August 12, 2026

COA state auditor Cylene May L. Del Campo testified that COA's work was a compliance audit. She said the audit found reward payments unsupported by documents, sought receipts and sales invoices for purchases of supplies and medical and food aid, and treated reimbursement before a cash advance as a Joint Circular violation.

Del Campo said auditors checked whether acknowledgement receipts supported the activities accomplishment report and noted that the Joint Circular referred to documents evidencing payment.

She said the 2022 transaction's notice of disallowance had been affirmed by the Commission Proper while a motion for reconsideration remained pending; she said the 2023 OVP notice remained appealable and separate DepEd matters were under review.

Del Campo said her office and the COA chairperson were studying whether a Fraud Audit Office referral was necessary.

Presiding Officer Sen. Francis "Chiz" Escudero resumed the proceedings by calling the COA auditor back to continue her testimony.

During cross-examination, Del Campo described the audit's compliance concerns about rewards, purchase documentation, and reimbursements.

The court ended the witness's examination, heard a prosecution request to reissue subpoenas for upcoming trial dates, and adjourned until August 17 at 10 a.m.

The Chair directed the presentation of evidence, handled objections and witness examination, and gave the subsequent administrative directions.

Sen. Erwin Tulfo asked what a COA disallowance requires and whether the OVP had answered it. Del Campo said a disallowance rejects an expenditure in audit and demands return of public funds; the OVP appealed, the Commission Proper affirmed the 2022 notice, and a motion for reconsideration remained pending. Tulfo then asked what the OVP and DepEd were expected to return. Del Campo identified P73.287 million for the OVP's fourth-quarter 2023 notice, P112.5 million for DepEd's first three quarters of 2023, with the third quarter still under review, and P375 million plus P73.287 million for the OVP, with remedies still pending.

Sen. Robinhood "Robin" Padilla said during the confidential-fund discussion that 55 alternative and Lumad schools in Davao had been identified as infiltrated by terrorism, and that 12 percent of NPA surrenderees from 2016 through 2023 were minors. Asked about each assertion, Del Campo said she was unaware of it.

Sen. Risa Hontiveros asked why the OVP needed confidential funds for protective intelligence when a vice-presidential security detail was assigned, and whether the Protective Intelligence Operations Reports proved activity success or spending. Del Campo said the reports were attached only as claimed proof of successful information gathering and surveillance, which did not meet COA's required proof. Hontiveros also asked whether acknowledgement receipts for medical and food aid were supported by invoices; Del Campo said they were not, so COA could not verify the purchases. On the recurring large OVP and DepEd cash encashments, Del Campo said the OVP's use was irregular because it did not comply with the Joint Circular, including unsupported reward payments, unverified purchases, and reimbursement findings.

Sen. Joel Villanueva asked how COA separates Joint Circular compliance from an agency's operational judgment. Del Campo said auditors evaluate liquidation documents under the Joint Circular and the Rules and Regulations on Settlement of Accounts. Villanueva established that correcting or later supplying documents does not itself lift a notice of disallowance: the agency must pursue the Commission Proper remedies, including reconsideration and certiorari, and any reversal depends on its evaluation. He also pressed COA's independent authority to examine whether a claimed confidential-fund activity was properly liquidated and used, rather than accepting an agency's classification. Del Campo said the fourth-quarter 2022 matter passed through an audit observation memorandum and notice of suspension before the notice of disallowance, while the 2023 matter passed from an audit observation memorandum to disallowance for a direct Joint Circular violation.

Sen. Francis "Kiko" Pangilinan asked what happened to the 125-million-peso cash advance if it was unspent during its December 21-to-31 utilization period and whether complete supporting documents could resolve the audit concern. Del Campo said unused funds returned to the National Treasury and that missing documents left the expenditure noncompliant with the Joint Circular; she agreed the documents could establish whether it was valid, while saying the audit could not determine personal use from their absence. Pangilinan also contrasted the OVP's earlier protective services with its later confidential-fund spending for security and protective-intelligence operations; Del Campo said the earlier service was under the PSG and agreed the later security costs were charged to confidential funds.

Sen. Paolo Benigno "Bam" Aquino asked why unusual payee names did not themselves lead to disallowance or a fraud inquiry. Del Campo said the compliance audit had not verified the recipients' identities and initially presumed regularity from the special disbursing officer's sworn certification. She said COA had not opened a fraud audit but was studying whether one was necessary with the chairperson, given the volume and sensitivity of the OVP and DepEd records. Aquino then tested when aliases or fictitious identities would become fraudulent: Del Campo said the Joint Circular did not address aliases, but each acknowledgement receipt should correspond to a real recipient and the stated confidential activity; Aquino raised the statutory ban on aliases for later examination.

Sen. Raffy T. Tulfo asked about the OVP's reported P16 million rental of 34 safe houses over 11 days. He compared the implied daily cost with market rates and asked whether the properties were in the exclusive locations he named; the witness said the audit records contained only acknowledgement receipts, not addresses. She said other agencies did not report comparably large safe-house amounts and that the figure was large, but said it was not an audit finding because the audit relied on the special disbursing officer's certification that the expense was necessary and lawful.

Sen. Panfilo "Ping" M. Lacson read the Joint Circular provision requiring confidential-fund documents to be kept in a sealed vault and allowing ICFAO inspection when circumstances demand. He asked why the vault was not inspected despite the aliases in the records; the witness said the vault provision concerned intelligence funds, inspection required the Chair's authority, and none had been sought. Lacson then raised the separate fraud-audit process and said a vault inspection could have produced signature specimens for comparison with disputed signatures. The witness said a fraud-audit referral was being studied with the Chair because of classified, voluminous records, and that the inspection issue would be referred to higher authority.

Sen. Imee Marcos confirmed that the COA unit had made no official fraud finding because it conducted a compliance audit. She questioned the witness's reliance on congressional transcripts and other material that had not been submitted by OVP or DepEd, including testimony by Acosta and Fajarda. The witness said information that became available after liquidation could be used if relevant to the audit, and cited the Joint Circular's allowance for other documents deemed necessary. Marcos first questioned why all quarters were disallowed when the cited transcript concerned only the last quarter, then separately tested whether that logic would extend to news or social-media material.

Private prosecutor Atty. Lorna Patajo-Kapunan asked that the witness identify and authenticate the parties' documents before the Clerk of Court, in the presence of both sides.

Kapunan questioned the documentation and coordination supporting the claimed confidential-fund activities.

Prosecution counsel Antonio Eduardo B. Capistrano requested reissuance of subpoenas for listed witnesses on the next trial dates.

Defense counsel Kristine R. Ferrer challenged the audit process, emphasizing that no notice of suspension had been issued for the first three quarters and questioning whether the OVP had an opportunity to comment on COA's supposed findings.

Ferrer asked whether a confidential expense could be allowed or disallowed in full or in part, and whether disallowance reflected incomplete compliance with the Joint Circular's documentary requirements.

The defense questioned the chain of custody of acknowledgement receipts and asked that competing copies be compared.

Del Campo said: "may mga nakita po doon na hindi compliant with the Joint Circular po."

Del Campo said a fraud-audit referral was "pinag-aaralan din po kung kinakailangan."

The court reserved the formal evidentiary treatment of the competing acknowledgement receipts after the Clerk of Court's comparison.

The 2022 matter still had a pending motion for reconsideration, the 2023 OVP matter remained appealable, and COA was still studying whether a Fraud Audit Office referral was necessary.