DAY 14 IMPEACHMENT Commission on Audit Intelligence and Confidential Funds Audit Office (COA-ICFAO) supervising state auditor Xylene Mae Del Ocampo continues to testify at the impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte at the Senate Session Hall on Tuesday, 11 August, 2025 in Pasay City.
Aram Lascano for the Daily Tribune
Notices of disallowance covering questioned confidential fund transactions of Vice President Sara Duterte have not yet become final and executory, a Commission on Audit auditor told the Senate impeachment court on Wednesday.
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, leaving the respondents within the period to challenge the findings.
“Yung sa COA IC po kasi once nag-issue kami ng disallowance under the joint circular po kailangan itong i-restore sa books so magiging part ito ng unliquidated cash advance,” Del Campo said.
COA held Duterte and two other Office of the Vice President officials liable for P73.287 million in disallowed confidential fund transactions covering 11 days in December 2022.
Defense counsel Kristine Ferrer asked whether the issuance of the notice itself meant the disallowance was already final and executory.
“Hindi po,” Del Campo replied.
She said respondents still have remedies to contest the findings before the COA Commission Proper.
Ferrer cited Item 3.21 of the COA-DBM Joint Circular, which defines a notice of finality of decision as written notification that a COA decision has become final and executory.
“In this case wala pa ho tayong nare-receive na notice of finality of decision,” Ferrer said.
“Wala pa po,” Del Campo replied.
Ferrer also questioned why the OVP was not first issued a notice of suspension before COA proceeded with the notice of disallowance.
Del Campo said COA had already determined that the transactions involved irregular use of funds.
“Meron po, ang notice of disallowance po kasi ini-issue siya pag irregular na po yung paggamit nung pondo,” she said.
She cited Item 3.19 of the joint circular, which defines a notice of disallowance as a notification requiring liable persons to restitute amounts arising from an “illegal, irregular and improper disbursement or expenditure.”
Ferrer asked whether the joint circular expressly allows COA to skip a notice of suspension and proceed directly to disallowance for a violation of Item 6.1.1.
Del Campo did not identify a provision during the exchange explicitly providing for that sequence.
“Tama po kayo, pero walang nakalagay na pwede kang dumiretso doon,” Ferrer said.
Del Campo maintained that a notice of disallowance could be issued once COA found the expenditure irregular.
“Opo, basta nakalagay lang po na ini-issue ang ND pag irregular,” she said.
Ferrer also questioned Del Campo about judicial remedies available after proceedings before COA.
“Yung sa pagkakaalam ko lang po ang pina-file po sa Supreme Court is petition for certiorari,” Del Campo said.
Asked about the possible outcome of such a petition, she replied: “Pwedeng ma-affirm yun ng Supreme Court, pwedeng ma-modify at pwedeng i-reverse.”
Under COA rules, a Commission Proper decision becomes final and executory after the prescribed period unless the proper remedy is timely pursued.
The exchange underscored the defense’s argument that the notices of disallowance being presented in Duterte’s impeachment trial remain subject to further proceedings and have not yet been accompanied by notices of finality.
