SPECIAL Disbursing Officers Gina Acosta and Edward Fajarda should not bear full responsibility for confidential fund transactions conducted under the authority and supervision of Vice President Sara Z. Duterte, the House of Representtives prosecution panel said on Monday.
House trial spokesperson Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong raised the concern after questions before the Senate Impeachment Court appeared to focus accountability on the disbursing officers rather than the agency head.
‘With all due respect to Senator Imee Marcos, as I listened to her line of questioning, it appeared to me that they were trying to throw someone under the bus,’ Adiong, who represents Lanao del Sur, said.
‘It seems that someone is being made a scapegoat or a sacrificial lamb,’ he added.
Acosta served as Special Disbursing Officer of the Office of the Vice President (OVP), while Fajarda handled confidential fund disbursements for the Department of Education (DepEd) during Duterte’s tenure as Education Secretary.
Adiong cited documents bearing Duterte’s signature, including the physical and financial plan, disbursement records, liquidation report, and accomplishment report.
‘Do you honestly believe that Ms. Gina Acosta can do whatever she wants with that money without the supervision and approval of her principal? I mean, that would be absurd,’ he said.
Adiong clarified that he was not accusing the senator-judge of attempting to absolve Duterte, but said the questioning suggested that ‘somebody has to be thrown under the bus just to save the respondent.’
Prosecution spokesperson Benjamin Tolosa Jr. said the panel may seek a show-cause order if Acosta and Fajarda fail to testify. If they ignore the subpoenas without sufficient justification, the court may cite them for contempt and compel their attendance.
Meanwhile, the prosecution will continue presenting Commission on Audit Supervising Auditor Xylene Mae del Campo before calling Acosta and Fajarda, who encashed confidential fund checks totaling P612.5 million.
The Senate Impeachment Court canceled Monday’s trial because of inclement weather and flooding.
‘Ms. del Campo will continue her direct examination,’ Tolosa said.
Del Campo is expected to testify about audit actions taken after she succeeded former Intelligence and Confidential Funds Audit Office State Auditor Roderick Wamil. After her testimony, the prosecution will call Acosta and Fajarda to explain what happened to the money after it was withdrawn.
Retired Land Bank of the Philippines’ officials earlier testified that Acosta encashed four OVP checks worth P125 million each, totaling P500 million. Fajarda encashed three DepEd checks worth P37.5 million each, totaling P112.5 million.
Their testimony will form part of the prosecution’s evidence under Article I, which accuses Duterte of misusing, misappropriating, and irregularly liquidating OVP and DepEd confidential funds.
Loopholes
ADIONG said the impeachment trial had exposed weaknesses in confidential fund rules that Congress should address through stricter legislation.
‘While this trial is ongoing, I have personally observed several loopholes that could be addressed through legislation,’ he said.
He argued that civilian agencies such as the OVP and DepEd should face stricter requirements than institutions whose mandates involve intelligence, national security, and law enforcement.
‘If a civilian agency requests confidential funds, the requirements should be stricter than those imposed on agencies in the security sector,’ Adiong said.
Tolosa, meanwhile, warned that attacking the integrity of the Senate Impeachment Court could undermine public confidence and may violate the sub judice rule or constitute contempt.
His statement followed Duterte’s description of the proceedings as being marred by the ‘bending of the law.’
‘Yes, litigants can criticize the courts, but they can never attack its integrity,’ Tolosa said.
He stressed that this was only his legal assessment and not a ruling by the Impeachment Court.
‘If you say something that attacks the integrity of the court, that is very dangerous, especially in a case of this magnitude,’ he said.
Tolosa warned that such statements could lead to prejudgment and weaken public confidence in the proceedings. However, he said the presiding officer and senator-judges should determine whether Duterte’s statement violated any rules.