The testimony of former Office of the Vice President (OVP) special disbursing officer Gina Acosta strengthens allegations that Vice President Sara Duterte directly approved the release of confidential funds and that irregularities occurred in their disbursement and liquidation, a law dean said Tuesday.

Paolo Tamase, constitutional law professor and associate dean of the University of the Philippines College of Law, said Acosta’s testimony carries weight because she was part of Duterte’s team and had direct knowledge of OVP operations.

He said her testimony could help bridge the gap between allegations raised in the impeachment proceedings and findings in the Commission on Audit (COA) report on the OVP’s confidential funds. Tamase noted, however, that the COA report remains subject to review and is not yet final.

“This does not mean that Vice President Sara cannot be held accountable, and it does not mean that it cannot be proven that there was misuse of confidential funds,” Tamase said in a television interview.

Acosta, who testified as a hostile witness, said Duterte personally instructed her to release P125 million to the vice president’s chief security officer, Fritzie Galiza.

Tamase said the testimony could establish misuse if the release did not follow procedures under the government’s joint circular governing confidential expenses.

“It proves misuse in the sense that the joint circular was not followed,” he said.

Tamase said investigators should establish the complete money trail and determine who ultimately received and distributed the P125 million.

“If it cannot really be shown where the confidential funds went, then somebody will be held accountable,” he said.

Duterte’s allies have argued that the money funded legitimate government activities, including free rides and medical assistance. Tamase said that would not necessarily resolve the issue because public funds appropriated for one purpose cannot be transferred to another without legal authority, potentially raising questions of technical malversation.

“Public money is not the personal money of a public officer,” he said.

Tamase also said acknowledgment receipts should be examined to establish whether the listed recipients were genuine and whether the documents accurately reflected how the money was distributed.

On whether prosecutors should call Acosta before the Senate impeachment court, Tamase said doing so carries risks because she could be treated as a hostile witness. Her previous statements before the House Committee on Justice, however, could be used to confront her if her testimony changes.

Despite the risks, Tamase said Acosta’s testimony could prove significant in connecting Duterte to the questioned transactions and establishing how the confidential funds were handled.