Public money always leaves a trace somewhere. Auditors follow that trace for a living. This week one auditor traced it publicly.
The trial reached its fourteenth day (on August 11). The prosecution called State Auditor Xylene Mae Del Campo. She examined the OVP’s confidential fund carefully. That fund reached one hundred twenty-five million pesos. It was released back in 2022.
The COA disallowed about seventy-three million pesos. Del Campo named three officials as responsible. Vice President Sara Duterte headed that short list. Officer Gina Acosta and accountant Julieta Villadelrey followed.
Roughly sixty-nine million reached uncertain hands. It paid for information, goods, and medicines. Other activities drew from the same purse.
The office gave little documentation for these. Nothing tied the spending to real operations. Legitimate confidential work needs a paper trail. That trail here was thin or absent. The auditors marked the gap at once.
The liquidation dates also failed to align. Some expenses fell between December thirteen and eighteen. Yet the fund arrived only on December twenty-one. Money appeared spent before it even came.
Other charges carried a festive look. There were youth patriotism drives and Christmas events. A thanksgiving gathering also entered the record.
None of these matched confidential purposes. The acknowledgment receipts deepened the doubt. Some held only sparse, thin details. Some bore strange and unlikely names. Some claimed distant provinces reached on one day.
For the prosecution, the papers built a case. The documents strengthened its documentary claim. Each receipt added to a growing pile. The pattern, they argued, spoke for itself.
Then the defense opened its cross-examination. It challenged the findings’ reliability and weight. It questioned the COA’s procedures throughout.
Counsel probed the supporting documents as well. The strange receipt names drew sharp focus. Had the COA proven these recipients fictitious? Del Campo acknowledged it had not.
The defense pressed one step further. Could the COA verify the operations happened? Surveillance and intelligence leave scant public proof. Incomplete records alone cannot prove fabrication.
So the defense drew a careful boundary. Irregular papers differ from personal misuse. A disallowance sits below criminal liability.
An audit finding measures compliance with rules. It stays administrative in its very nature. Guilt remains a question for the judges. The defense pressed this distinction hard. The prosecution still called the irregularities significant.
The next day the cross grew hotter. Defense counsel Kristine Ferrer led the questioning. Private prosecutor Lorna Kapunan watched and objected. Their exchange soon filled the whole chamber.
Ferrer asked about the House justice committee. Did its members also shape the budget? The point implied pressure on the auditors.
Kapunan called this beyond proper cross-examination. She urged the court to keep its bounds. A dispute over yes-or-no answers erupted. Not every question fits so tight a frame. Kapunan replied she need not lecture her.
Unfortunately Atty Kristine misheard, in my view, Atty Kapunan and said misleading questions are allowed in cross. All lawyers know that is not the rule – leading questions, while not allowed on direct examination, are the questions allowed in cross. I knew right away that Atty Kristine meant that.
Then came side comments that stung. Kapunan spoke of a spank and lecture. The lines quickly spilled onto social media.
Escudero warned against a widening generational divide. He asked both to keep it lower. Ferrer then pressed for professional respect. She weighed her fifteen years against (Kapunan’s) forty-eight.
Respect, she said, should bridge that gap. Kapunan later called the spanking line figurative. The defense denied any wish to disrespect. After the break, the room cooled again. Del Campo still finished her testimony afterward.
I echo Dean Mel Sta. Maria:
“THIS MUST STOP. The online bashing of defense counsel Atty. Kristine Ferrer needs to stop. Trolling her on social media is not going to change anything about the case.
Lawyers are human. We make mistakes, miss things, and mess up sometimes. Criticism of how she handled things has already been said—and that’s fair. But turning that criticism into personal harassment and relentless bashing crosses the line. A mistake is not an invitation for public dehumanization.
At the end of the day, legal matters get sorted out in court, not in Facebook comment sections. Bashing defense counsel does not help anyone, fix the issue, or advance justice. We all make mistakes. Show a little maturity, leave the legal remedies to the proper channels, and cut out the cyberbullying.”
And to those bashing Ateneo de Davao College of Law, where Kristine graduated from, remember that school is the best law school of the country in at least two metrics – the bar exams and producing human rights lawyers.
Of course, Compañera Kristine, do better and make us your fellow Mindanawons proud.
A joint circular from 2015 sets standards. It governs the use of these funds. It orders each disbursement and liquidation step. National security needs still require the paperwork.
These safeguards exist for a clear reason. Confidential funds hide from ordinary public view.
Accountability must survive even in the shadows.
The prosecution reads the breaches together. The circular’s violations join the COA’s findings. Together they form prima facie evidence. On its face, it suggests irregular disbursement. Absent rebuttal, it supports an early inference.
A breach still falls short of proof. It does not by itself convict anyone. The receipts and gaps remain strong evidence. They lay a foundation for the allegation.
The crucial question is impeachment liability. The Senate sits as the impeachment court. It must weigh the totality of evidence.
It judges whether an impeachable offense stands. It judges whether the respondent bears responsibility. A disallowance alone proves little by itself.
Corruption and personal benefit need real evidence. Betrayal of public trust demands the same.
Mindanao knows the weight of thin budgets. We have waited long years for clinics. We have watched roads dissolve into mud. Each missing receipt feels like a stolen bridge.
The Senate must judge intent and duty. It must measure the whole record fairly. The constitutional threshold decides removal from office.
Loyalty and scrutiny can share one heart. We may honor a leader and still ask. We may ask where every peso went. That question serves the poor and the truth.
Mindanao has earned the right to both.
Let the auditors finish their patient arithmetic. Let the senators then judge with conscience. Let Mindanao hold both love and rigor. The record will remember how we chose.
Originally published in MindaNews on August 16, 2026.
