The impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte has exposed weaknesses in the government’s rules on confidential and intelligence funds, prompting calls for tighter oversight and a review of which agencies should be allowed to receive such allocations.

Former Senate President Franklin Drilon said Thursday that the testimonies before the Senate impeachment court highlighted shortcomings in the auditing framework governing confidential funds, one of the key issues in the impeachment case against Duterte.

“The witness is competent, but the testimony exposes the weakness of our auditing process, especially when it comes to confidential and intelligence funds,” Drilon said.

The issue arose after Commission on Audit official Roderick Wamil testified that Joint Circular 2015-1 — the main regulation governing the release, use and audit of confidential and intelligence funds — neither expressly allows nor prohibits the use of aliases in liquidation documents.

The impeachment trial has focused on confidential funds used by the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education, which Duterte headed from 2022 to 2024.

One article of impeachment accuses her of misusing and misappropriating confidential funds, allegations she has repeatedly denied.

Fund transfer

Drilon said the proceedings should prompt a broader review of the entire confidential funds system rather than focus solely on Duterte.

“Two wrongs do not make a right. It’s about time that we closely review the use of confidential and intelligence expenses,” he said.

He questioned why agencies without intelligence-gathering or national security mandates, such as the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education, were granted confidential funds.

“Only agencies whose mandates require them to gather intelligence should receive intelligence funds,” Drilon said.

He also renewed his criticism of the transfer of P125 million in confidential funds from the Office of the President’s contingent fund to the Office of the Vice President in 2022, arguing that it violated constitutional budget rules because the OVP had no existing confidential funds item that could legally be augmented.

Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Belgica v Executive Secretary, Drilon said budget augmentation requires an existing appropriation.

He also rejected the use of fictitious names in liquidation documents.

Exposed

“There is no need to use fictitious names. That is not allowed under the law even for confidential funds,” he said, stressing that public officials remain accountable for documenting government expenditures.

Drilon acknowledged that Congress has historically paid little attention to confidential and intelligence funds during budget deliberations.

“In my 24 years of examining the national budget, I do not recall scrutinizing these allocations in detail,” he said.

He proposed revising Joint Circular 2015-1 to strengthen audit safeguards, limit confidential and intelligence funds to agencies with legitimate security functions, and tighten oversight while preserving operational secrecy for genuine national security activities.

“The impeachment trial simply exposed this weakness in our system,” he said.