Questions over the use of public money took center stage in the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte after a House prosecutor drew parallels between the allegations involving her confidential funds and the fertilizer fund controversy during the Arroyo administration.
Speaking on Saturday, Manila Rep. Joel Chua said both cases ultimately raise the same issue—whether government funds were actually used for the purpose for which they were released. He cited the fertilizer fund controversy as an example of a program that addressed a legitimate need but later came under scrutiny over how the money was spent.
“If you remember the fertilizer scam, there was funding. The government’s fertilizer program was a good program. There really was a need for a program for our crops. But when funds are released and no one can determine where they were used, it’s like ghost fertilizer,” Chua said.
The comparison came as House prosecutors finalized preparations for the next phase of the Senate impeachment trial. Two officials from the Commission on Audit are scheduled to testify on Monday regarding whether the confidential fund disbursements made by Duterte complied with existing government regulations.
Under Article I of the impeachment complaint, Duterte is accused of improperly using P612.5 million in confidential funds allocated to the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education between 2022 and 2023.
The fertilizer fund controversy, which Chua referenced, involved allegations that roughly P728 million released by the Department of Agriculture in 2004 for fertilizer assistance was funneled through questionable transactions instead of reaching farmers who were supposed to benefit from the program.
Chua also emphasized that the House prosecution must still establish its allegations before the impeachment court, saying the panel will continue presenting witnesses and documentary evidence during the upcoming hearings.
