talking about the people’s money,” he said. “The higher interest of the state is accountability.”

He said that if questions arise about the legitimacy of recipients, the impeachment court has the authority to compel disclosure of their identities, even through closed-door proceedings where sensitive information can be protected.

For prosecutors, the dispute over “Mary Grace Piattos” goes beyond whether a particular name is real. It cuts to the heart of whether liquidation records used to account for hundreds of millions of pesos in confidential funds can withstand scrutiny.

A constitutional showdown

Sta. Maria argued that senators sitting as impeachment judges have the authority to compel the disclosure of identities behind questioned receipts if they determine the information is necessary to resolve the charges.

“The impeachment court is a constitutional creation,” he said. “It can compel disclosure because public accountability is at stake.”

He suggested sensitive information could be presented privately to the court if security concerns exist.

The defense, however, could seek to block such disclosures by invoking the constitutional right against self-incrimination, particularly if revealing identities could expose officials to future criminal liability.

Whether such arguments prevail will ultimately be decided by the Senate impeachment court.

As prosecutors prepare to examine liquidation records next week, the proceedings are poised to move beyond the mechanics of withdrawing public money and into a potentially more consequential inquiry: whether the recipients, operations and expenditures reflected in confidential fund documents can withstand scrutiny.

For Sta. Maria, that question cannot be answered by appeals to secrecy alone. “Do we simply take their word for it? Public office is a public trust,” he asked.