Lawyers for Vice President Sara Duterte on Tuesday cited a decades-old Commission on Audit (COA) circular to argue that the absence of receipts for some confidential fund transactions should not be treated as evidence of irregular spending.

Defense lawyer Michael Poa presented COA Circular No. 92-385 during his cross-examination of former auditor Roderick Wamil, who has testified that the Office of the Vice President (OVP) failed to submit several documents required under current rules governing confidential and intelligence funds.

Poa asked Wamil to read portions of the 1992 circular that explained why intelligence-related expenditures are not always supported by conventional receipts and invoices.

"The submission of receipts, bills or commercial invoices in support of disbursements from these funds for rental of safe houses, purchase of meals or supplies and other expenses, might create a leak of information that may threaten the confidentiality of the intelligence operations," the circular states.

It further says that "in many instances it is impractical and sometimes impossible to obtain such receipts, bills or commercial invoices during intelligence operations."

Wamil, a former auditor with COA's office handling confidential and intelligence funds, earlier testified that auditors found missing supporting documents for reward payments and other confidential fund transactions.

The prosecution has leaned heavily on COA Joint Circular No. 2015-01, which standardized the management, use and audit of confidential and intelligence funds across civilian and military agencies following longstanding concerns over the lack of uniform controls governing such expenditures.

Under the 2015 guidelines, agencies receiving confidential funds must submit physical and financial plans, accomplishment reports, liquidation reports, certifications from accountable officers and other post-audit requirements. 

Private prosecutor Lorna Kapunan argued that the 1992 circular cited by the defense had already been superseded by the 2015 joint issuance.

"This exhibit presented by counsel for the respondent is dated October 1, 1992, whereas the joint circular cited by this witness is dated 2015," Kapunan told the impeachment court. "2015 supersedes this circular cited by the respondent, which is dated 1992."

Kapunan pointed to the 2015 circular's repealing clause, which states that all previous issuances inconsistent with its provisions are deemed repealed or modified accordingly.

Poa countered that the newer circular did not specifically identify which earlier issuances it repealed and maintained that the 1992 document remained relevant in explaining the rationale behind special audit treatment for confidential operations.

Kapunan replied that "no interpretation is needed," arguing that the repealing clause clearly covered inconsistent rules and regulations.

Poa eventually told the court that the documents would "speak for themselves" and left the issue for the senator-judges to decide.