VP’s aides on House probe: Why attend? Where is this going?
Taking a cue from actions taken by their principal, 19 executives of the Office of the Vice President (OVP) are refusing to appear in a House inquiry on the alleged misuse of public funds by Vice President Sara Duterte, telling the lawmakers that their presence would be “unnecessary” and “not needed.”
Instead of explaining their stand in front of members of the House committee on good government and public accountability, six senior OVP officials spoke for the group in a seven-page position paper they submitted to the panel on Thursday.
Hearings unnecessary
The OVP executives stressed that the House committee hearings were “unnecessary and that the attendance of the officials and personnel of the Office of the Vice President is therefore not needed.”
They said they were skipping the inquiry because the “subject matter” was “not in aid of legislation.”
They also cited the sub judice rule, saying that Duterte’s use of her controversial confidential funds was pending in the Supreme Court.
‘Regularly audited’
The OVP officials pointed out that like other government offices, the OVP was “regularly audited” by the Commission on Audit (COA) and that whatever data that would be sought from them “could easily be verified through COA reports.”
“In other words, it becomes completely unnecessary for the Committee to belabor and pursue a legislative inquiry into the budget utilization and accomplishment of the Office because the data has already been provided during the budget deliberations in the Committee on Appropriations, and that further information needed may be verified through the COA,” they said.
They were first invited by the House panel on Sept. 12 to appear during the committee’s initial deliberation on Sept. 18. They said their “authorized representative” then was the Vice President herself.
The second invitation was sent on Sept. 20. Duterte wrote the committee, saying her officials would not be attending the hearings.
Where is this going?
The OVP executives expressed doubts about where the hearings would lead to.
“It lacks clear legislative objective or contemplated legislation that is expected as an outcome of the deliberations,” they said, noting that a “draft bill for consideration” should have been attached to the invitation “for us to be informed of the aid we can provide to the deliberations.”
In raising the jurisdiction issue, the officials pointed out that the budget utilization of the OVP should be “properly taken up” in the appropriations committee.
But the Vice President herself had refused to directly answer questions during the House appropriations panel’s deliberation in August on her proposed budget for 2025.
Confidential funds
Duterte was quizzed about how she spent her 2022 confidential funds worth P125 million, which state auditors said was used up in just 11 days. The budget committee also questioned her confidential funds for the OVP and DepEd in 2023.
The appropriations committee deferred the next OVP budget hearing when neither Duterte nor any official from her office showed up. Instead, she sent a letter to House leaders leaving the fate of the OVP budget entirely to the lawmakers.
Duterte and her officials were also absent during the plenary discussions on the OVP budget.
When she was asked about her confidential funds during her appearance at the budget hearing, Duterte repeatedly responded that everything had been coordinated with COA and that there was a pending case before the Supreme Court about the secret funds.
”Extremely cautious’
In their position paper, the OVP executives said they were being “extremely cautious” in not discussing the pending case, saying that the sub judice rule “restricts comments and disclosures pertaining to judicial proceedings.”
“Speaking or commenting on the matter may directly or indirectly impede, obstruct or degrade the administration of justice,” they said.
The said the Supreme Court had ruled that a “resource person” in a congressional inquiry was “not an accused in a criminal proceeding” who should be “accorded with respect and courtesy since they were under no compulsion to accept the invitation” by the House.
“We are guided by this ruling of the Supreme Court in our position that invitations from the Committee may be declined, and that we have the right to respectfully refuse to participate in the proceedings,” they said.
