A state auditor told the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte on Tuesday that confidential funds entrusted to her office’s special disbursing officer (SDO) could not simply be handed to the head of her security unit, calling the transfer a direct violation of government rules.

Xylene del Campo of the Commission on Audit’s Intelligence and Confidential Funds Audit Office (ICFAO) said OVP special disbursing officer Gina Acosta transferred the cash advance to Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group chief Raymund Dante Lachica at Duterte’s direction.

The transaction was deemed irregular by CoA, Del Campo said, and formed part of a notice of disallowance issued to the OVP.

“Hindi ito pwedeng i-transfer (This cannot be transferred) from one accountable to another,” Del Campo told the Senate impeachment court.

Del Campo said the transaction violated Joint Circular No. 2015-01 which set the rules for the release, use, reporting, and audit of confidential and intelligence funds.

The circular, among other requirements, mandates that cash advances of confidential and intelligence funds be released only to the designated special disbursing officer and must be supported by documents such as their designation and approved fidelity bond.

The auditor explained that the SDO was responsible for disbursing the cash advance, while the agency head was responsible for overseeing the use of the confidential funds.

“It is the SDO na mag-dedisperse ng (that disperses the) cash advance,” Del Campo said.

The agency head, she added, had the responsibility “to oversee” the agency-wide use of confidential funds.

She identified Duterte, Acosta, OVP chief accountant Julieta Villadelrey, and Lachica as the persons responsible in a 31 March 2026 notice of disallowance issued by the ICFAO.

Duterte was accountable because she approved the transactions and the use of the cash advances, Del Campo said. Her approval was reflected in the accomplishment reports.

“Because she approved the transactions and the utilization of the cash advances,” Del Campo said.

Acosta was accountable because she was the designated SDO and was responsible for disbursing the cash advance.

Asked to clarify the meaning of “accountable,” Del Campo said it referred to a person entrusted with and responsible for public funds. A state auditor told the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte on Tuesday that confidential funds entrusted to her office’s special dipo of the Commission on Audit’s Intelligence and Confidential Funds Audit Office (ICFAO) said OVP special disbursing officer Gina Acosta transferred the cash advance to Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group chief Raymund Dante Lachica at Duterte’s direction.

The transaction was deemed irregular by CoA, Del Campo said, and formed part of a notice of disallowance issued to the OVP.

“Hindi ito pwedeng i-transfer (This cannot be transferred) from one accountable to another,” Del Campo told the Senate impeachment court.

Del Campo said the transaction violated Joint Circular No. 2015-01 which set the rules for the release, use, reporting, and audit of confidential and intelligence funds.

The circular, among other requirements, mandates that cash advances of confidential and intelligence funds be released only to the designated special disbursing officer and must be supported by documents such as their designation and approved fidelity bond.

The auditor explained that the SDO was responsible for disbursing the cash advance, while the agency head was responsible for overseeing the use of the confidential funds.

“It is the SDO na mag-dedisperse ng (that disperses the) cash advance,” Del Campo said.

The agency head, she added, had the responsibility “to oversee” the agency-wide use of confidential funds.

She identified Duterte, Acosta, OVP chief accountant Julieta Villadelrey, and Lachica as the persons responsible in a 31 March 2026 notice of disallowance issued by the ICFAO.

Duterte was accountable because she approved the transactions and the use of the cash advances, Del Campo said. Her approval was reflected in the accomplishment reports.

“Because she approved the transactions and the utilization of the cash advances,” Del Campo said.

Acosta was accountable because she was the designated SDO and was responsible for disbursing the cash advance.

Asked to clarify the meaning of “accountable,” Del Campo said it referred to a person entrusted with and responsible for public funds.