In response to a recent post by blogger Krizette Laureta Chu questioning the handling of confidential funds during former Justice Secretary Leila de Lima’s term, the camp of De Lima clarified the issue to avoid public confusion and misinformation.
Clarifying the Context
Chu posted a rhetorical question implying a comparison between De Lima’s handling of ₱123.8 million in confidential funds in 2015 and recent controversies involving Vice President Sara Duterte. While the framing appeared inquisitive, De Lima’s supporters argue that the premise was already loaded with insinuation.
They emphasized that, according to Commission on Audit (COA) reports from 2016 and 2018, the unliquidated amount was not indicative of misuse or anomaly. Rather, it was a matter of accounting compliance, attributed to missing liquidation documents from a few special disbursing officers. These documents were later submitted, and the matter was resolved before De Lima left the Department of Justice.
“There was no disallowance, no case filed, and no order for De Lima or anyone in her office to return the funds,” a statement from her camp read. “The issue was purely procedural and was addressed accordingly.”
Contrasting with Current Controversies
De Lima’s camp drew comparisons with recent COA findings involving the Office of the Vice President (OVP) under VP Sara Duterte. In 2022, Duterte’s office reportedly spent ₱125 million in confidential funds intended for an entire year within just 11 days.
According to COA findings, this prompted the issuance of a Notice of Disallowance amounting to ₱73 million, due to documentation issues such as incorrect dates, unclear signatures, and incomplete receipts.
“Unlike in De Lima’s case, COA has issued a formal ruling in Duterte’s case that some expenses were irregular and must be reimbursed,” her statement added.
Further scrutiny came in 2023, when COA flagged ₱164 million out of ₱375 million in confidential funds handled by both the OVP and the Department of Education, which Duterte also oversees. The flagging was due to vague supporting documents and insufficient receipts.
Legal Distinction
The De Lima camp stressed the need to distinguish between “unliquidated” and “disallowed” funds:
- Unliquidated means the liquidation report is still pending and subject to compliance.
- Disallowed means COA has ruled the spending violated regulations and must be returned.
“An unliquidated amount can still be fixed with documentation. A disallowed amount is a formal finding of irregularity. The former is administrative, the latter legal and binding.”
Summary of Key Points
Leila de Lima (2015)
- ₱123.8M confidential funds marked unliquidated
- No disallowance issued
- Accounting compliance issue, later resolved
Sara Duterte (2022–2023)
- ₱125M confidential funds spent in 11 days (2022)
- ₱73M formally disallowed by COA
- ₱375M total funds in 2023, ₱164M flagged by COA
“If the question is whether De Lima still has the right to raise issues on confidential fund usage,” her camp concluded, “the answer is yes — because her records were cleared and no disallowance was issued. Meanwhile, others are facing formal disallowances and continuing audit flags.”
They closed with a pointed question of their own:
“Since Chu is fond of asking questions — why has there been so little inquiry into the COA findings on the OVP’s confidential funds?”