August 5, 2026

Senate President, the Presiding Officer,

and Senator-Judges of the Impeachment Court.

The Sergeant at Arms is directed to make a proclamation.

All persons are commanded to keep silent under pain of penalty while the Impeachment Court is in session for the trial of Vice President Sara Zimmerman Duterte.

The impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Zimmerman Duterte is hereby called to order. We shall be led in prayer by Senator-Judge Francis Kiko Pangilinan.

Sa ngalan ng ating Panginoong Diyos, buong kababaang loob na dasal natin na sa lahat ng araw ng impeachment trial, kaliwanagan ng isip, kaayusan sa proseso at pagiging patas at makatarungan. Bilang mga senator-judges na may pagkakataong magtanong sa mga saksi upang linawin ng mga usaping mahalaga sa paglilitis, naway magsilbing gabay sa atin ang mga salita ng Diyos. Sa Proverbs 24.23-24, pinaalalahanan tayo sa bigat ng ating mga pasya. Hindi mabuti ang may kinikilingan sa paghatol. Ang magsabi sa may sala na walang kasalanan ay susumpain ng mga tao at kamumuhian ng mga bansa.

Ganon din sa mga hahatol doon sa walang sala ng parusa. At sa Proverbs 29.4, pinapaalala sa atin ang bunga ng tunay na katarungan, isang bagay na matagal nang minimiti ng ating bayan. Sa pamamagitan ng katarungan, ang isang pinuno ay nagbibigay ng katatagan sa kanyang bansa. patnubayan n'yo po kami, Panginoon, dito sa aming sagradong tungkulin. Amen.

senator-judge, Ontiveros, senator-judge, Lacson, senator-judge, Lapid, senator-judge, Legarda, senator-judge, Marcoleta, senator-judge, Marcos, senator-judge, Padilla, senator-judge, Pangilinan, senator-judge, Sotto III, senator-judge, Tulfo Erwin, senator-judge, Tulfo Raffi, senator-judge, Villanueva, senator-judge, Villar Camil, senator-judge, Villar Marc, senator-judge, Zubiri, the presiding officer, senator-judge, Escudero, Senate President Gachelian.

With 16 senator-judges present, the chair declares the presence of a quorum. In accordance with the rules of procedure on impeachment trials, the chair now recognizes the duly elected presiding officer to preside over the proceedings of the impeachment court.

To correct, we have

17 senator-judges present.

Thank you, Mr. Senate President. If there are no objections, we shall dispense with the reading of the journal. of the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, dated August 4, 2026, and shall consider the same as approved. The Clerk of Court will please call the case before this impeachment court.

Case number 004-2026 in the matter of impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Zimmerman Duterte.

Appearances?

Same appearance for the prosecution, Your Honor.

For the responded?

Same appearance for the responded accused. Good morning, Your Honors.

Before the chair continues, the Clerk of Court through the Osayas directed to kindly situate the witness at the witness stand for the continuation of his testimony, Mr. Wamil.

Mr. Wamil, I would like to remind you that you will be continuing with your testimony under the same oath that was administered to you the other day. Do you understand that, sir?

Yes, sir.

Thank you. When we adjourn... The examination of the witness by the counsels for the parties were finished and we will now proceed with the interjections of the senator-judges this morning. And yesterday, we already indicated the sequence of the interjections and questions from the senator-judges. First to make his interjections would be Senator Rafi Tulfo. Sir, you are recognized. You have two minutes and you may proceed when you're ready. Your Honor,

may

I be recognized first? Yes, what is the pleasure of the Honorable Chua?

Your Honor, may we request the counsel for the prosecution, Atty. Kapunan, be recognized, Your Honor.

The counsel for the panel of prosecutors, Atty. Lorna Kapunan, the designated handling counsel for this witness, may situate herself also accordingly.

Thank you, Your Honor. Same appearance.

Good morning. Good morning, Atty. Lorna, Sen. Tulfo, Rafi, you may proceed sir when you're ready. You have two minutes, sir.

Huwag muna, Mr. President, Officer, point of order lamang muna to.

Yes, what is your point of order, Honorable Tulfo?

Kasi kahapon nabanggit na si Atty. Pua, magaling na abogado siya, ay pumunta sa COA, tama, para makipag-usap tungkol dun sa sinasabing audit query. Now, hindi ko pa conflict of interest yun para siya ay mag-represent dito ngayon sa

ano natin, pinag-uusapang confidential funds, when in fact, eh siya mismo pumunta doon sa COA office para makipag-uusap sa kanila. What do you think, Mr. President Officer?

The respondent in this case, Senator-Judge Tulfo, is the Honorable Vice President, Sara Zimmerman Duterte. Attorney Powa, although he served under the office of the Vice President, I believe, and even under DepEd, is not a named respondent to this case. And in fact, is one of the lawyers, as you can see, of the respondent. I believe there is no conflict with respect to that given that he is not. The one in trial in this case.

Okay, I rest my case, Mr. President Officer. Ngayon, pwede nang... Pwede nang simulan ni Annika. Yung oras. Mr. Witness, bukod sa OVP at saka DepEd, we're talking about confidential funds, meron pa pa ibang ahensya ng pamalaan na inaudit nyo ang kanilang confidential funds?

Based on the GAA po, meron may mga other agencies na may allotment for confidential funds.

Kaya nga meron kayo mga na-audit.

Yes po, Your

Honor.

At dito sa mga agency na-audit ninyo, magkapareho ba ang utilization nila ng confidential funds sa OBP under BP-SARA and those agencies na inaudit nyo?

Yung utilization naman po ng confidential fund ay separate and distinct for every agency since yung kanilang utilization ay based on their mandate or operations.

Okay. Sila ba'y gumamit ng mga aliases, gumamit ng mga pangalan, chichiria, etc.?

Yan po ay hindi ko na pwede. Ang alam ko po, hindi ko po mati-determine based on the documents submitted since hindi naman po naka-indicate dun sa kanilang submission na yung mga pangalan na nandun ay aliases or not.

Okay.

Noong April 2026, nag-issue kayo ng disallowance.

sa OVP and its officers para at the same time ipinasusuli n'yo yung parte ng confidential funds.

Can you repeat your question, Your Honor?

I think that was April of 2025.

Nag-issue kayo nung, pinasusuli n'yo ilang parte ng confidential funds ng OVP.

I do not have personal knowledge na po about yan since wala na po ako sa ICPAO nung February. 12, 2023 po.

Okay. Anong reason ba't pinasusuli yung party ng confidential funds na disallowed? What are the reasons?

Wala po akong personal knowledge about dyan since hindi naman po ako yung nag-issue ng disallowance. Nung na-issue po yung disallowance ay na-transfer na po ako to other agency of DICOA.

Okay.

I think it was April 10, 2026. So wala na po kayo doon?

Yes, Your Honor.

Okay.

Sinabi kahapon ni Atty. Poa na binagit niya natin yung circular, co-circular ng 1992, if I'm not mistaken, na hindi dapat banggitin yung pangalan ng mga recipient dahil for reasons of security and national security, security ng tao ng recipients and national security.

It compromised sa tingin po ninyo yung security ng informant kung hihingan nyo sila ng resibo patungkol sa mga gamot na natanggap nila mula sa confidential funds?

Katulad nga po nung sinabi ko during my testimony, ang hinihingi po namin ay yung purop nung pagbili when it comes to the official receipt and the sales invoice po.

Correct. Alimbaw, resibo, bumili ng maintenance or antibiotics, yung gano'ng klaseng resibo, dapat iba ang hinihingi n'yo.

Yes, po, Your Honor.

Pero ang sinasabi nila, eh, yun daw ay magdi-geopardize, magkakaroon ng problema sa national security.

Actually, yung minention po nila na circular, which is yung 1999, is already repealed na. Repealed na. Opo.

Pero just the same. Sa tingin nyo ba, yung pagbibili ng chichiria o dili kayo pagbili ng shampoo o suka sa sari-sari store, would that jeopardize the national security kapag yan ay binulugan sa inyo, binigyan ka ng simo?

Hindi po.

Thank you.

Thank you, Senator-Judge Rafi Tulfo. Next to make his interjections would be Senator Bam Aquino. You are recognized, sir. You may proceed when you're ready. You have two minutes.

Maraming salamat, Mr. Presiding Officer. Attorney, good morning. Good morning po, Senator. So, ang common understanding po kasi ng confidential funds ay secret, puwedeng gamitin sa kung ano-ano, hindi pwedeng i-bulgar sa publiko. Hindi po totoo, no? Meron po talagang rules and regulations sa paggamit ng confidential funds.

Yes.

po, Your Honor.

Were you already part of the ICFAO in 2015?

Yes po, Your Honor.

So yung pinakitang memo noong 1992 at itong memo na pinag-usapan natin na circa 2015, parang magkaibang magkaiba siya, no?

Yes, Your Honor.

Do you know the reason why the rules changed with regard to the usage of confidential funds?

Since yung paggamit po noong confidential fund at intelligence fund ay kailangan ng strict accounting and auditing rules. Nagkaroon po ng circular para ma-ensure na yung paggamit po ay properly accounted at hindi po magamit for personal use or misuse.

Yan yung laman ng memo. Pero ang tanong ko, do you know why it was changed? Kasi parang lumalabas magkaiba yung paggamit nito if you look at the 1992 circular, iba sa 2015.

Doon po kasi sa yung Circular ng 1999, walang differentiation as to the CIF po. Pero doon sa 2015-01 kasi doon na in-specify na dapat yung Confidential Fund ay gagamitin lang sa ganito for civilian government agencies. Yung Intelligence Fund ay gagamitin lang ng uniform and military personnel as well as yung mga intelligence practitioners.

Kung baga ang dilinaw noong 2015 Circular yung paggamit at pag-liquidate?

Yes, Your Honor.

And is there a new circular after 2015 or ito pa rin yung ginagamit ninyo?

Yan pa rin po yung ginagamit, Your Honor.

Okay, second question. Anong pinagkaiba ng AR sa OR? Ang OR po kasi,

ini-issue po siya nung mga pinagbilan na BIR registered. So, yung AR naman po, yun yung ginagamit ng agency para prove na binigay nila yung payment or payment dun sa tao na naka-receive noong payment.

And it seems na mas katanggap-tanggap sa inyo yung OR kesa AR. Is that correct?

Depende po yan, Your Honor.

Kapag purchases po kasi, kailangan po talagang OR yung ibigay sa amin kasi doon po namin tinitignan kung nag-purchase po talaga sila.

Kasi official receipt, acknowledgement receipt, sabihin ng tao, pareho namang resibo, parehong receipt. Ano pinagkaya ba niya?

Yung

acknowledgement receipt

po kasi, ina-acknowledge doon nung recipient ng payment na natanggap niya yung payment. Pero yung OR po kasi, parang yun yung proof na nag-purchase si agency doon sa pinagbila nung item.

Nung item. So pwede mong matrace? Kung OR, pwede nyo matrace?

Yes, Your Honor.

Kung AR, pwede nyo po ba itong matrace o hindi na?

Pag-AR po kasi, kung ano lang po talaga yung nandun sa face nung document, yun lang po yung basis namin since document-based po yung audit namin. Pag-AR po kasi, makikita lang po doon kung saan binili. Okay, yun lang yung information. Tsaka kung sino ang

tumanggap?

Opo, yung pinagbilan po.

Okay, dito naman sa tumatanggap, allowed ba yung code names? Allowed ba yung alias sa inyo?

Based on the provision of the joint circular, it is neither allowed nor prohibited po since silent po yung joint circular as to that.

Is that as of 2015 or even in previous liquidation of confidential funds?

Based on my recollection po, even yung dating circulars po, buwat nung nag-assume po ako sa IGFA, wala naman pong provision as to the use of alias.

So bawal ang

paggamit ng alias?

The circular is silent po.

Okay. Para sa inyo, kung alias... Yung paggamit ng alias ay bawal. So, hindi importante kung may ibang tao ito, totoong tao ba ito. Basta yung pangalan na binigay sa inyo, ang expectation nyo, totoong tao yan. Based on that, kasi

ang katulad nga po nung sinabi ko, document-based po kami. So, wala po kaming way to determine if this is an alias or not.

But in general, ang tinatanggap yung dokumento, dapat totoong tao.

Yes, Your Honor.

Okay, next. Did you have any, napag-usapan n'yo kahapon yung dealings n'yo with OVP nung lumabas na or malapit nang lumabas yung AOM. Previous to that, meron ka bang dealings with OVP?

Wala na po, Your Honor.

So wala kang, walang kumausap sa inyo, walang nagtanong kung paano to dapat i-liquidate apart from the meeting which included Atty. Powa?

Wala na po akong maalala, Your Honor. Last

question lang, Mr. Presiding Officer. Please wind up.

Yung notice, yung AOM, ibig sabihin yan, may chance na pa kayong i-correct, di ba?

Yes, for Your Honor.

Pag notice of disallowance na, may chance pa ba yung i-correct o naniningil na?

Actually, the moment that we issue notice of disallowance, nirequire na po yung accountable officers to restitute po yung amount involved. And

to

your

knowledge, is there a notice of disallowance for the OVP and DepEd funds?

Wala pong personal knowledge.

pero nakita ko po sa news po, so I was made aware na may ending na po yung OVP 2022.

So may notice of disallowance na ang OVP for the 500 million pesos?

For 125 million pesos po for the fourth quarter of 2022.

So sinisingil na yan kay Vice President Duterte?

Yes po, Your Honor.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Senator-Judge Aquino. Next to make his interjections is Senator-Judge Pangalinan, your recognizer. You may proceed when you're ready. Thank you, Mr.

President. Mr. Presiding Officer, magandang umaga, Mr. Witness, ginong mawil.

Marami na po. Sa NDAs po, parang nasa 30 plus na po yung na-audit ko. And sa LDOs, marami na rin po. Hindi ko na po mabilang kung ilang agencies

na po yung na-audit ko.

So, more than 30?

Yes po, Your Honor.

Okay. Sa mga ahensya na ito, tatlong pong ahensya, masasabi mo ba na nire-require din yung liquidation ng official receipts at ng sales invoice?

Yes po, Your Honor, kasi yung requirement po ng circular ay in-enforce po namin sa lahat ng agencies na inaudit po namin.

So sa 2022, from December 21 to December 31, ilang sales invoice o kaya official receipt ang kasama dun sa mga liquidation report?

Wala po sinabit sa amin, Your Honor.

849 acknowledgement receipts, tama?

Yes po, Your Honor. Since ina-apply naman po namin uniformly yung provisions po noong Joint Circular 2015-01.

As in, puro AR ang sinasubmit ng ibang ahensya?

May mga agencies po na nagsasubmit naman ng OR po.

So sa experience mo dun sa December 21 to 31, masasabi mo bang standard practice yan ng iba pang mga ahensyang iyong na audit?

Hindi ko po siyang masasabing standard practice since ito po yung kauna-unang beses na puro AR po yung sinamit sa amin.

So first time sa iyong... 10 years na puro AR lang at walang sales invoice at walang official receipt.

Opo, ganun.

po kadaming AR kaagad yung sinabi.

At 125 million na walang sales invoice at walang official receipt.

Yes po, Your Honor.

Doon naman sa usapin ng kung walang sales invoice at walang official receipt, masasabi mo ba na halimbawa yung sa medicines, talagang medicines ang ginasta?

Kung sinabit po sana sa amin yung official receipt po or sales invoice, masasabi po sana namin. Pero since AR lang po ay sinabmit, hindi po namin masasabi. Based

on that documentary. Kasi sinasabi nilang, total naman, just to wrap up, gamot naman yan eh. Diba? Mabuti nga bumibili ng gamot. Masasabi mo ba dun sa liquidation report nila na yung 122 million worth of medicines, eh talagang medicines ang binili?

Hindi.

po, Your Honor.

Okay. No further questions, Mr. President.

Thank you, Senator-Judge Pangalina. Next, for his interjections, will be Senator-Judge Erwin Tulfo. You are recognized, sir. You may proceed when you're ready. You have two minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. You know, Testigo, tama po ba ang pagkarinig ko na sinabi nyo kanina under sa COA DBM Joint Circular Number 2015-01? Hindi naman kailangan ilagay ang tunay na mga pangalan ng mga intel agents or informers na tumanggap ng intel or confidential funds sa OVP tulad ni Mary Grace Piatos, Chipie McDonald, Mickey Mouse, at iba pa. Is this correct?

Ang sinabi ko po, Your Honor, ay silent po yung circular as to that matter po.

Silent. So po pwede? When we say kasi silent, pwede?

Hindi po, Your Honor. It is neither allowed nor prohibited po.

So, if this is not allowed or prohibited, I mean, bakit nang i-audit po ninyo ang Confidential Intelligence Fund po ng OVP, hindi ba ninyo, hindi ninyo hiningi ang tunay ng mga pagkakilanlan? Hindi na Piatos, McDonald's, Mickey Mouse at iba pa? Katulad

nga po nung sinabi ko sa aking previous testimony, ang focus po ng audit namin ay compliance audit. So kung ano po yung provision ng circular, yun po yung ginagawa naming basis for our audit po. Okay, compliance. When

you say compliance, ito po ba yung periodic or random?

Yung

compliance audit po kasi wala po siyang particular period. Kasi pag sinabing compliance audit, inevaluate po namin yung subject matter if it is compliant with certain applicable laws, rules, and regulations. No. But

I'm saying, every agency na meron pong intel or confidential funds, do they have to undergo audit periodically or random lang? Dahil marami po tayong ahensya ng gobyerno na may mga intelligence confidential fund na hindi naman dapat.

Ang audit po namin ay based dun sa liquidation documents po na sinasubmit nila.

Oo, pero is it periodic ba? Kailangan bawat agency na i-liquidate niya, i-audit ninyo yung kanyang paggastos ng intel or confidential fund?

Yes, Your Honor.

So it's periodic, it's not random?

Yes, Your Honor.

Okay.

Kung kaduda-duda na po ang disbursement ng OVP, obvious naman, sabi nyo po, di po ba, mga medicines, mga pangalan ng tao, bakit hindi po ninyo pa sinampahan ng kaso sa Ombudsman ng OVP?

Well, under our rules, Your Honor, pwede lang namin siyang i-refer to the office of the Ombudsman kapag nagkaroon ng final order at hindi po kinumply ni OVP yung Order po.

Bakit? Nasaan na

po ba yung order ngayon? Ano na po ang status? Itong mga findings n'yo, 2023, 2024 pa ito, 2026 na po tayo ngayon.

Wala po akong personal knowledge about sa status po nung, since hindi na po ako connected sa IGPOW.

Okay, so hindi, dahil hindi ka na connected sa IGPOW, so wala ka ng pakialam kung ano na nangyari sa kaso na hinawakan mo?

Hindi.

naman po sa wala akong pakialam, pero yung mga ganyang bagay po kasi ay confidential na hindi naman ina-announce sa buong COA po.

Ayun. So, ibig sabihin, hindi mo na alam kung, at hindi mo rin alam kung bakit hindi kinasuhan or nirefer sa ombudsman itong issue na ito?

Yes, Your Honor.

Thank you very much. Thank

you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

Thank you, Senator Judge Erwin Tulfo. Next would be our distinguished Senate President, Senator Gadshalyan. You are recognized, sir. You may proceed. When you're ready, you have two minutes. Thank

you, Mr. Presiding Officer. Mr. Witness, nakita ko dito merong anim na AOMs na in-issue and meron dito sa anim non-submission of documentary evidence of payment. Ito ba ay Na-fulfill ba ito after nag-issue kayo ng AOM?

Based on sa mga na-issue ko po, since ang na-issue ko lang po na AOMs ay for the 4th quarter of 2022, 1st to 2nd quarter of 2022 of the OBP, and 1st to 2nd quarter 2022 of the OBP, ang nabutan ko lang po na may response na may kasamang documentary evidence of payments ay yung 4th quarter of 2022 po ng OBP.

fourth quarter of 2022.

At ano, yun, diba kasi pag nag-issue ko ng AOM, ang sagot normally is compliance, diba?

Yes, for Your Honor.

Yung na-compliance fourth quarter of 2022 for this particular item in non-submission of DEP, Documentary Evidence of Payment.

Yes, for Your Honor. Based on my personal knowledge, kasi

yan lang po

yung naabutan. Ano

yung kanilang SIMNAMIT para... ma-fulfill itong non-submission of DEP.

Nagsubmit po sila ng acknowledgement receipts po, Your

Honor.

Ito yung mga acknowledgement receipts na pinakita ng counsel for the prosecution.

Yes, Your Honor.

Noong sinabit sa inyo itong mga acknowledgement receipts, May mga pangalan nga na sabi ng ating mga senador. Vinalidate nyo ba kung itong mga pangalan na ito ay totoo o hindi?

Hindi po, Your Honor, kasi hindi po yan yung focus po ng audit namin.

Sige, go ahead. Since what we do po

is compliance audit. So ang naging focus po namin ay yung expenses po na based on the face of the acknowledgement receipts as well as yung date kung kailan binayad as well as yung amount po. Since vinalidate po namin siya based on the requirements of the Joint Circular 2015-01.

Bina-validate niyo ba kung yung pangalan ay totoong tao o hindi?

Hindi na po kasi hindi po yun yung focus ng audit po namin, Your Honor.

Nasabi mo rin kanina sa sagot mo na neither allowed or disallowed. Tama? Neither allowed nor

prohibited po.

Nor prohibited ang paggamit ng alias.

Yes po,

Your Honor. Sa ibang mga agencies na enforcement agencies, ibang government agencies na gumagamit ng alias, pinapayagan ba o hindi?

Hindi naman po namin ma-determine based on the documents alone kung alias or not kasi wala naman po silang ina-attach na document na nagkasabing alias po yung nakalagay dun sa kanilang resibo.

Meron bang mga agencies na gumagamit ng alias?

Katulad po nang nasabi ko, Your Honor, hindi po namin ma-determine based on the document alone kung alias ba yun or not.

Lalo na sa mga informant agencies yung gumagamit ng intelligence funds. I would assume na may mga cases na gumagamit sila ng aliases dahil nga mga informants. Meron ka bang ganyan na experience na sinabi sa inyo ng agencies na hindi nila ma-reveal yung totoong pangalan? Dahil hindi naman prohibited, di ba?

Wala pa naman po experience, Your Honor.

So lahat ng mga ARs na meron ganitong source of information. Totoong pangalan ang sinasabit nila?

Hindi. Katulad po nung nasabi ko, wala po kaming way to determine since nakabase lang po kami on the face of the document as submitted po.

Okay. Yung mga sa ibang mga agencies na nagsasubmit ng mga ganitong rewards, nagbibigay ng information ng rewards. Nakita ko dito merong rewards for medicine, rewards for virus supplies. Ano siya? Cash? or medicine or in-kind ang ibinibigay?

Based on those documents po, since nakalagay close and open parenthesis medicine, so medicine po yung binigay. Yung isa po, payment of rewards, close and open parenthesis various goods, so various goods po yung binigay, Your Honor.

So ang ibig sabihin, may reward sila, hindi cash ang binigay, medicines at various supplies?

Based on the acknowledgement receipts po, yes, Your Honor. And

that is allowed?

Ang joint circular naman po, wala naman po siyang nakaspecify kung paano nila babayaran yung rewards. As long as yung requirements po nung circular ay fulfilled po.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank

you, Mr. Senate President. Next, for its interjections, will be Senator-Judge Joel Villanueva. You are recognized, sir. You may proceed when you're ready. You have two minutes.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Sir, with us, are you aware of ESI 100?

It's international standards of supreme audit institutions. I

am aware po, PCI, pero yung specific po naman na rin, hindi ko po ma-recall, Your Honor.

Member po yung Pilipinas at they pound on the word professional skepticism that requires an auditor to question records submitted but also to fairly consider yung agency's explanations and contrary evidence. Is that

correct?

Yes po, Your Honor.

Para lang humaintindihan natin, actual n'yo po bang sinuri ang mga transaction? Ibig sabihin, isa-isa po ba itong iniexamine lahat? Gumagamit ba kayo ng sampling, piling transaction, o yung sinusuri? Gumagamit ba kayo ng materiality threshold sa pagpili at evaluation nito?

Hindi po, Your Honor. Lahat po ng documents ay inievaluate po namin.

So, lahat, meaning, gusto kong maintindihan, dinutugma n'yo po ba yung bawat transaction? From original receipts, accomplishment reports, at iba pa?

Yes po, Your Honor.

And how do you, hindi ko maintindihan, you know, when you're purchasing an information, paano kong bibigyan ng official receipt?

Your Honor, kapag, katulad nga po nung sinabi ko kanina, kailangan ng official receipts kapag binili po mismo from the supplier. So, ibig sabihin sa supplier lang. Sa tao, hindi kailangan ng resibo. Yes, Your Honor. Malinaw po yun. Pag sinabi pong resibo, OR po. Pero pag purchase of information, inalaw po namin yung acknowledgement receipt.

So, you allow acknowledgement receipt. Dahil information yung binili, wala namang industriya na nagbibigay ng resibo for information that they're selling.

Yes, Your Honor.

Sa madaling salita po, yung findings po ba ninyo ay batay? lamang sa deficiencies in the documents submitted o nakukumpirman nyo rin po sa pamamagitan po ng inyong independent verification?

Ang audit po kasi namin ay document-based. So kung ano po yung nilalaman ng documents vis-a-vis yung provisions ng Joint Circular, yun po yung nagiging basis for our findings po. So hanggang dun lang sa

dokumento na ibinigay, wala na po kayong ibang ginagawa? to go out of your way and do your independent findings.

Yes, Your Honor.

Ngayon po, Mr. Wamel, Atty. Wamel, para malinaw po sa atin, kayo po ba mismo ang nag-audit nitong bawat transaksyon at naghanda ng initial findings o mayroon po kayong team?

Ako lang po, Your Honor.

At kayo lang po ang nag-review nito bago maging final report?

Hindi po. Mayroon

po akong divisionship. Siya po yung nag-review, Your Honor.

At dun po sa proseso

n'yon, ano-ano yung material findings, recommendations and conclusions na maaaring idinadagdag o inaalis o binabago ng inyong ino-audit? At bakit po?

Actually, yung laman po nung na-issue ng AOM, kinumpare ko po yun sa aking draft at pares naman po. Sorry, sorry. Pakiulit po. Yung in-issue po namin na AOM po kasi, kinumpare ko po yun sa aking draft at pares naman po yung substance nung AOM.

Mr. Ramil, from AOM to notice of discrepancy, suspension, I mean, and then notice of disallowance.

Yes, Your Honor. Ano po yung mga nabago dun? Kapag AOM po kasi, parang nirequire po namin, based on the joint circular.

Sir, ang question ko po, ano po yung nabago? Ibig sabihin, from AOM,

Yes,

Your

Honor.

Actually, ang na-issue ko lang po ay

hanggang notice of suspension pero discuss ko na lang po din yung contents nung notice of suspension. Sige po,

from AOM to notice of suspension.

I'm winding up, Mr. President. It's the same question that I'm asking because we don't want to talk about the notice of disallowance from AOM to notice of suspension. Okay, Your Honor.

Since noong nag-issue po kami ng AOM, wala pa silang documentary evidence of payments. So, sinabit lang po nila yung documentary evidence of payments sa ICPAO upon receipt na nila noong kanilang AOM. And then, doon po sa aming notice of suspension, upon evaluation of their responses doon sa aming AOM, at kasama na rin po doon yung documentary evidence of payments. So, doon na

po namin nakita yung mga payment of rewards na cash, medicines, and various goods. Tapos, nakita po din po namin yung mga purchases nila na walang official receipts or sales invoice na supporting document. And then,

yung mga Date po nung payment nung kanilang acknowledgement receipts ay naka-date po ng December 2023 at yung iba po ay walang date.

And then, Your Honor, may I be allowed po to refer to the NS for the... Thank

you,

Mr. Presiding Officer. This is very important because it shows that the agency were given chances, three stages para mag-submit. ng hinihingi po ng ating COA.

Kindly wind up, Senator-Judge. Yes,

this is the last question, Mr. Presiding Officer. Thank you.

Yun po, Your Honor. Doon po sa NS po namin, nagkaroon din po kami ng findings na mas malaki yung amount nung kanilang expenditure based on the acknowledgement receipts compared to the accomplishment report ng 150... Which

was not present in the AOM.

Yes,

po, Your Honor. Thank you. Salamat po, Mr. President.

Thank you, Senator-Judge Villanueva. Senator-Judge Riza Antiveros is recognized. You may proceed, ma'am. When you're ready, you have two minutes.

Salamat po, Mr. Presiding Officer.

Mr. Witness, para klaro po sa mga nanonood, kapag pinag-uusapan po yung confidential and intelligence funds, chinecheck pa rin po ng COA kung paano ginastos yung pera. Tama po ba?

Yes, Your Honor.

Okay. So, ibig sabihin, kahit confidential ang tawag sa confidential funds, kailangan busisiin pa rin yung pinagkagastusan, tama po?

Yes

po, Your Honor. Kasi public funds po siya.

Kasi public funds. Okay. Ngayon, iyong mga resibo na hinihingi nyo sa COA, again, para sa mga nanonood, para saan ba talaga yung mga resibong iyan?

Kailangan po kasi naming malaman kung talagang bumili po sila, nung kanilang mga binili, Your Honor.

Okay. Kailangan malaman n'yo kung talagang binili.

Yes po.

Yung sinabing ibinili.

At doon lang po namin makikita yun sa official receipt or sales invoice po.

Okay. OR o kaya sales invoice. At hindi lamang sa mga AR.

Yes po, Your Honor. Unless

nga para doon sa pagbili o magpagbayad ng information.

Yes po, Your Honor.

Importante talaga na makapagsumite ng mga dokumento at resibo ng mga diumanong pinagkagastusan.

Yes, Your Honor. Okay.

Sa kaso po ba ng OVP at ng DepEd, nakapagbigay po ba sila ng mga kumpletong dokumento at resibo na hinihingi ng COA?

Tanging period lang po sa pagkakalap ko na mayroong documentary evidence of payments based on may stay sa ICFAO o yung fourth quarter of 2022. At based po dun sa kanilang documentary evidence of payments for that period, wala po silang sinamit na official receipt or sales invoice. Tanging mga acknowledgement receipts lang po.

Okay. So yung mga supporting documents na required, hindi ko po pwedeng tanuyin kung kaagad nilang naibigay dahil hindi po naibigay yung ibang supporting documents.

Yes po, Your Honor.

Niisa po within any time period after na dapat nilang sumitihin yan?

Yes po, Your Honor.

Okay. So, hindi ko rin kailangan tanuin kung kumpleto ba ang ibinigay dahil hindi ba kumpleto ang ibinigay nilang mga dokumento at resibo?

Pwedeng paulit po ng tanong.

Kumpleto ba o hindi kumpleto yung ibinigay nilang mga dokumento at resibo?

Hindi po kumpleto, Your Honor. Hindi kumpleto.

Now, According to the Joint Circular, kailangan ng evidence of success for rewards payouts. So, itong tinatawag na evidence of success for rewards payments, naibigay po ba ito ng OVP?

Hindi po, Your Honor.

Naibigay po ba ito ng DepEd?

Katulad nga po nang sinabi ko, yung sa OVP lang po yung may DEPs na nabutan ko.

Pero hindi po naibigay ng... OVP yung evidence of success for reward payments. Pero

i-clarify ko lang din po, since ako po yung nag-initially evaluate noong first and second quarter ng DepEd, based po dun sa aking mga na-evaluate na documents, wala din po silang sinamit na documentary evidence of payment. Documentary evidence na of success of the surveillance activities or information-gathering activities po.

At sa simpleng salita, Bakit importante itong evidence of success sa rewards payments?

Diyan po kasi malalaman kung valid ba yung naging payment nila ng rewards po.

So kasi dito sa acknowledgement receipt, makikita natin marami-rami po ito. Nakalagay, nakapag-claim sila ng rewards. So huling tanong ko sa inyo, Mr. Witness, sa round na ito, ibig sabihin sa itong evidence of success for rewards payments, patunay na Meron tayong napala. Merong napala ang gobyerno sa mga operasyong iyan.

Yes, Your Honor. Kaya po namin nilirequire na isubmit po yan. Alright.

Salamat, Mr. Witness. Salamat po, Mr. President. Thank you, Senator

Judge Hontiveros. Before recognizing the Honorable Padilla, Chair, yes, Senator Lacson, after Senator Sotto, I believe. Chair would like to inform the councils for the parties that you may take your seat. unless you are, unless a question is thrown at you by a senator-judge that you can relax. It goes for both parties. Thank you, Your Honor.

Thank you, Your Honor.

Next, Interpolate, Senator-Judge Padilla. You may proceed when you're ready, sir. You have two minutes. Marami salamat po,

ginong tagapamahal ng hukom. Meron lang po ako mga tanglong. May silang po ito. Saan po kayo pinanganak?

Sa Nueva Ecija po, Your Honor.

Nueva Ecija. Saan po kayo nakatira ngayon?

Sa Manila po.

Manila. Saan po kayo nag-aaral?

Central Luzon State University po, noong accountancy, and then, Paliliano po, University ng Juris

Doctor po. Ah,

okay.

Saan po kayo nakaikot na sa bansa natin? Nakaikot na po ba kayo ng Mindanao, sa Bicol?

Um, marami na po akong naikotan, hindi ko na po maalala lahat, Sir. Ah, po.

Kayo po'y ba yung nakarating na sa BARM?

Yes, po, Your Honor.

Saan po sa BARM?

Sa Sulu?

sa Basilan,

Maguindanao.

Hindi po matandaan? Mauubos po yung oras ko.

matandaan, Your Honor, kung saan. Bicol po. Nakaikot na po kayo sa Bicol?

Yes po, Your Honor.

Saan po sa Bicol?

Sa Camarines Norte? Sa Camarines Sur po.

Sur. Sa Norte hindi pa po?

Hindi ko po maalala kung...

Nakaikot na po kayo sa mga bundok?

Saan po, Your Honor?

Mga bundok?

Yes po, Your Honor.

Nakita nyo na po ba ang pangangailangan ng mga tao sa malayong lugar, katulad ng gamot? katulad po ng pagkain.

Wala naman ba akong na-observe, Your Honor?

Ayun, wala. Hindi po kayo exposed.

Exposed po ba kayo sa threat ng terrorism sa bansa natin? Nabalitaan nyo po ba ang ISIS, ang NPA, ang Abu Sayyaf?

Exposed po ba kayo doon sa mga balita? Sa news po. May mga nabalitaan po ako,

Your

Honor.

Alam nyo po ba kung gaano nakagrabe ang terrorism?

Wala po akong threshold, Your Honor, to determine that.

Ah, wala po. Pero kayo po ang humahawak. ng investigation patungkol sa Confidential Fund. Tama po ba?

Hindi po siya investigation. Evaluation po.

Evaluation. Ako, tama-tama. Ibig po sabihin, kahapon po, sinabi ninyo na gumawa lang kayo ng preliminary investigation. Tama po ba?

Preliminary inquiry. Amin, hindi po. Part po siya ng process namin na mag-issue po kami ng AOM.

So, ibig po sabihin, kahapon kasi narinig ko parang yung ginawa nyo, preliminary lang.

Yung AOM po, preliminary lang. Opo, hindi po yung conclusion.

Kung ang tinutukoy n'yo po ay yung... Meron po kasing provision as to the joint circular as to tinatawag na prima facie... Pakisagot

na lang po kung conclusion ba po yun? Final? Final?

Hindi po kasi we require them... So hindi

po final? Based on the AOM po... Kunti lang po oras ko, hindi

po

final?

Sa

AOM po, yung AOM po hindi po final? Hindi po final, opo. Kayo po ba'y naniniwala na ang mga confidential agent ay dapat magpakilala? Sabihin ng kanilang mga totoong pangalan? Ang wala bang provision as to that po sa

Joint Circular, Your Honor?

Kayo po mismo, palagay nyo po sa personal po ninyong pagkakaintindi, ang mga confidential agent, dapat po bang magpakilala?

Since that calls for an opinion, hindi po ako authorized to express that, Your Honor. Ano pong depenisyon niya ng confidential? Based on the Joint Circular

po, ang confidential expenses ay yung...

Hindi po expenses, confidential lang po. Bilang kayo po ay abogado, ano pong pagkakaintindi nyo sa confidential?

I'm classified, po, Your Honor.

Okay. Boss, sa next na lang po akong round.

Thank you, Senator Judge Valdila.

You may avail of the second round. Next would be Senator Judge Marcos. You are recognized, ma'am. You may proceed when you're ready. You have two minutes.

Thank you very much, Presiding Judge.

Okay, kanina sinabi mo na hindi ka umabot doon sa notice of disallowance, pero ando mo pa rin sa ikbaw noong na-release yung notice of suspension, diba?

Yes, Your Honor.

Okay, so doon sa notice of suspension, katulad ng disallowance, nasabi mo kahit wala ka na roon, you were made aware kasi nabalitaan mo.

Pinagbawal ba ng COA yung mga confidential expenses dahil peke o fictitious, gawa-gawa lang yung mga AR?

Anong po ang notice yung tinutukoy niya po, Your Honor?

Doon sa mga AR ng OVP, meron bang sinabi na gawa-gawa lang, hindi tunay, peke?

So ang sagot, no. Walang sinasabi na fictitious yung AR. At doon sa AOM, pati sa suspension, ganoon na rin sa ND. Sinabi ba ng COA na yung AR and Documentary Evidence of Payments, yung debt, e peke, pasipikado, huwad?

Since hindi po yan yung focus ng audit po namin, wala po kaming findings about that, Your Honor.

Sinabi ba doon na falsificado yung left at saka yung AR? Na it was forged, kumbaga?

Wala pong ganong findings, Your Honor.

Wala rin, diba? At doon sa mga pangalan ng mga... recipient ng award. Tama ba ako sa pagkaintindi na hindi rin sinita ng COA yung mga kakaibang pangalan tulad ng Mary Grace Piatos, Andy Lim, etc. Ang sinabi at binanggit talaga ng COA ay yung mga datos na hindi tumutugma. Tama ba?

Since what with this compliance audit po, at wala namang provision yung circular as to the use of ILSS, yes po, wala pa kaming findings.

Kasi sabi mo nga, neither allowed nor prohibited. Tama po. So, doon sa AOM at sa notice of suspension, the names of these reward recipients was never raised by COA, di ba?

Yes po.

Tama. Dahil nangyayari talaga nakakaibang pangalan ang binibigay kapag confidential or intelligence fund. Kaya isa pang tanong ko, dun sa notice of suspension, pati na rin sa ND, ang pagkaintindi natin, final ba ito o hindi?

Kapag sinabi po kasing notice of disallowance under the joint circular, meron na pong obligation to restitute agad.

Tama. Final siya sa COA. Pero kahit ang disisyon ng COA, pwedeng dalhin sa Supreme Court para maging pinal na pinal. Hindi po ba?

I-clarify ko lang po. Kapag dumating na po kasi sa Supreme Court, ang tanging ground na lang po dyan ay grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. So wala na pong kinalaman po ay factual matters.

Ganun nga. Talaga naman na matters of fact, hindi naman rin na-raise sa Supreme Court. Tama ka dun. Pero hindi pinal. Pwedeng dalhin sa Korte Suprema.

At no point are these final.

I-clarify ko lang po ano. Yung decision po ng COA to restitute ay hindi po apektado noong pag-file sa Supreme Court. So, kahit mag-file po sila ng Petition for Surgery sa Supreme Court, kailangan na po nilang ibalik agad. Kasi yung pendency po ng Petition for Surgery, hindi po niya na-stay yung obligation

to restitution. Naintindihan natin yun. Pero hindi pa tapos ang kaso. Pwede pang dalhin sa Korte Suprema, hindi po ba? At saka doon sa Notice of Suspension, balikan ko lang. Was there a finding na ginamit sa pansarili yung mga confidential funds ng OVP?

That is a presumption po.

Misappropriated by law.

Kindly wrap up. That is a presumption

po. Hindi po kailangan directly sabihin kasi nagkaroon po ng presumption.

Pero hindi sinabi. Sa madaling sabi, wala talagang sinabi.

Pero dahil presumption po

siya, hindi po siya kailangan sabihin, Your Honor.

Naintindihan ko, pero wala doon. Is there a co-finding na ninakaw? ang confidential funds doon sa various AOMs and notice. Meron bang sinasabi doon na ninakaw? It was stolen?

There is a prima facie evidence na nagamit po siya for personal use or benefit under the Joint Circular.

Kaya nga.

Kindly wrap up, Senator-Judge Marcos.

Yes, I am

done but I have questions kung may second round.

There will be a sound to it and I will register you, Senator-Judge Marcos.

Thank you. Senator-Judge Ejercito is recognized. You may proceed, sir. And when you're

ready and you have two minutes.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. Siguro dagdag ako na lang din nun. Ito tayo tinatanong na rin yung tungkol doon sa mga paggamit ng mga alias sa ating mga senator-judges. Dahil alam naman natin na kinakailangan din na... Legitimo nga, may pangangailan na protektahan, no? Dahil nga confidential itong mga information. Ang, sa ilalim ng Joint Circular Number 2015-0, paano dapat maprotektahan ang pagkakakilanla ng mga confidential informant?

Wala pong provision as to that, Your Honor. Kasi yung, wala pong namang requirement yung circular as to the, pwede pa ulit po ng tanong, sorry.

Well, yung ano, hindi, kasi parang alam naman natin, lalo na sa mga intelligence, tsaka yung mga activities, mga confi, ginagamit yung mga Ilias, nabanggit nyo rin kanina. Hindi ba pwedeng gamitin na lang, halimbawa, John Dos, Jane Dos, o Juan de la Cruz, kasi alam naman natin na, ano to eh, binambibilit, binamba-reward for information na, syempre, Pinoproteksyon na din natin yung mga, pinoproteksyon ng mga agencies, yung identity ng mga informants.

Ang masasabi ko lang po, Your Honor, wala naman pong provision as to the joint circular sa use ng LSS kasi silent po yung joint circular.

So tanggap yun? Halimbawa nakita niyong medyo parang... kahit iyong mga pangalan eh mukhang alias lang ay tinatanggap dahil pang intelligence gathering.

We based lang po dun sa document submitted to us. So kung wala pong naka-indicate dun sa document submitted to us na alias po yun, hindi po namin manalaman, Your Honor.

Tapos meron din ano no, dapat may coordination paggamit ng intelligence or confidential, may coordination with law enforcement agencies, tama po ba?

Yes po, based on the Joint Circular, Your Honor.

So dun po, tanong ko lang po, meron po bang O may nakita po ba kayong naganap na coordination with the agencies, no? Of course, yung PNP, PFP, PIDEA, at iba pa, NBI, na ginawa ang, halimbawa, OVP, in this case, sa kanilang paggamit ng confidential funds para sa sinasabi nilang confidential programs.

Based on the documents submitted po sa ICPAO, wala po, Your Honor.

Dahil sinasabi ng Joint Circular, kung di ako nagkakamil, na kailangan may proper coordination ang paggamit ng confidential funds with these law enforcement agencies.

Yes po, based on the Joint Circular, Your Honor.

Isa ba ito sa mga findings na nagkawa sa IOM o sa audit observation memo or notice suspension or notice of disallowance na inilabas laban sa OVP, yung walang coordination?

Wala po kaming naging findings about d'yan, Your

Honor.

Last time, Sir Signing Officer,

doon sa course ng iyong audit ha, Mr. Attorney Juan Milo, did you see any evidence o may ebidensya ba kayo na si Vice President personally ang tumanggap, ang nakakuha o nagbenefisyo doon sa Confidential Intelligence Fund?

Based on the documents po, wala po, Your Honor. Wala pong personal knowledge about it.

So, para sa record, for the record, just last point, Mr. President, sa pagkakalon o kawalan ng ebidensyang may pakita ng personal na pagtamanggap na kinabang ba ang isang opisyal ng pamalan sa pondong bayan ay sapat na? O upang matukoy kung may umiira na pananagutang administratibo, sibil, o kriminal?

Under the Joint Circular po kasi since si head of the agency po yung may responsibility to oversee kung paano gamitin yung confidential fund and to ensure yung compliance nila dun sa Joint Circular, then accountable person din po si head of the agency, Your Honor.

So last question. Upang maging malinaw ang inyong testimonya nang sabihin ninyong wala kayong nakitang ebidensya na ang pangalawang Pangulo mismo ang tumanggap, nagpanatili o nakinabang Sa confidential test, inilahad lamang ba ninyo ang inyong audit findings o at hindi kayo nagbibigay ng legal na conclusion hinggil sa pagkakaroon ng kawalan ng pananagutan? Is it based on your audit findings or ano lang, legal conclusion hinggil sa pagkakaroon ng liability?

Based po sa audit findings, Your Honor. Kasi nilalagay po namin yung persons accountable dun sa aming ini-issue po.

Okay, thank you Mr. Presiding Officer.

Thank you, Senator-Judge JV. Before recognizing Senator-Judge Sotto, Atty. Wamil, just on the point of Senator-Judge Marcos, to clarify, the decision of COA with respect to any appeal is final, is executory, but not final even if it is appealed before the Supreme Court, correct?

With respect to the obligation to restitute, po. Atty.

Wamil, listen to the question, please. It is, unless a TRO is issued by the Supreme Court, it is executory but the decision is not yet final. Would that be correct?

Yung decision po, final na, Your Honor.

Inappeal nga sa Supreme Court. Paano magiging final? Ikaw naman. A decision of the COA, appeared to the Supreme Court, is executory unless a TRO is issued but is not yet final. Yes,

po,

Your Honor. That is a correct statement. Opo. Thank you. Senator-Judge Sotto, you are recognized, sir. You may proceed when you're ready. You have two minutes.

Thank you, Mr. President, Mr. Presiding Officer, Mr. Witness.

In your testimony, August 3, upon direct examination by the Prosecution Council, you were presented representative samples of selected forms The questioned 845 acknowledged receipts. If I remember it right, correct pa yun? Yes,

Your Honor.

Sinabi nyo na kayo ay gumawa ng observations doon sa mga acknowledgement receipts neto kung saan ilan dito ay pinagagamitan ng confidential funds ay hindi naaayon sa Joint Circular 2015-01. ngunit may mga acknowledgement receipts, according to how I recall it, na meron, wala namang kayong observation. Observations, ano?

Yes,

po. Sapagkat ang pinaggamitang ng pondo ay naayon sa nasabing circular. Tama ba?

Yes, po, Your Honor.

Alright. Halimbawa, yung acknowledgement receipt ni Mary Grace Enchimada, I mean, Mary Grace Piatos, na 70,000 for medicine, walang support na, walang support ng documents.

Kaya gumawa kayo ng observations. Yes, Your Honor. Tapos yung doon naman kay acknowledgement receipt ni Janice Marie Trevilla, P70,000, at Pati Ting na P150,000. Wala kayong observations.

Dahil ang pondo ay ginamit sa purchase of information na pinayagan o allowed ng nasabing circular. Tama ba? Yes, Your Honor. That's the way I recall it. Alright. Okay. Now. Ito ngayon ang tanong ko. Out of these 845 acknowledgement receipts na pinag-uusapan sa kasok ito, ilan ang naggawa n'yo ng observations dahilan sa kawalan ng supporting documents?

Hindi ko na po matiya kung ilan yung exact number po, Your Honor.

Eh ilan nang, well then, my next question will not be answered because ang tatanong ko, ilan yung malang observations?

Pwede po ako mag-refer sa tabulation po, Your

Honor.

You can refer to your tabulation table that was earlier marked. Assisting counsel, can you show him the previously marked evidence pertaining to his tabulation or summary? Assisting counsel for the respondent may also approach, if so desired.

Your Honor, I'll have to count po, since wala pong samadhi dito.

What do you mean? You have to count? The 845?

Yes po, Your Honor. Wala kang

percentage man lang?

Since personal notes ko lang po ito, Your Honor.

Raw tabulation lang po siya.

So you would not have a... Ganong katagal nga abuti niya kung bibilakin mo?

Kasi my next question actually would be, magkano ang total noong... Meron kayong observations at magkano yung wala.

If the Chair may assist, Atty. Wamil, look at your notice of suspension. You have an observation which I presume pertains to those rewards, payment of goods and medicines, that you made observations to and suggested to be suspended. So I presume it pertains to those ARs.

Yes, Your Honor, pero amount lang po kasi yung naka-indicate po doon.

And the total is... Sa 845, Mr. Presiding Officer, ilan ang total? Magkano? Magkano yung total? Sa 845.

May I be allowed to perish po yung notice of suspension?

You may refer to it.

Papayag na kasi ko sa ballpark figure. Basta bigyan mo lang ako ng... kasagutan. Anong total nung 845? Ano yun? 125 million?

Out of the 125 million, ilan po?

Your Honor, please.

Let's wait for the Witness counsel to answer. He's referring to your marked exhibit, the notice of suspension. I believe it's on the first page, Atty. Wamil.

Sa first page po, with respect to the payment of rewards po, 59,787,000 pesos po, Your Honor. With other purchases naman po, um, umabot po siya ng around 15 million pesos, Your Honor.

So ilan yung walang observations? Walaking observations?

Bali, ang total po nang may observation namin ay around 75 million pesos po, Your Honor.

75 million sa may observations, so around 50 ang mga walang observations. Ganun ba?

Yes po, Your Honor.

And, alright, so that is for the 125.

Yes, Your Honor. I don't have any time anymore, so it's okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator-Judge Sotto. Senator-Judge Lacson may proceed with his interjections when he's ready. You have two minutes, sir. Thank

you, Sir. Good morning, Atty. Wammil. Good morning, Your Honor.

Sa paggamit ng intelligence saka confidential fund, hindi lamang sa pinapayagan o hindi pinagbabawal ang paggabit ng alias, kundi necessity for practical reasons, diba?

Yes, Poyer.

And idadivert lang yung totoong tao na sa likod ng mga alias kapag declassified na o tapos na yung tinatawag na confidential or intelligence operations, tamaan, diba?

Yes, Poyer, Your Honor.

So ang tanong ko, meron ba kayong, wala ba kayong efforts? na alamin kung sino yung mga nasa likod na mga aliases na sinabit sa inyo?

Since document-based lang po kami, Your Honor. Hindi na po. Wala

na po kami. Yan ang susunod yung tanong. Bakit paper audit lang kayo? Wala kayong physical? Parang bitin yung inyong pagsasagawa ng audit. Kasi paano n'yo malalaman kung legitimate yung kumirmado sa acknowledgement receipts kung hindi n'yo inaalam kung meron bang totoong tao na nasa likod? noong mga aliases na iyon.

Since what we do po in ICVAW po is compliance audit lang po, Your Honor, so kuha doon lang po talaga yung provisions na nasa joint circular, yun lang po talaga yung ginagawa namin, Your Honor.

That brings me to my next point. Baka pwedeng i-recommenda mo na i-amend nyo yung inyong JMC kasi parang bitin, in fairness to the concerned offices or persons na ino-audit. Tapat, kumpleto yung job process, di ba?

Kasi kung paper lang, magre-rely lang kayo sa mga submission, hindi nyo inaalam, you don't go further than that, di ba? Anyway, wala ka naman doon sa, hindi ka naman deputy commissioner pa o associate commissioner, so siguro, i-recommend mo na lang na i-amend yung inyong JMC. So my next question is, what would you consider as evidence of success? of a particular surveillance operation and or intelligence information gathering activity. Ano yung evidence of success?

Actually, walang specific na document yung sinasabi ng Joint Circular. Pero nagbe-base po kami dun sa mismong wording po na dapat merong causal link between the successful intelligence or surveillance activities vis-a-vis yung information given by the informer.

Okay. Would an after surveillance report or after... intelligence report ng particular na agent, would it suffice para i-consider nyong evidence of success? I'm not referring to the entire operation. Kasi kapag nagsagawa ng surveillance, nagsasagawa ng after surveillance report, whether negative or positive, would you consider that as evidence of success?

Katulad po nang sinabi ko, tinitingnan po namin yung causal link. Kung

may causal

link between the success and the information

given. Yan ang problema kasi beaten nga yung inyong audit. So, I would reiterate, i-recommend mo na i-amend ninyo yung inyong circular. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator-Judge Lacan. Before proceeding to round 2, Chair would like to make some interjections. Atty. Wamil, you read the notice of suspension earlier and you gave what amount again? Can you kindly give him a

copy? Counsel for Prosecutors?

Puyo Anika yun, main time.

Sa payment of rewards po, yung total is 59,787,000 pesos po.

You're referring to page 1 of the December 13 notice of suspension that you prepared?

Yes po, Your Honor.

Can you total it again for me, please, sir?

The payment of rewards po.

I totaled it and your total is wrong. Kindly total the figures that you wrote there.

Ang dami namang nagkamaling numero doon. From 59,787, ang tamang total is 69,837.

Yes po, Your Honor.

But the figure you mentioned earlier was what was written here. How did you know that it was wrong, a typo, and now you're giving us the correct figures?

Kasi yung 10 million po, Your Honor, hindi na-add dun sa total amount. 10 million po nung payment, reward payment.

Pangalawa po, yung subsequent, each one says. Binabanggit po 69 million na pero yung yung detalye, hindi na po 10.5 million, 10 million na. Ano ba talaga?

Can you repeat your question, Your Honor? Sorry.

Nakalagay po dyan 10.5 million. 10.05 million. Hindi po ba yung rewards? Yung reward payment. Yung subsequent documents issued by COA already refer to it as only 10 million. Anong pagkakay ba yun?

What subsequent documents, Your Honor, yung tinutukoy n'yo?

I am referring to the notice of disallowance later on and the documents mentioned also in subsequent documents.

Wala na po akong personal knowledge about the notice of disallowance, Your Honor.

So ba't nakorek yun yung 10.05 naging 10 million na lang? You wouldn't know?

I wouldn't know, Your Honor.

In relation to the question of Senator-Judge Sotto, he said, how much is the total that were provided for? You gave a total in relation to the question of Senator-Judge Villanueva. Ano ba yung pinakaiba? Correct me if I'm wrong. You said you were aware of a notice of disallowance.

Yes, po.

How much was the notice of disallowance? Ano yung dinis-allow out of the 125?

Ang makakasagot po niyan, Your Honor, yung next witness po.

No, if you're familiar with the Notices of Disallowance, you testified, Atty. Wamil, that AOM, Notice of Suspension, Notice of Disallowance. So sa dulo, Pag iba na yung amount na nakalagay doon, marami nagtanong kanina, eda yung dinis-allow lang ultimately is only 73.287 million. Posibleng magbago talaga yun, di ba?

Yes, po, Your Honor.

So yung AOM mo, yung kabuuan ng 125, yung AOM mo pangalawa, kabuuan ng 125, yung notice of disallowance mo, yung notice of suspension mo, kabuuan ng 125, pero posibleng iba na ang amount ng notice of...

Disallowance, rather.

Yes po, depending on the evaluation po kasi yun nung nag-audit po.

One final question for this round as well. Let's focus on the failure to liquidate and notice of demand. Yung AOM po ba may failure to liquidate na at notice of demand na o wala pa? I'm citing paragraph 8.3 of the IJMC.

Kapag AOM po kasi, wala pa po. Yun po ang AOM po kasi yung parang kinukonsider namin as demand po, Your Honor.

Atty. Wamil, there is a big difference because your notice of suspension, does it include a demand?

Pardon, Your Honor?

Wala pa po, Your Honor.

Isn't it correct na nandun lang sa notice of disallowance yan?

Based on the joint circular po, doon po nirequire po na mag-restitute.

Sa notice of disallowance na. Wala sa AOM, walang demand sa notice of suspension sa notice of disallowance.

The demand to pay po, Yes,

Your Honor. So, when will the presumption come in? under paragraph 8.3. Kung wala pang failure to liquidate, dahil hindi pa final, kung wala pa yung demand until notice of disallowance na hindi pa final, kailan po papasok yung presumption o prima facie doon sa 8.3?

Ang wording po kasi noong 8.3, Your Honor, failure to liquidate. So kasama po doon yung failure to submit the documents, hindi po kasama yung failure to pay kung ano man po yung dinidemand.

Nakalagay po doon, failure to liquidate upon demand.

Yes po. So ang sinasabi po doon, isubmit yung complete documents with the ICPAU.

So pag hiningi nyo at hindi po nasubmit failure na yun sa palagay mo?

Yes sir, kasi ang sabi lang naman po is upon demand, hindi sila nakapag-liquidate po.

That is your interpretation sir, correct? That is not found in the GMC.

Ang binibase ko lang po dun sa provision po ng JMC, Your Honor.

Sa interpretation mo nga ng JMC?

Yes, po, Your Honor.

To avail of round two, Senator-Judge Pangilinan. Thank you, Atty. Wamil.

To avail of round two, Senator-Judge Pangilinan. You have two minutes, sir.

Thank you. Doon tayo sa acknowledgement receipts. So, andito yung mga acknowledgement receipts for December 21 to 31. Ang napansin ko rito nga, lahat buo ang numero, walang butal. 250,000, 500,000, na acknowledgement receipt. Tama ba na kapag resibo na official, ang malamang hindi buo, may butal, di ba? May detalyado, malamang.

Your Honor. Based

on your experience. So dito, puro buo, 250, 500. Ni isa, walang butal. Walang sentimo.

So,

yun, medyo isang concern natin yun. Pangalawa, 111 disbursements in one day. Naka-date. Do you confirm that?

Wala po akong data nung number.

This is about December 23, 2022. Nakalagay dito, date, December 23, December 23, December, binilang namin 111, isang araw, totaling 17 million. Pagkaganyan ba, is that, would you consider that use one? Disbursement, 111 disbursements in one day?

Wala pong specific provision yung circular as to that.

Yes, but the circular says, to prevent, irregular, excessive, extravagant. So, would you consider this, does this fall under regular, irregular, or you wouldn't know?

I wouldn't know po.

wala naman pong probation.

Yung usapin nung meeting ninyo, yung audit query, nabanggit nyo na hiningi, di ba, nagka-meeting kayo, nagkaroon ng audit query, hinihingi ang audit query sa halip na AOM, tama?

Yes po, Your Honor.

Okay. At hindi kayo pumayag?

Yes po, since wala naman po siya doon sa aming Joint Circular, Your Honor.

Kung pumayag kayo, nawala sa Joint Circular, at nagbigay kayo ng audit query na hinihingi ng OVP, would you be violating the Joint Circular?

Yes po.

Kaya hindi po kami nagbigay, Your Honor.

Hindi lang po siya sanction, Your Honor. Hindi po siya part nung ini-issue namin.

Okay, okay. Pero hindi nga part. Pero kung ginawa nga ninyo, based on your experience as auditor, you would be violating your own issuances.

Yes, Your Honor.

That's why you refused to give the audit query as requested and instead, tinuloy n'yo yung AOM.

Last question, sir. Kindly wind up.

Yes, last question. Binanggit mo na hindi tinanggap yung AOM nung in-issue n'yo. Tama ba yun?

Yes, Your Honor.

Bakit? Alam nyo ba kung ba't hindi tinanggap dahil walang authorization? Tama ba yun?

Yes po. Wala daw pong mag-i-receive.

Ganyan ba dapat? Ganyan ba ang kalakaran pagka ang isang ahensya ng pamalaan ay binigyan nyo ng AOM? Nangyayari ba yan na hindi tinatanggap ng ahensya?

Yan po yung first time na nangyari po, Your Honor.

Yes po. That's unusual po.

Thank you, Senator-Judge Pangilinan. Before proceeding to the other round two availors, Chair would like to recognize Senator-Judge Zubiri who will be availing of his first round to make his interjections. You are recognized, sir. You may proceed when you're ready. You have two minutes.

Thank you very much, Mr. Presiding Officer. Magandang umaga po, attorney. Good morning po, Your Honor. Ito, broad strokes lang po ito, Mr. Presiding Officer, to my dear colleagues kasi

Sa iyong pananaw, dito sa findings ninyo, napapakita ba na may possibility of misuse and abuse of government funds on confidential and intelligence funds?

Yes, po. Since we follow naman po yung joint circular sa lahat ng inaudit po namin.

At hindi lamang sa ahensya ng eksekretibo, pati LGUs. Tama po yan?

Yes po.

Yes, kasi obviously, Mr. Witness, pag sinabi yung confidential in nature, huwag na kayo magtanong. Basta ginamit namin yung pera. Hindi sa tingin mo, tama po yan o hindi?

Hindi po, Your Honor, kasi ang confidential fund ay public funds pa rin naman po. So it must follow the strict accounting and auditing rules po. Para maiwasan po yung misuse.

So talagang hinahanap ninyo yung... Paano nag-gastos yung pera? Nagkaroon ba ng plano, plan of action, at paano nag-gastos ang pera at saan pumunta yung pondo? Tama po yan?

Since ang audit po namin ay document-based, so nag-be-based lang po kami dun sa sinasubmit sa amin. So kapag hindi po properly liquidated, meaning hindi submitted lahat ng documents or yung documents ay hindi compliant doon sa requirements ng Joint Circular, nagkakaroon po ng presumption na...

Yes,

kasi nung ako po yung naging Senate President for two years, we had access to the reports of confidential and intelligence funds. And in these reports, makikita po natin one particular agency Talagang detalyado. Ito po'y panggamit sa by-bust operation ng drugs. Ito po'y nabigay sa informant. Ito po'y nabigay sa mga tumulong, paghahuli nito mga tao. Ito, ayan ba'y ganun din po nakita ninyo sa OVP? Use of Confidential Funds? Pwedeng paulit po ng tanong, Your Honor. Sana mabigyan po ako ng leeway ng ating presiding officer. Basically, Noong ako po yung naging Senate President, yung Confidential Intelligence Funds ay dinadala dito during budget hearings. So, para ma-review po ng Senado. Ang ginawa ko po, noong ako po yung Senate President, binuksan ko po ito sa majority at minority. As a

matter of fact, Senator Risa Onteveros, Senator Coco Pimentel was the minority leader then. Binuksan po natin yan para makita ng lahat yung paggamit nitong Confidential and Intelligence Funds. through the reporting of the different agencies. May mga ahensya na makakapal ang mga sinubmit sa Senado para makita kung gaano nila o paano nila ginamit yung pera. Dito ba po sa Office of the Vice President, ganun din ba po kadetelyado ang report na binigay po sa COA o nung nakita ng COA sa paggamit ng mga pondo nila?

Opo.

Okay, and the reason why, and this as a statement, the reason why we need to really curtail the use of intelligence and confidential funds on the possibility of abuse, and not only on the office of the Vice President. This also goes to all agencies of government. Kaya limitado na po sa armed forces na lang yung ating confidential funds tuwing nag-a-approve po tayo ng budget. At kasama na po dapat dyan yung LGUs. Dahil yung LGU po ay matindi din ang pag-abuso ng kanilang Confidential Intelligence Funds. Tama po po yan, attorney? Under your experience?

Yes po. Kulang

po yung

safeguards, Your Honor.

Maraming salamat po.

Thank you, Senator-Judge Zubiri. Next would be Senator-Judge Erwin Tulfo.

You may proceed, sir. When you're ready, you have two minutes.

Mr. Witness. Napansin po ba ninyo na yung isang acknowledgement receipt na 220,000 para sa payment of reward, parenthesis, various goods para kay T.J. Verano, 220,000 po ito. Ang date po ng receipt ay December 22, 2026. Samantalang expenditure ay para sa taong 2022.

Type o error po ba ito o minadali ang paggawa ng AR?

2026 po, Your Honor. 2026 po.

Acknowledgement receipt. December. December 2022 acknowledgement receipt. Ayan po.

Para sa 2022 po yata ito.

Is this type o error or sa tingin n'yo ay minadali?

Nagkaroon po kami ng findings about Jan, Your Honor. Lahat po nung

That po nung ARs po na naka-date po, na hindi po naka-date ng 2022, naisama po namin doon sa aming notice of suspension po.

Okay. Pero ang pirma po dito ni T.J. Verano po, may pirma po dito, di ba?

Based on that document po, it appears na si T.J. Verano po.

So, dinate niya po ng 2026, in advance niya na? Or, binove forward niya po to 2026? Ang pagtanggap po ng goods? December 22, 2026? E para sa 2022 po ito?

Yes po, kaya po kami nagkaroon ng findings about yan, Your Honor.

Ah, okay. So, question po ninyo.

Opo, question po namin.

Pangalawang katanungan ko po, pinag-justify nyo po ba sa OVP bakit gumastos ito ng 2 million kada araw para sa safe house? Ito po ba isang safe house lang o? Maraming safe houses. Sumagot po ba ang Office of the Vice President?

Based on the documents submitted to us, hindi po namin madedetermine kung ilan yung safe houses na pinagamitin po.

Pero sumagot po ba siya? Pina-justify nyo po ba? I mean, 2 million per day, it is sobrang laki. Hotel na po yata yung nire-renta po nito. Ganito ka laki, sobra pa.

Hindi po namin pina-justify, Your Honor, since wala namang pong threshold dun sa Joint Circular Study Amounts.

Na yung 2 million, so hindi po... Unusual para sa inyo na mag-renta po ng safe house sa 2 million per day dito sa Pilipinas.

Since tulad nga po nang sinabi ko kanina, we follow our audit based on the provisions lang po ng Joint Circular pero wala naman pong threshold as to the amount sa Joint Circular kaya wala po kaming findings as to that.

So tama po si Senator-Judge Lacson na binibase nyo lang po talaga sa mga documents po wala po kayong physical audit?

Yes, Your Honor.

Alright. Based po sa experience n'yo, may mga government offices ba na inu-audit po n'yo na hindi tinatanggap ang Audit Observation Memo, AOM? May mga as an auditor? Or sumasagot silang lahat?

Wala po. Sumasagot po silang lahat, Your Honor.

Except dito kay OVP?

Hindi po tinanggap ni OVP yung aming first AOM nung nagka-time po kami nung unang time po.

Ah, alright.

That's all, presiding

officer. Thank you.

Thank you. Chair would now like to recognize our minority leader, rather, Senator-Judge Alan Cayetano for his availment of the first round. You may proceed, sir, when you're ready. You have two minutes, sir. Mr.

Presiding

Officer,

Senate President, dear colleagues, my question is to the Council for the Prosecution, Defense, and the Witness. One question, maybe a follow-up, and if we may start with the witness first to answer. I'm not asking you to make a judgment in this case ng impeachment. So sa akin is the answer the general question. So we've discussed in the last two days, di ba, what is illegal expenditure, what is irregular expenditure, what is improper expenditure. In between all of that, we talked about many, many technicalities. And of course, this will be much easier if we're talking about public funds.

So my question is, when we analyze the expenditure, when is it... in the nature of an administrative problem na parang o mag-submit lang kayo, i-justify n'yo to, o kulang lang ng dokumento, i-supply n'yo to. And when does it go up to na criminal na in nature na, sandali lang, may anomalya na dito or we might file charges against you. Ano yung bar n'yan, diba? So sa mga senator-judges na nanonood ngayon, and sa publiko na nanonood ngayon because nga confidential expenditures are in a class by itself. Di ba? Peace and order is so important. Security is so important. So I'm not referring to this case. So I'm not asking you to make a judgment in this case whether it's administrative, criminal, in general as an auditor. Then I'll ask the same sa prosecutor and sa defense.

Witness, go ahead. In your words, no?

Kapag AOM po tsaka NS, nirequire po namin sila na mag-submit ng documents. Pero kapag nag-ND na po, since there's an obligation to restitute, so ang remedy po nila is to settle the amount or to file an appeal with the commission proper.

Yes, but even when you give them an ND to restitute, hindi nyo naman sinasabi pag-restitute. Pwedeng restitute na mali paggamit, hindi yung binulsa mo yun, di ba? So at what point as an auditor do you say na, Sandali lang, criminal na ito, may anomalya. Kasi puwedeng mali ang pinaggamitan, kaya isolin n'yo. But you're not accusing anyone of na binulsa niya.

Well, I'm sure ka lang naman po, mayroong presumption na tinatawag kapag hindi nakapag-liquidate na maayos yung agency. Which is presumption of misuse or misappropriation.

Yes, and that's a disputable presumption, right?

It is a prima facie presumption.

Yes, a prima facie presumption is a disputable presumption. it's not a conclusive presumption, meaning, yung prima facie, so, lilipat yung onus sa kabila na i-prove na mali. Tama?

Yes, Your Honor.

So, hindi pa rin dumating dun sa point na yun, na parang, hindi, as far as COA is concerned, ninakaw mo to. Again, I'm not talking about this case in general. At what point will you have a final COA document saying na yun. Kasi pag sinabi mo lang restitute lang, it could be restitute because you didn't use it for what you were using it for.

Based on the rules of COA po, since di ba i-appel po yung, pwede pong i-appel yung ND, at kapag naglabas si commission proper nung decision at hindi po nag-comply si agency dun sa decision, then pwede nang i-endorse with the ombudsman yung case for the filing of criminal charges.

I'm okay. I just want to hear the answer of both the prosecution.

With the permission of Senator-Judge Allen, asking the counsels for the parties, that same question will already make them give their own versions of the law, which I think should be course through the witness, similarly to how you ask the question to the witness, instead of it being placed on the record based on their own points of view.

Well, anyway, we will have two more COA witnesses. But I think to all of us who are neutral, that's the big question. At what line does it cross between nagkamali lang yung isang public official sa pag-li-liquidate and at what point is it criminal? And I just wanted to give. I would be clarifying

that too

during

my second round.

Then I will leave it up to you, Mr. Presiding Officer. I apologize. The prosecution and the defense, you will not have a chance to answer that. But during the time of the presiding officer, you will be able to. Or maybe even in the summation at the end.

Thank you for your understanding, Senator-Judge Allen. Senator-Judge Sotto, for his interjection. And availment of round two.

Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. Senator Mick Subiri, former Senate President.

Somehow tinkered my cerebral quietness when he said something about the issue of confidential funds. So this question would be, as a senator, not just an impeachment judge, I hope you allow me, because this is just one question for the witness, and if we can get the prosecution panel and the defense panel to give their opinion. Alright? Yung confidential word kasi, pag ginagamit, parang intelligence eh. Parang ganun din eh. Di ba? Parang sinasabi mo. So, it is abused. Bakit hindi sa budget, nasusunod, and we want your opinion, para mas magkoconform sa circular n'yo. Palitan natin. Huwag ng confidential na gamitin. Gamitin natin restricted.

Restricted funds. Or non-public funds.

Ganun pa rin, di ba? private, but open. Naintindihan na nila na hindi confidential ito, na hindi ito pwedeng hindi nilalaman ng publiko. Something to that effect. Just the opinion of the... With the

indulgence of Senator-Judge Sotto,

It's good to stand up once in a while for being seated for a long time, but the Chair will not allow councils to respond and give their opinion on the matter and will simply allow the witness to answer, similar to the Chair's ruling in relation to the query earlier of Senator-Judge Cayetano.

Yes, Attorney Wamil. Well, I submit that po to the Commission on Audit po. I am not authorized po to give an opinion as to that.

That was the witness's answer.

Senator, rather, Senator-Judge, Senate President, Wynne Gatchalian is recognized for his interjections. You may proceed when you're ready, sir. You have two minutes. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. Thereafter, Senator Bam. So

kindly prepare.

Isundan ko lang po yung mga questions ni Senator Risa at ni Senator Ping doon sa payment of rewards to informers without documents evidencing the success. Kanina natanong ni Senator Ping at ni Senator Risa tungkol dito. Ngayon, anong klaseng ebedensya ang hinahanap ng COA, ikaw in particularly, evidencing success?

Since yung circular naman po ay walang binanggit na particular evidence, ang tinitignan na lang po namin sa mga sinasubmit ay yung causal link between the successful information gathering or surveillance activities and the information given by the informer. Can

you give an example kung paano ginagawa niya ng ibang agencies?

Nagsasubmit po sila ng certification po, Your Honor.

Give me an example lang. Ano yung causal link? Anong example ang binibigay ng ibang agencies?

Ang nakalagay po doon kung ano yung naging successful surveillance or information gathering nila at kung ano kung yun ba ay dahil naging resulta nung information na binigay nung informant po.

So ganun, nagbigay sila ng reward or nagbigay ng pera para sa informant at mayroong success. Ganung kasimple.

I can only say lang po yung kung ano yung sinasabi dun sa provision ng Joint Circle, Your Honor.

I'm referring to the other agencies because I want to understand bakit hindi sila, allegedly, bakit hindi sila nakasubmit?

Anong ginagawa ng ibang agencies na na-audit mo?

Hindi ko na po pwedeng i-disclose yan, Your Honor.

But in simple terms, may reward at may success.

Yes po. And dapat, may pakita nila na it must be on the account of the information given po by the

informer. Okay. And then, meron akong in the documents that were provided sa amin. Meron ditong document galing kay Colonel Raymond Lachica, a certification.

Basically, certifying. And this is for December 20 to 30. 20 to 31, 2022. At ang kasabi dito, no untoward incidents in the implementation of the Office of the Vice President, programs, project activities, as well as engagement of the Office of the Vice President. Hindi ba itong certification, no untoward incident? nagbigay ng reward. Hindi ba ito sufficient to say na successful?

Hindi po, Your Honor, kasi hindi naman po pinakita dyan yung causal link between the successful intelligence gathering or surveillance activities dahil sa information na binigay ng informant.

Kasi in my own analysis, merong reward na binigay, walang untoward incident. That is the end goal, peaceful. Bakit hindi ka tanggap-tanggap itong... Para sa iyo ah, ikaw kasi nag-audit nito.

Yun nga po Your Honor, since we base our findings kung ano po yung wordings nung Joint Circular, so yun po yung tinitingin namin yung causal link between the successful information gathering and surveillance activities vis-a-vis yung information given by the informer. So

dapat po maipakita. Who determines the causal link? Kasi that's very subjective, di ba?

Opo, dapat po maipakita nila yung...

But who

determines?

Kapag sinamit po sa amin, Your Honor. Pero it is the, ano po, since it was the agency who gave the reward, so dapat maipakita po nila.

Oo nga, but who determines that ko sa link? Sino ang nagdedetermine na may link? Si auditor po. Which is ikaw nga, no? Kasi ikaw ang nag-audit nito, tama?

po kasi pinakita dyan, Your Honor, na yung naging result ay dahil sa information na binigay nung informer. Yun po kasi yung gusto naming makita.

Alright. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

Thank you, Senate President. Next to make his interjections would be Senator Bam Aquino, thereafter, Senator Marcos. You may proceed, sir. When you're ready, you have two minutes.

Maraming salamat. My question is for Atty. Powa. Atty. Powa, what is the official position of the respondent with regard to Piatos, Andy Lim, and all of these names that are brought up? Are they real people or are they aliases?

Sir, I... I would like to answer a question, Your Honor, but that is part of the legal strategy which you will see when we present our evidence in chief. Again, may the

chair remind Senator-Judge Bam, as far as practical, let's let the witness present their evidences and not allow the counsels to make conclusions of either fact or law nor divulge their respective legal theories.

These are not legal theories. In your previous answers, there was no referral to these individuals as either aliases or real people. Correct. In your previous answers.

Correct. Because that was precisely our legal theory then that there was nothing to answer at that point, Your Honor. But we will definitely show you our theory once we are given the opportunity to present our evidence in chief, Your Honor.

Maraming salamat, Atty.

Atty., during your conversation with the OVP, nung panahong binubuo yung AOM, may nagbanggit ba sa kanila na, oh, itong mga pangalan to, alias to? Or never nila nabanggit yung tungkol sa alias nung nag-meeting sila sa'yo?

Noong time po na yun kasi hindi pa nila na-submit yung documentary evidence of payments po.

So there's never been any indication from their responses or any calls that these names that are being brought up are indeed aliases? Wala?

Okay. Thank

you. Yung ibang ahensya na inaudit ninyo, gumagamit rin ba sila ng alias?

We wouldn't know po kasi dun sa mga document na sinasamit sa amin, hindi naman po naka-indicate if it is an alias or not.

And it's not up to you to find out whether these are aliases or not?

Yes po, since wala nam pong provision dun sa Joint Circular, Your Honor, with respect to the aliases.

So itong paggamit ng alias, to your knowledge, Hindi nyo alam sa mga inaudit ninyo, but to your knowledge, gumagamit ba ang ibang ahensya ng mga alias?

I wouldn't know po, since, katulad nga po, hindi naman po, bukod dun sa sinasabit nilang documents, wala pong naka-indicate na yung name ay alias po.

And your, the position of COA is, hindi ito bawal, pero hindi rin ito pwede.

Yes po, kasi silent

po yung

Joint Circuit,

Your Honor, as to that.

I wouldn't know po if it is an alias since wala naman po naka-indicate dun sa document that it is an alias po.

Okay, and we'll give the defense their time later on during their part to talk about this more as part of their strategy. Sige, let me change topic. Ito yung mga tanong ni presiding officer, ni Senator Cayetano rin. Yung pag-escalate from AOM to notice of suspension to notice of disallowance to referral to the ombudsman for cases.

Years ba ito? Time ba ito? Oras ba ito? Ano yung, ano yung decision point ninyo para iakyat to the next level yung, or i-escalate to the next level yung mga, yung mga utos ninyo?

Kapag AOM po, meron po silang 15 days to reply to the AOM. Tapos kapag hindi pa rin sila compliant with the findings po, that's the

time that we issue a notice of suspension. At kapag naka-receive po si agency ng notice of suspension, meron po siyang 90 days within which to comply. Pero pag hindi po rin po sila compliant, then doon na po kami mag-iissue ng notice of disallowance. In

general, not the case of the OVP and DepEd,

Kapag may notice of disallowance na, naniningil na kayo, diba?

Yes po. And the next step is to refer to the ombudsman. May remedy pa rin po naman si agency.

Okay, pakiexplain nga ano ba yung remedy? Which

is to settle, bayaran yung amount or to appeal. Within? Within 180 days po from the date of receipt po nung disallowance.

Okay, so we will find out with the next witness when that notice of disallowance was at kung pasok pa rin sa 180 days. Kung wala pa rin sa 180 days, then you refer to the ombudsman?

Yes po, kasi pag hindi po sila nag-appeal at hindi rin po sila nagbayad, nagiging final po yung decision and that's the time na we refer na po to the Office of the Ombudsman kapag hindi po sila nag-comply. At

meron ka bang knowledge about the status of these disallowances right now?

Wala po, since confidential po yan, hindi naman po yan ina-announce sa buong COA, so I wouldn't know po.

So let me ask the prosecution final... Question, is that the next witness? Is that going to be the testimony of the next witness? Itong disallowance, 180 days na lumipas, at kung may referral to the Ombudsman?

Yes, Your Honor.

Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

Thank you, Senator-Judge Bamakinan. Next will be Senator-Judge Marcos for her interjections thereafter. Senator-Judge Riza, kindly prepare. You may proceed, ma'am, when you're ready. You have

two minutes.

Maraming salamat, Ginong Pangulong Hukom. Itutuloy ko lang yung tinatanong ko kanina dahil may nabanggit kayo ng presumption of misappropriation. Tama ba? For personal use.

Based on the joint circular po, meron po.

Oo, tama. Pakatapos nun, tinitingnan ko yung joint circular at maliwanag that the presumption for misappropriation arises against the accountable officer. Diba? Against the accountable officer. Sino ang accountable officer? Maliwanag naman yung Joint Circular. Sa 3.1, sabi yung officer whose duties permit or require possession of government funds. Diba?

Based on the Joint Circular po, may ganyang provision. Oo.

So yung SDO talaga, yung Special Disbursing Officer, has the possession, the custody. Tama yun, diba?

Yes, po.

O kung ganon, if the presumption na personal use ayon sa 8.3 ng Joint Circular, failure of the accountable officer to liquidate any public funds is tantamount na nga to that presumption, hindi po ba? So, ang tanong dito, Sino ang accountable officer dito sa sitwasyon na to? Kasi ang liwa-liwanag na hindi naman si Vice President ang payee. Hindi naman sinasabi na nasa kanya yung pera. Ang liwanag sa inyong Joint Circular that the special disbursing officer is the one who was dis-designated by the head of agency to have custody. Diba? And in the case of the OVP, si Acosta yun. In the case of DepEd, hindi ba si Fajarda yun?

That

is not entirely correct, Your Honor. Because under the Joint Circular, it shall be the responsibility of the head of the agency first to approve yung cash advance. Pangalawa, to oversee yung agency-wide utilization. Pangatlo, to ensure compliance with the Joint Circuit Act. And also po, inattest din po ni OBP yung...

Unresponsive po. Ang tinatanong ko lang, hindi ba yung designated, yung SDO, si Fajarda lang at si Acosta, hindi si VP, hindi siya yung payee. Ang liwa-liwa na. Pero ang

sinabi niyo po kanina, yung accountable officer.

So yung Accountable Officer, eh yung SDO, nasa JC. Hindi lang po

si

SDO po yung

Accountable Officer, Your Honor. Ang sabi doon, Head of Agency or Person Designated.

Oo, ang liwanag sa definition ng Joint Circular. Mag-yes or no ka lang. Kanina ka pa, inaaway mo ko lagi. Sorry

po, Your Honor. But hindi po ako pwedeng mag-answer categorically since yun nga po yung provision.

But it's categorical.

Why

don't you

go back

to your joint circular? Kapag sinabi po kasing categorical,

it's either yes or no.

Ang liwa-liwanag, SDO kapag na-designate ng head of office, di ba?

But hindi po kasi doon na nalilimit lang yung term na accountable officer kasi may other provisions na applicable pa rin po with respect to the term accountable officer.

Asan? Kasi napakaliwanag doon sa definitions, napakaliwanag sa 8.3 ng joint circular.

Yun nga po yung na-mention ko kanina.

Interpretation na ninyo yun. Pinapalawak ninyo na andun eh. Head of office, head of agency, or designated.

Hindi po, Your Honor. Kasi yun nga po, nakalagay po doon sa...

Sabi

mo kanina yes, ngayon no naman.

Wala po akong sinabing yes po, Your

Honor.

O sinabi mo kanina eh oo, SDO nga in charge.

Sinabi ko lang po kung ano yung... I-confirm ko lang po kung ano yung SDO, Your Honor.

Atung Iwamel, kindly avoid arguing with Senator-Judge Marcos.

And

kindly wind up, Senator

-Judge Marcos.

Pwede lang itanong kasi nalito ako kahapon. Kahapon sinabi mo na si VP Sara Lang ang first and only vice president that you audited na may confidential funds. Sinabi mo yun, di ba?

Yes, Your Honor.

Tapos kahapon nung pinakita ng Depensa yung saraw na si VP Binay noong 22 December 2014 may binigay na 6 million kay VP Binay ang DBM. Alin ba ang totoo sa dalawang sinabi mo magkatunggali?

Yung pinakita po kakapon ay special allotment release order po. So nagkakaroon po ng special allotment release order kapag

merong... Alam ko kung ano ang SARO. Matagal na. Tumanda na po kami sa gobyerno. Pero

hindi po kasi yan ni-liquidate sa ICPAO. So we wouldn't know if this was used

or not. Hindi,

pero ang... ang... Claro, may katibayan na hindi ka isa-isang VP si VP Sara.

Your Honor, since hindi po nag-submit ng liquidation,

hindi din

po...

Teka, nandun ka na sa ICPAO noong 2014. Sabi mo diba?

Yes po. O

kaya nga. O di kahit si VP Binay may confidential funds, the only VP audited was VP Sara. Ganun ba

yun?

Since VP Sara lang po yung na-submit ng liquidation. Ba't

hindi mo alam?

If I may clarify po. Ba't

hindi mo alam? Nandun ka na noong 2014. Dapat alam mo yun eh.

If I may clarify po, Your Honor. Since wala pong budget dun sa GAA as to confidential funds, at hindi naman po nag-liquidate si BPB na yung kanilang confidential funds, so hindi po namin alam kung ginamit, at hindi na po nakarating sa COVA

yung SARO po. Hindi,

ang tanong, nabigyan ng confidential funds, humingi at nabigyan, may SARO eh.

We wouldn't

know if it's

useful. Iyon lang naman ang tanong eh. Of course you know may SARO. Sinabi mo nga, totoo yung sarong yun. Anyway, alin ang totoo? Si VP Binay o si VP Sara, talaga bang totoo yung dalawa o iisa lang? We

don't know. Based on our records po, si VP Sara lang po yung may liquidation.

So maraming we don't know ang koa? Ganun ba yun?

Based on our records po, si VP Sara lang po yung nag-liquidate nung confidential file.