A state auditor testifying in Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial said Wednesday that her office spent P16 million on safehouse rentals over roughly 11 days.

The auditor described the amount as relatively high, although the Commission on Audit (CoA) did not flag the expense because it was supported by the required documents.

The P16 million was part of the P125 million in confidential and intelligence funds (CIF) allegedly spent by the OVP from 21 to 31 December. 

Senator-judge Raffy Tulfo projected that the amount spent for 34 safehouse rentals translates to P42,780 per day, which he said was drastically high for a house lease compared to those of exclusive and upscale residential properties. 

“Based on 2022 real estate data, for example, a property in Forbes Park costs P450,000 a month. If you break that down, that comes to about P15,000 per day. In Corinthian, it’s P200,000 a month, which costs around P6,666 per day. In Ayala Alabang, the monthly rent is P290,000, which is roughly P9,666 per day,” Tulfo said. 

He then asked CoA Intelligence and Confidential Funds Audit Office Supervising auditor Xylene Mae del Campo whether she considered the amount excessive and whether she had previously encountered similar amounts from other agencies renting safe houses.

“What do you think of this? Is this excessive? Abusive? Out of this world amount? Based on your experience,” Tulfo stressed. 

Del Campo answered that the OVP furnished the CoA only with acknowledgment receipts (ARs) justifying the payments for safehouse rentals, without providing an address. 

Due to this, the spending of P16 million in just 11 days was not initially flagged as irregular in CoA findings, though Del Campo noted that, “In this case, the amount is actually quite substantial for rental of safehouse.” 

The prosecution has flagged the use of ARs as the sole evidence of the OVP to justify the P125 million in CIF spending in less than two weeks, citing bizarre names that mirror food brands, common phrases, or wordplay. 

Del Campo told the Senate impeachment court that because Joint Memorandum Circular (JMC) No. 2015-01, which governs the use of CIF, is “silent” on the matter and does not explicitly prohibit the use of aliases or codenames in ARs, auditors cannot simply flag the transaction.

Moreover, she pointed out that auditors rely on document-based evidence and generally presume that names on submitted ARs belong to real informants, even when signatures are identical. 

Verifying individual identities is not traditionally part of the standard COA paper liquidation review, she added. 

Because of this, Tulfo raised concern that the CIF is susceptible to “abuse,” which necessitates amendments to JMC, to which Del Campo agreed. 

Some of the ARs submitted by the OVP were unsigned, illegible, had missing names, or included only the recipients’ signatures. Its documentary evidence also lacked supporting paper trails such as lease contracts or other pertinent records.

Del Campo said that while the JMC limits cash advances to a three-month requirement, it does not specify a minimum number of days for fund utilization. 

Therefore, she said the OVP’s rapid spending of P125 million was not considered a violation. 

Despite this, COA issued a notice of disallowance (ND) to the OVP ordering the agency to return P73.3 million to the government. 

The amount was also part of the P125 million flagged by state auditors.

The transactions were questioned because the funds were used for activities or projects unrelated to the confidential and intelligence operations for which they were intended, in violation of the COA-DBM JMC.

This includes tree planting, gift-giving, youth campaign, Christmas party, consultation meetings with barangay officials, PWDs, TNVS and delivery riders, among others. 

The liquidation of CIF follows strict compliance with the JMC, with liquidation reports, bank checks, obligation requests, and accomplishment reports among the required documents to be submitted to the CoA. The OVP was allegedly non-compliant.

Del Campo previously said the OVP filed a petition for review with the COA on 5 February 2025, appealing the ND, though the Commission Proper dismissed it on 10 April, affirming the disallowance.

As a result, the OVP subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration in May of that year, and the CoA’s final ruling remains pending to date.