Whether the head of an agency or the officer who physically handles the money should answer for confidential funds became a point of friction Tuesday, August 4, when Senator-judge Imee Marcos pushed former state auditor Roderick Wamil to pin down accountability during the twelfth day of Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial.
Marcos zeroed in on a distinction she said the records already made obvious. “Ang liwanag na hindi naman si Vice President ang payee, hindi naman sinabi na nasa kanya ang pera,” she said, questioning why liability would attach to Duterte if the funds never passed through her hands.
The senator asked directly whether the Special Disbursing Officer, the person tasked with releasing the cash, should be treated as the accountable officer. Wamil answered that responsibility does not rest there alone, telling the court that an agency’s head also carries obligations tied to the funds.
Marcos countered by reading from the governing rules. Under the Joint Circular, she noted, the accountable officer is identified as the head of the agency or whoever that official designates for the task.
Wamil pushed back on how she framed it. “That is not entirely correct, Your Honor, because under the Joint Circular, it shall be the responsibility of the head of the agency, first, to approve the cash advance; second, to oversee the agency-wide utilization,” he said, laying out duties that he said fall to the agency chief regardless of who releases the money.
The back-and-forth grew testy enough that Marcos cut in. “Mag-yes or no ka lang. Kanina ka pa, inaaway mo ako lagi,” she told the witness, pressing him to keep his answers short.
The dispute over accountability sits at the center of the prosecution’s case under Article I, which accuses Duterte of misusing P612.5 million in confidential funds during her time leading the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education. Wamil, who audited those funds during a decade with the COA’s Intelligence and Confidential Funds Audit Office, has told the court that Duterte fits the definition of an accountable officer because, as agency head, she was responsible for overseeing the funds and ensuring reporting rules were followed. He anchored that position on Paragraph 8.3 of Joint Circular No. 2015-01, which treats an accountable officer’s failure to liquidate funds on demand as prima facie evidence that the money went to personal use.
