The Senate, sitting as an Impeachment Court, resumed its hearing Monday, August 3, 2026. The prosecution panel presented Roderick C. Wamil, a state auditor of the Commission on Audit-Intelligence and Confidential Funds Office (COA-ICFAO), as witness to identify and authenticate documents and prove other relevant and material matters to the impeachment of the Vice President. Wendell D. Alinea, Senate Social Media Unit
MANILA — Some senator-judges on Wednesday engaged in tense exchanges with state auditor Roderick Wamil on his findings on how Vice President Sara Duterte’s offices used confidential funds.
On the 13th day of the impeachment trial, senators took turns asking Wamil questions on his testimony, where he detailed irregularities the Commission on Audit Intelligence and Confidential Funds Audit Office flagged.
RECEIPTS AND ALIASES
Sen. Imee Marcos asked Wamil whether the COA disallowed certain expenses because the acknowledgement receipts (ARs) submitted were forged.
Wamil, who had testified that ARs need supporting documents for proper fund liquidation, said the ICFAO did not focus on the authenticity of the documents and would have no basis to say they were fake.
“Hindi rin sinita ng COA yung mga kakaibang pangalan tulad ng ‘Mary Grace Piattos’, ‘Andy Lim’,” Marcos pointed out.
(The COA also did not call attention to the unusual names like ‘Mary Grace Piattos’, ‘Andy Lim’.)
Auditor says 'first time' to encounter confidential expenses backed only by acknowledgement receipts
He replied that Joint Circular 15-01 on the use and liquidation of confidential and intelligence funds is silent on the use of aliases so they did not check.
Marcos then asked Wamil whether Notices of Disallowance, which require agencies to return the money to the treasury, are final.
The auditor said they are in the sense that the order to restitute the government stands even if a petition is filed at the Supreme Court.
He also said the SC would only review potential abuse of discretion and not the facts of the case.
Marcos disagreed, saying “at no point is it final” until the court says so.
Padilla tests auditor on knowledge of terrorism, security threats
PRESUMPTIONS
She also pressed Wamil on whether a Notice of Suspension had a “finding that the money was used for personal gain.”
Citing the joint circular, the auditor said there is a presumption that it was if the money is not accounted for.
"Misappropriation ba yun (Is that misappropriation)?" Marcos said, adding there were no such findings in the notices COA issued.
“Presumption po siya, hindi kailangan sabihin (It is presumed, it does not have to be said),” Wamil replied.
Suspension notice presumes confidential funds used for personal benefit: COA auditor
He said that improper liquidation is “prima facie evidence that it was used for personal use.”
Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano later said that the presumption is "not conclusive" since and could be overturned.
He also said that a Notice of Disallowance is not necessarily an accusation of corruption
“I think to all of us who are neutral, that’s the big question," he said as he asked where the line lies between improper liquidation "and at what point is it criminal?”
Wamil said if an agency fails to comply with a Notice of Disallowance, COA can endorse the matter to the Office of the Ombudsman for the filing of charges.
ARGUMENT ON ACCOUNTABLE OFFICERS
Marcos and Wamil disagreed again in the second round of questions, when Marcos cited Clause 8.3 of the joint circular and asserted liability for any potential lapses would with the accountable officers.
She said those would be the special disbursing officers of Duterte's offices, not the vice president since she did sign for the money herself.
"That is not entirely correct, your honor," the auditor said.
He said heads of agencies have the responsibility to approve cash advances, oversee their use, and ensure compliance with auditing rules.
"The SDO is the accountable officer," Marcos asserted, citing the joint circular, which she said was very clear on that.
But Wamil said the definition of "accountable officer" is not limited to that in 8.3 since "there are other provisions that are applicable."
At one point, Marcos said: "Kanina ka pa eh, inaaway mo ako lagi eh."
(You have been like this since earlier. You always argue with me.)
This prompted an apology from Wamil and a reminder from Sen. Francis "Chiz" Escudero — court presiding officer — to "kindly avoid arguing."
Accountable officers, according to Clause 3.1 of the joint circular, are "every officer of the government whose duties permit or require the possession or custody of government funds and property and who shall be accountable therefor and for the safekeeping thereof in conformity with laws and regulations."