THE OVP USED 845 ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPTS TO LIQUIDATE ₱125 MILLION
Former Commission on Audit auditor Roderick Wamil told the Senate impeachment court that the Office of the Vice President submitted 845 acknowledgment receipts to account for ₱125 million in confidential funds spent during the fourth quarter of 2022.
Wamil said it was the first confidential-fund liquidation he had encountered that relied entirely on acknowledgment receipts.
An acknowledgment receipt can be allowed when the government pays an informant whose identity must remain protected.
The problem begins when the reported transaction involves buying medicine, equipment or other goods from an ordinary supplier. Wamil said those purchases should have proper invoices or official receipts.
One acknowledgment receipt showed “Mary Grace Piattos” receiving ₱70,000 worth of medicine as a reward for information.
Wamil said he had never before encountered medicine reported as payment to an informant.
The submitted records did not identify the illness or show whether the medicine reached a real person. COA also could not confirm whether the information produced a successful confidential operation.
For an ordinary taxpayer, the issue is familiar.
If an employee spends company money at a pharmacy, a handwritten acknowledgment may not be enough. The employer will normally ask for the pharmacy receipt, the items purchased and proof that the expense was authorized.
Confidential funds receive special protection because exposing an informant can place lives or operations at risk. Secrecy, however, makes reliable auditing even more necessary. Without adequate records, the public has no way to check whether the money went to a confidential operation, an ordinary purchase or something that never happened.
COA raised observations or requested additional documents covering ₱75 million of the ₱125 million.
That figure is not proof that ₱75 million was stolen. It shows that auditors found records requiring an explanation or further documentation.
The senator-judges have not decided whether Duterte committed an impeachable offense.
WHAT TO WATCH
Watch how the prosecution connects the paperwork to Duterte herself.
Showing that receipts were unusual or inadequate is only part of the case. The prosecution must establish Duterte’s responsibility and explain why the transactions support an impeachable charge.
The defense will have to explain why the OVP relied exclusively on acknowledgment receipts and how the informants, medicine rewards and reported confidential operations can be verified without exposing protected identities.
Those answers will help the public judge whether secrecy protected legitimate operations or prevented meaningful scrutiny of public money.
