THE issue surrounding the Office of the Vice President’s (OVP) confidential funds concerns the alleged misuse of public funds, not the use of aliases associated with Filipino heroes during the Spanish colonial period, according to spokespersons of the House prosecution team.
They issued the statement after Senator-Judge Robinhood Padilla attempted to provide historical context during Vice President Sara Z. Duterte’s impeachment trial last Wednesday. Padilla pointed out that Filipino revolutionaries also used aliases to conceal and protect their identities.
The actor-turned-lawmaker raised the point after the use of unusual names and aliases by the alleged recipients of the OVP’s confidential funds became the subject of public ridicule and criticism.
‘I think those national heroes whose aliases were referenced would probably be rolling in their graves after their nom de guerre was mentioned in the same context as the allegation of misuse of confidential funds,’ prosecution spokesman Lanao del Sur Rep. Zia-ur Rahman Alonto Adiong told a press briefing.
Adiong explained that the real identities of individuals listed in acknowledgement receipts used to support the disbursement of confidential funds may be kept from public disclosure while still being made available to state auditors for verification.
‘This is an auditing problem,’ Adiong said. ‘No amount of confidential activity can ever weaken the constitutional mandate of the Commission on Audit in finding out what happened to the money of the people.’
He stressed that the controversy is not a question of patriotism but an auditing issue involving both the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education, which Duterte previously headed as secretary.
Deputy Speaker Paolo Ortega drew the distinction more directly, saying that Filipino heroes used aliases in pursuit of their struggle for the country and the Filipino people, not to deceive the public or misuse government funds.
‘Our heroes used and were known by such names because they were fighting for the country,’ Ortega, who represents La Union, said.
For her part, Deputy Speaker Janette Garin acknowledged that aliases may be necessary to protect the identities of legitimate informants and individuals involved in sensitive operations. However, she emphasized that the use of aliases does not remove the need to establish the purpose of an operation, its results, and a verifiable audit trail.
The impeachment trial has examined acknowledgement receipts containing questionable names, including Mary Grace Piattos, Pusa, Pagong, and Ngitngit.
‘The question is: What was the money used for?’ Garin, who represents Iloilo, asked. ‘If the output is under an alias, or if even the program itself exists only under an alias, then there is only one implication: the confidential funds may have been spent on a ghost or nonexistent activity.’
The prosecution team maintained that the central issue remains whether public funds were properly spent, documented, and accounted for in accordance with government auditing requirements.