Third impeachment complaint vs. VP Sara Duterte filed in House

By Filane Mikee Cervantes, Philippine News Agency

“VP Sara, as head of both offices, had an ultimate role of approving and overseeing the implementation of the programs under both offices. And without her approval, no confidential funds may be released or disposed,” the complaint read. (File Photo: House of Representatives of the Philippines/Facebook)

MANILA – A coalition of Catholic priests, civil society leaders, and lawyers filed a third impeachment complaint on Thursday against Vice President Sara Duterte concerning the alleged anomalous disbursements of confidential funds to her office and the Department of Education (DepEd) during her tenure as secretary.

The 70-page complaint, filed at the House of Representatives, cites culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of public trust, plunder and malversation, bribery, graft and corruption, and other high crimes as grounds for impeachment.

Camarines Sur Representative Gabriel Bordado Jr. and AAMBIS-Owa Rep. Lex Colada endorsed the complaint.

“On behalf of the Filipino people, complainants believe that it is not only the constitutional obligation of the members of the House of Representatives to impeach and for the Senate to remove from office Vice President Sara Z. Duterte. That obligation now becomes a moral one,” the complaint stated.

‘Accountable officer’

The complainants argued that Duterte was the “accountable officer” of the confidential funds, particularly the PHP125 million received by the Office of the Vice President (OVP) in 2022 and PHP112. 5 million received by the DepEd in 2023, as head of both agencies.

“VP Sara, as head of both offices, had an ultimate role of approving and overseeing the implementation of the programs under both offices. And without her approval, no confidential funds may be released or disposed,” the complaint read.

Recently, OVP special disbursing officer (SDO) Gina Acosta, in a House Good Government and Public Accountability hearing, admitted releasing PHP125 million in confidential funds to Col. Raymund Dante Lachica, the commander of the Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group, on Dec. 20, 2022.

Similarly, DepEd SDO Edward Fajarda disclosed that PHP37.5 million in confidential funds for the first quarter of 2023 was turned over to Col. Dennis Nolasco, DepEd’s designated security officer.

Both SDOs confirmed that the transactions were carried out under Duterte’s direct orders.

“There arises the valid presumption that VP Sara had knowledge of these irregularities in the disbursement of the agencies’ confidential funds committed by her immediate staff Acosta, Fajarda, Lachica, and Nolasco,” they said.

Fictitious recipients

The complainants also pointed out that the acknowledgment receipts submitted to the Commission on Audit (COA) to justify the use of confidential funds were “fabricated”.

They said the names of supposed recipients of confidential funds appeared to be fictitious. Among the notable ones were “Mary Grace Piattos”—a name that combines a popular restaurant and snack brand—and a certain “Kokoy Villamin”, who used different signatures.

The House panel revealed that several signatories on the receipts had no official records of birth, death, or marriage based on records from the Philippine Statistics Authority.

“Now, if the persons supposed to have received the confidential funds from the OVP are non-existent, and the funds are no longer with the OVP, then clearly the funds were taken and/or misappropriated,” the complainants said.

“Vice President Sara only used these fictitious individuals to create the illusion that the confidential funds were properly used. In truth, she misappropriated them,” they added.

Additionally, some receipts bore inconsistent dates, with several acknowledgment receipts allegedly signed in December 2023—nearly a year after the funds were disbursed in 2022.

Confidential funds not used for their purpose

In terms of technical malversation, the complaint cited irregularities in the use of the OVP’s confidential funds to purchase tables, chairs, desktop computers, and printers amounting to PHP3.5 million, which are prohibited under the Commission on Audit-Department of Budget and Management (COA-DBM) Joint Circular No. 2015-001.

Budgetary rules provide that confidential funds should be used for information gathering or surveillance activities.

For betrayal of public trust, the complainants said Duterte’s “continuous failure” to prove that she conducted legitimate activities using the confidential funds evidenced “inexcusable negligence” on the Vice President’s part to ensure that the Filipino people’s money was properly spent.

They claimed that Duterte showed “gross faithlessness against public trust”, as she concealed the absence of legitimate activities funded by the confidential allocations by using fictitious individuals to sign the acknowledgement receipts.

“How could such irregularities occur under VP Sara’s watch? What does this say about her leadership and her commitment to accountability? And most critically, where did these confidential funds actually go? And how can the Filipino people continue to trust the Vice President with their public funds?,” they said.

Bribery of DepEd officials

The complainants also accused Duterte of bribing DepEd officials by distributing cash envelopes containing amounts ranging from PHP12,000 to PHP50,000.

“VP Sara bribed DepEd officials to influence them or to place undue pressure upon them. By giving bribes to officials of DepEd, VP Sara corrupted these officials with blatant disregard of the safeguards against graft and corruption put in place by statutes and the Constitution,” they claimed.

Bordado, in a statement, emphasized the need to uphold the rule of law and protect the integrity of democratic institutions to justify his decision to endorse the complaint.

“This decision is not made lightly but with a deep sense of responsibility to ensure accountability at the highest levels of government,” he said.

Bordado clarified that the move is not a partisan attack but a constitutional mechanism to address significant breaches of public trust.

“Her inflammatory statements and apparent disregard for transparency and due process constitute grounds for impeachment,” Bordado said.