Vice President Sara Duterte (Ellson Quismorio/ MANILA BULLETIN)

Vice President Sara Duterte's refusal to take an oath during the House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability hearing Wednesday, Sept. 18 was a stark departure from the rules and tradition followed by officials of her stature. 

The lady official attended the inquiry of the Manila 3rd district Rep. Joel Chua-chaired committee supposedly to respond to questions the budget spending of the Office of the Vice President (OVP). 

She never got to be interpellated by the congressmen as she questioned the House rules and refused to take her oath. 

Even late former presidents Fidel V. Ramos and Benigno “Noynoy” S. Aquino III took their oath when they were invited as resource persons in previous congressional inquiries. 

Ramos took an oath in 2006 during the investigation on the independent power producers (IPP) issue, while Aquino did the same in 2017 in connection with the Dengvaxia case. 

The oath is usually given to all the invited resource persons and witnesses in congressional hearings, be it in the House or Senate. 

It simply states: “Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth (in this inquiry)? So help you, God.”

Taking their oaths instead were the attending representatives of the Commission on Audit (COA) and Department of Budget and Management (DBM).

Vice President Duterte invoked the committee’s rules on inquiries in aid of legislation under which she said only witnesses were given the oath.

Pampanga 2nd district Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo defended the Vice President and cited a Supreme Court (SC) ruling as well as a Senate precedent under which she said a "witness" was given more protection than a "resource person" since the former may find himself or herself as an "accused". 

However, Bukidnon 2nd district Rep. Jonathan Keith Flores informed the former president that no person invited to the hearing could be classified as an accused yet.

To its credit, the Chua panel allowed Vice President Duterte to deliver a speech assailing the panel inquiry and the House of Representatives itself. In particular, she accused the congressmen of setting the stage for her alleged impeachment.

Avoiding something? 

House Assistant Majority Leader Zambales 1st district Rep. Jay Khonghun criticized the second highest-ranking official of the land for heeding decision not to take an oath. 

"The purpose of this inquiry is not to attack anyone, but to shed light on matters that affect our nation's governance. Refusing to testify under oath sends a signal that there is something to avoid," he said. 

"If there is nothing to conceal, why not take the oath? It is the basic act of accountability that all public officials must be willing to undertake. When a public official refuses to take an oath, it opens the questions about the truthfulness of their statement," added the "Young Guns" bloc member. 

Khonghun further said: "The oath is not just a legal formality, it is a commitment to honesty. Any refusal to do so undermines trust in public statements."

Whistleblowers are welcome 

Manila 2nd district Rep. Rolando Valeriano urged potential whistleblowers to come forward regarding the alleged misuse of funds by the OVP under Vice President Duterte. 

The Wednesday hearing resulted from Valeriano's scathing privilege speech against the OVP last Sept. 3 wherein he flagged the agency's budget utilization. 

“If there are any whistleblowers with information, evidence, and testimony about the supposed OVP socioeconomic programs, they are most welcome to contact the Chairperson of this Committee, the Committee Members, or this Representation,” he declared in his opening statement. 

In his privilege speech, Valeriano raised serious concerns about the lack of transparency in how the OVP used billions of pesos for its socioeconomic programs. He also highlighted the absence of supporting documentation, such as evidence of beneficiaries and partnership agreements. 

“She expected us to take at face value the figures in her presentation, when there is much reason for us here in Congress to doubt the veracity of the figures in the presentation. We have not seen any paper trail or electronic trail that would serve as evidence of beneficiaries and partnership agreements,” he said. 

Valeriano criticized Duterte for her refusal to answer questions about the OVP’s proposed 2025 budget and the questionable spending patterns revealed by the Commission on Audit (COA). 

“Her claim of leaving it to the House to do what it thinks is right is just a palusot, a smokescreen, a cover,” he added. 

Valeriano further questioned the OVP’s claim of serving over two million beneficiaries in Metro Manila. 

DepEd fund usage

The good government committee--the equivalent of the Blue Ribbon panel in the Senate--also formally launched on Wednesday a full-blown investigation into the Department of Education’s (DepEd) questionable fund utilization during Vice President Duterte. 

The lady official was DepEd chief from June 30, 2022 to July 19, 2024. 

The House panel intends to probe potential "malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance" in connection with DepEd’s failure to deliver key projects, specifically the distribution of laptops and e-learning equipment. 

Chua bared Wednesday that they had received authorization from the House Committee on Rules to proceed with a motu proprio or voluntary investigation. 

This probe follows a motion unanimously approved by committee members, and based on concerns raised by Batangas 2nd district Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” Luistro during the Sept. 10 House Committee on Appropriations hearing on DepEd’s budget. 

Cagayan 3rd District Rep. Joseph “Jojo” Lara, expressed support for the investigation, and highlighted DepEd's responsibility to deliver information and communications technology (ICT) equipment to teachers and students, as well as concerns over the proper utilization of funds. 

The investigation focuses on Luistro’s concern over DepEd’s failure to utilize nearly P9 billion of its P11.36 billion budget for ICT equipment in 2023, resulting in a low utilization rate of 19.22%. 

The committee will further examine the 2023 Commission on Audit (COA) report, which exposed serious operational deficiencies in DepEd’s Computerization Program. 

The report noted that only 50.07% of the program’s budget had been utilized, with no substantial accomplishments for the year.

No CIF item in OVP's 2022 budget--DBM 

Meanwhile, the Chua panel was informed Wednesday that there was no confidential and intelligence fund (CIF) item in the OVP's 2022 budget that supported the request of Vice President Duterte for P125 million in CIF. 

“No such item or appropriation in the OVP budget,” DBM Undersecretary Rolando Toledo told the soloms. 

Toledo was responding to questions raised by ACT Teachers Party-list Rep. France Castro, who said the grant of CIF to OVP in 2022 was illegal since there was no item of appropriation in the OVP budget to support it. 

Toledo said Vice President Duterte’s request for CIF was justified as part of her “governance engagement and socio-economic programs". 

He said the P125 million was taken from the contingent fund in the 2022 national budget, since there was no specific appropriation for the purpose. 

The constitutionality of the grant of CIF to the OVP has been challenged before the Supreme Court (SC). 

The COA has reported that the P125 million was used up in 11 days, or an average of P11.364 million a day, between Dec. 21 up to the end of the year in 2022. 

The COA has also found numerous irregularities in the use of the money and has in fact disallowed expenses amounting to more than P73 million, or almost half of the CIF. 

More than P59 million of the disallowed amount were for the purchase of “various goods” amounting to P34.857 million and “medicines” costing P24.930 million, which were declared as by OVP as “payment for rewards” for informants. 

An additional P3.5 million described as “payment for chairs, tables, desktop computers, and printers” was also not allowed in audit.