Notices of disallowance covering questioned confidential fund transactions of Vice President Sara Duterte have not yet become final and executory, a Commission on Audit (CoA) auditor told her impeachment trial on Wednesday, saying the respondents still have remedies for contesting the findings.

Prosecution witness Xylene Mae del Campo of CoA’s Intelligence and Confidential Funds Audit Office said the 31 March notice of disallowance was received on 20 April and the respondent remained within the period to appeal.

“For the CoA IC once we issue a disallowance notice under the joint circular, we need to restore this in the books so it would be part of the unliquidated cash advance,” Del Campo told the Senate impeachment court in Filipino.

The CoA has held Duterte, along with two other OVP officials, liable for P73.287 million in disallowed confidential fund transactions covering 11 days in December 2022.

But when defense lawyer Kristine Ferrer pressed her on whether the issuance of the notice itself made it final and executory, Del Campo answered: “No.”

She said the respondent still had a remedy to file a commission proper as an appeal. The commission’s 2009 Revised Rules of Procedure provide that an appeal must generally be filed within six months from receipt of the decision being challenged.

Ferrer then cited Item 3.21 of the CoA-DBM Joint Circular, which defines a notice of finality of decision as a written notification that a CoA decision has become final and executory.

“In this case we did not receive a notice of finality of decision,” Ferrer said.

“No,” Del Campo replied.

No notice of suspension

Ferrer also pressed Del Campo on why the Office of the Vice President was not first served a notice of suspension before CoA issued the notice of disallowance.

Del Campo explained that the transaction had already been considered irregular, prompting the CoA to issue a notice of disallowance instead.

“A notice of disallowance is issued when there is an irregular use of funds,” Del Campo said in Filipino.

She pointed to Item 3.19 of the joint circular which defines a notice of disallowance as a notification requiring persons liable to restitute amounts resulting from an “illegal, irregular and improper disbursement or expenditure.”

Ferrer, however, asked whether the joint circular specifically provides that a violation of Item 6.1.1 allows CoA to bypass a notice of suspension and proceed directly to disallowance.

Del Campo did not identify a provision in the exchange expressly stating that sequence.

Instead, she returned to the nature of the expenditure that CoA had found.

Ferrer pressed the distinction. “You are right, but nowhere does it say that you can go there straight,” she said.

Del Campo maintained that CoA could issue the disallowance once it determined that the use of the funds was irregular.

“Yes, as long as it says in the ND that it was irregular,” she said.

SC review still possible

Asked what had been filed before the Supreme Court, Del Campo said, “What I know is it was a petition for certiorari.”

Ferrer then asked about the possible outcome.

“The Supreme Court could affirm, modify or reverse it,” Del Campo said.