Questions over how confidential funds were distributed across far-flung areas on the same dates took center stage in the impeachment trial on Tuesday, with a prosecutor invoking “Superman” to underscore the logistical concerns raised by the records.
Lawyer Lorna Kapunan, counsel for the panel of prosecutors, made the remark while questioning Commission on Audit-Intelligence and Confidential Fund Audit Office (COA-ICFAO) auditor Xylene Del Campo about acknowledgment receipts submitted to support the liquidation of P112.5 million in confidential funds allocated to the Department of Education (DepEd) in 2023.
Kapunan read several acknowledgment receipts showing payments made on the same day in different parts of Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao.
“Kasi ako, Marvel Comics ang binabasa ko; Superman ang favorite ko. Kung hindi man Superman ang isang SDO, kaya ba niyang puntahan, sa palagay mo, lahat na ito?” Kapunan asked Del Campo. (I read Marvel Comics, and Superman is my favorite. If the SDO is not Superman, do you think he can go to all these places?)
The defense objected, saying the question was speculative.
“What is speculative about Superman, he can fly anywhere in one day?” Kapunan replied. (What is speculative about Superman? He can fly anywhere in one day?)
Presiding Senator-judge Francis Escudero did not sustain the objection and told Kapunan to proceed, saying the court understood her point.
Escudero said it would be “physically impossible” for a lone special disbursing officer to make confidential fund payments in distant locations on the same day.
He also noted earlier testimony that the confidential funds had been turned over to another security officer.
“And there was earlier admission that the SDO gave the funds to a Col. Lachica, probably even more. So that remains to be seen and proven in the coming days,” Escudero said.
The reference, however, appeared to concern a different security officer. Raymund Dante Lachica, then head of the Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group, had figured in earlier testimony involving confidential funds of the Office of the Vice President.
For the DepEd funds, Del Campo later testified that Edard Fajarda had admitted during a House inquiry that he turned over the confidential fund cash advances to Col. Dennis Nolasco, who was part of the same security group.
During her direct questioning of Del Campo, Kapunan presented three batches of acknowledgment receipts dated Feb. 21, Feb. 25 and March 15, 2023.
Among the Feb. 21 receipts were a P50,000 payment in Danao with no name but bearing a signature, P100,000 in Malolos, P45,000 in Negros Occidental and another receipt bearing an address in Negros Oriental.
The Feb. 25 receipts included P200,000 in Masbate, P100,000 in Laoag City, P45,000 in Davao City, an amount recorded as paid in Agusan del Norte, P50,000 in Olongapo City, P150,000 in Masbate, another P45,000 in Davao City and P50,000 in Pangasinan.
Kapunan also read the March 15 receipts, identifying the amounts, supposed recipients and locations recorded in the documents.
Del Campo said the documents showed that different amounts were reportedly distributed to informants in different locations on the same dates.
She also testified that under a 2015 joint circular issued by the Commission on Audit, Department of Budget and Management and other agencies, only the designated Special Disbursing Officer is authorized to distribute confidential and intelligence funds.
In the DepEd case, Del Campo said Fajarda was the only person designated as Special Disbursing Officer when the Vice President was serving as Education secretary.
Del Campo also affirmed the testimony of the prosecution’s first auditor-witness, Roderick Wamil, that the agency head carries primary responsibility for the use of confidential funds.
House prosecution panel adviser and spokesperson Robert Ace Barbers said the testimony raised questions about the liquidation of confidential funds from both the Office of the Vice President and DepEd.
“The issue is not about fiction or imagination. No Superman is needed to understand the improbability of what the records appear to show,” Barbers said.
He said the records would warrant closer examination if they indicate that a lone Special Disbursing Officer personally made all the disbursements on the same day in different locations.
Barbers said the impeachment court would determine whether the documents accurately reflected what happened and whether the liquidation complied with rules governing confidential funds.
He added that accountable officers are expected to maintain sufficient documentation to support disbursements and establish that public funds were used only for authorized purposes.
“Confidential funds are not exempt from accountability simply because they are confidential,” Barbers said. “They remain public funds.”
He said the prosecution would continue presenting evidence on whether the liquidation of the funds complied with applicable laws and Commission on Audit regulations.
Comments