FIVE THINGS TO KNOW…

Short explainers published throughout the day.

1:18 PM7-minute read

ABOUT THE NEW SWS POVERTY NUMBERS

Self-rated poverty and food poverty declined in June, but the figures also show how many Filipino families remain under pressure and why lower household budgets do not necessarily mean life became cheaper.

Read the explainer →
2:02 PM11-minute read

ABOUT THE CHILDREN'S SOCIAL MEDIA SAFETY ACT

House Bill No. 9965 would bar children below 13 from having social media accounts, require parental consent for users aged 13 to 17, regulate platform algorithms, and impose fines reaching P50 million. It is still being deliberated in the House.

Read the explainer →
12:02 PM7-minute read

ABOUT THE SEALED BIR BOX

Marcos authorized the BIR to comply with the Senate subpoena. That did not open the records to the public or prove the unexplained-wealth allegation.

Read the explainer →

MCT READER PULSE · MCT-PULSE-2026-007

MCT READER SURVEY

House prosecutors are considering whether to stop presenting evidence on the bribery article against Vice President Sara Duterte and move directly to the unexplained-wealth charge. Do you agree with that strategy?Pinag-iisipan ng mga prosekutor ng Kamara kung ititigil ang paghaharap ng ebidensiya sa artikulo tungkol sa panunuhol at tututok sa kasong hindi maipaliwanag na yaman laban kay Bise Presidente Sara Duterte. Sang-ayon ka ba sa estratehiyang ito?

Some prosecutors want to move directly to the unexplained-wealth charge; others want to proceed with all four articles. No final decision had been announced when this survey opened. The question is about prosecution strategy, not guilt.

Background: The Philippine Star and Daily Tribune.

This is an informal survey of verified MCT readers who choose to participate. It is not nationally representative.

Open the shareable survey page →
View previous survey results →
Checking your reader session…

August 4, 2026 · 6:25 PM10-minute read

FIVE THINGS TO KNOW ABOUT THE COA TESTIMONY ON SARA DUTERTE’S CONFIDENTIAL FUNDS

What the auditor found in the OVP’s confidential-fund submissions, what those findings mean, and what prosecutors still have to connect to Sara Duterte personally.

The impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte has entered the audit records behind the confidential funds of the Office of the Vice President.

State auditor Roderick Wamil, who was assigned to the Commission on Audit office that examines confidential and intelligence funds, testified about OVP submissions he reviewed for 2022 and 2023.

He identified reported expenses that he considered outside the allowable uses of confidential funds. He also discussed purchases that lacked the documents or operational details auditors expected, acknowledgment receipts carrying questionable dates and totals that did not match.

The testimony presents serious problems for the OVP, but its limits must also be understood.

An audit deficiency does not automatically prove that a transaction was fictitious. It does not establish by itself that money was stolen or that Duterte personally ordered, knew about or benefited from an improper payment.

The prosecution must prove what happened to the funds and connect the questioned records to Duterte’s own conduct.

Here are five things to know.

1

THE AUDITOR IDENTIFIED DIFFERENT KINDS OF PROBLEMS

Confidential funds are governed by Joint Circular No. 2015-01, issued by the Commission on Audit and several government agencies.

The circular identifies the activities that may be paid for using confidential funds and requires agencies to submit reports and supporting records for audit.

Wamil testified that some OVP submissions did not adequately show how the reported spending was connected to authorized confidential operations.

Some purchases were supported only by acknowledgment receipts when auditors expected invoices, sales receipts or other documents appropriate to the transaction.

These findings should not be compressed into a single accusation.

An expense may fall outside an allowable category. Another may belong to a permitted category but lack enough proof connecting it to a particular operation. A separate transaction may have incomplete proof of payment.

Each defect raises a different audit question.

Wamil’s testimony supports allegations that the OVP failed to comply fully with confidential-fund rules. The impeachment court must still evaluate his testimony, the underlying records and the defense response.

WHAT TO WATCH

The original OVP submissions, audit notices and official responses should show whether the deficiencies remained unresolved or whether additional records were later provided.

2

SOME EXPENSES WERE EITHER NON-ALLOWABLE OR POORLY CONNECTED TO CONFIDENTIAL OPERATIONS

Wamil discussed reported spending involving medical and food assistance, furniture, office equipment, rewards and incentives.

He testified that ordinary medical and food assistance did not appear among the allowable confidential expenses under the joint circular.

The issues involving furniture, printers, computers and similar purchases were more specific. According to reports on his testimony, the OVP did not submit records sufficiently connecting those items to confidential operations.

Wamil also said purchases should have been supported by the appropriate sales documents, rather than acknowledgment receipts alone.

Rewards and incentives can fall within permitted categories under particular circumstances. Auditors would still expect records showing the confidential activity, information gathered or result connected to the payment.

The absence of such support does not automatically prove that the payment never occurred. It means the submitted records may be insufficient to establish that confidential funds were used in accordance with the rules.

WHAT TO WATCH

The exhibits should identify which expenses Wamil considered outside the allowable categories and which he questioned mainly because the supporting records were incomplete.

3

THE 2022 RECORDS INCLUDED LATE-DATED RECEIPTS, UNDATED RECEIPTS AND A ₱150,000 DIFFERENCE

The OVP reported using ₱125 million in confidential funds during the final days of 2022.

Wamil testified that acknowledgment receipts covering approximately ₱25.66 million were dated in December 2023, about one year after the spending period they supposedly supported.

He also identified approximately ₱3.27 million in acknowledgment receipts without dates.

According to the records discussed during the hearing, the receipts totaled approximately ₱125.15 million. That was ₱150,000 more than the ₱125 million stated in the accomplishment report.

These discrepancies require explanations.

A receipt dated long after the reported transaction raises a question about when the document was prepared. An undated receipt cannot, on its face, establish when payment occurred. A total exceeding the reported fund amount also has to be reconciled.

The discrepancies do not reveal their cause. The OVP’s formal explanations and COA’s later action must be examined before concluding whether they resulted from defective documentation, duplicate entries, false records or another problem.

WHAT TO WATCH

The OVP’s response to the notice of suspension and any later COA decision should show whether these discrepancies were explained, corrected or left unresolved.

4

USING ₱125 MILLION IN 11 DAYS WAS NOT ILLEGAL BY ITSELF

The OVP’s use of ₱125 million within 11 days has become one of the best-known facts in the controversy.

During cross-examination, Wamil agreed that no provision automatically made the spending illegal simply because it occurred within that period.

The number of days does not settle whether the money was properly used.

The relevant audit issues concern the purposes of the payments, whether they belonged to an allowable category and whether the OVP submitted the required records.

The short period may still lead senators to examine how the reported activities were conducted and documented. It cannot serve as proof of misuse without evidence about the transactions.

The testimony concerning late-dated receipts, missing dates, questionable expense categories and incomplete operational support provides more specific grounds for scrutiny.

WHAT TO WATCH

The prosecution must identify the rule connected to each questioned expense rather than rely on the 11-day figure alone.

5

THE EVIDENCE MUST STILL BE CONNECTED TO DUTERTE PERSONALLY

The questioned funds belonged to the OVP during Duterte’s tenure as vice president.

That establishes the institutional setting. It does not automatically answer who prepared the records, selected recipients, approved individual payments or knew about any defect.

The prosecution must identify the documents and decisions attributable to Duterte.

A document bearing her signature may become significant, but its meaning depends on what she signed or certified. The actual wording of the document, her authority over the transaction and other evidence would have to be examined.

The defense has disputed the prosecution’s interpretation of the records. It also declined to stipulate to the authenticity of 845 acknowledgment receipts covering the OVP’s fourth-quarter 2022 spending, saying the documents were too numerous to authenticate immediately.

Refusing to stipulate does not prove that the receipts are false. It means the prosecution may have to authenticate and establish the evidentiary value of the disputed documents through witnesses or other proof.

Wamil’s testimony can explain what the OVP submitted and why he found parts of it deficient. Other evidence is needed to establish Duterte’s knowledge, instructions, participation or constitutional responsibility.

WHAT TO WATCH

The officials who prepared, reviewed, certified and submitted the confidential-fund records may provide the evidence needed to identify who made the decisions behind the questioned transactions.

BOTTOM LINE

Wamil’s testimony identified substantial problems in the OVP’s confidential-fund submissions. He discussed expenses that he considered outside the allowable categories, purchases insufficiently connected to confidential operations, incomplete supporting records, late-dated and undated acknowledgment receipts and a reported ₱150,000 difference in the 2022 totals. His testimony also confirmed that spending the ₱125 million within 11 days was not prohibited by itself. The proceedings have not yet established that every questioned transaction was fictitious, that the money was stolen or that Duterte personally directed an improper payment. The next evidence must show how the questioned transactions occurred, who prepared and approved the documents and what Duterte knew or did. Senators must then decide what the complete record proves under the articles of impeachment.

GOOGLE PREFERRED SOURCES

FOLLOW MCT ON GOOGLE

Google’s Preferred Sources feature lets you choose publications you want Google to prioritize for you. Select “Add to Preferred Sources” to make MCT easier to find in Top Stories and other eligible Google results. This does not subscribe you to email.

← Back to MCT home

LATEST COMMENTARY

View all commentary →

SUPPORT MCT

HELP KEEP INDEPENDENT POLITICAL WRITING GOING.

Morning Coffee Thoughts is reader-supported. Contributions help pay for research tools, hosting, and the work required to verify and explain each development.

Choose the monthly support amount you are comfortable with.Continue through PayPal
Send support through GCash or Maya0969 314 4839