Citing OVP case, solons say COA nod doesn’t mean clean record

Citing OVP case, solons say COA nod doesn’t mean clean record

/ 06:22 PM July 14, 2025

Vice President Sara Duterte.

Vice President Sara Duterte. Screengrab from Inday Sara Duterte/Facebook.

MANILA, Philippines — Two House of Representatives lawmakers have reminded the public that an unmodified opinion from the Commission on Audit (COA) does not necessarily mean that an agency’s records are free from issues, noting that some Office of the Vice President (OVP) expenditures were disallowed.

Both Manila 3rd District Rep. Joel Chua and Bicol Saro party-list Rep. Terry Ridon said in a press briefing on Monday that the term “unmodified” in government auditing only means that an agency has complied and submitted requirements sought by COA.

Article continues after this advertisement

Chua and Ridon gave these explanations after being asked whether the unmodified opinion that OVP under Vice President Sara Duterte got for fiscal year 2024 will affect the impeachment trial.

FEATURED STORIES

Citing OVP case, solons say COA nod doesn’t mean clean record

READ: OVP gets ‘unmodified opinion’ from COA for fiscal year 2024

“It won’t affect because first, just by saying unmodified, it doesn’t mean that there are no problems anymore regarding the fund utilization of OVP, if there are no issues then COA shouldn’t have released a notice of disallowance,” Chua said, referring to the notice of disallowance (ND) obtained by OVP or COA’s order for the return of public funds due to anomalies.

“I will just add to what Congressman Joel mentioned, and I will mention that unmodified opinion or unqualified opinion only means that the financial statements are prepared in all material aspects in accordance with the applicable financial reporting framework,” Ridon said.

Article continues after this advertisement

“So basically, just like what Congressman Joel said, you just followed the framework on how to audit an agency.  So there’s no problem with that, so if you do not adhere, you will not get an unmodified or unmodified opinion,” Ridon added.

According to Ridon, the ND issued against OVP remains, and it should be returned by the agency.

Article continues after this advertisement

In 2024, it was revealed that COA gave the OVP an ND, against P73 million out of its P125-million confidential fund (CF) in 2022 — an allocation that many past and present lawmakers believe should not be available as the original OVP budget crafted during former vice president Leni Robredo’s time did not have CF items.

READ: Rep. Castro: Misuse of confidential funds an impeachable offense

There were two OVP heads in 2022 due to the elections — Robredo was at the helm from January to June 2022, while Duterte took over starting June 30.

`Notice of disallowance’

“But again, this does not mean that the notice of disallowance is set aside, (that it) doesn’t exist.  The P73 million public funds that COA wants returned should still be returned up to this day,” Ridon said.

Chua on the other hand believes the best course for the OVP is to just explain how it spent its funds, particularly the CF.

“My belief is that this would not affect the trial because how will they explain how they spent the P125 million in 11 days?  Even if we are not auditors, even if we are not part of COA, I think we do not have to be geniuses to understand that there is a problem here,” he said.

“So the issues have been made clear through our impeachment complaint, through the articles, we laid these down, the best thing is for them to answer it properly,” he added.

Last Wednesday, it was reported that COA gave OVP an unmodified opinion for 2024.  In a letter addressed to Duterte, the commission said that it has audited the financial statements of her office, including financial performance (revenues and expenses), cash flows (how the fund was spent), statements of changes in net assets/equity, as well as a statement of comparison of budget and actual amounts as of December 31 last year.

But like Chua and Ridon, ACT Teachers party-list Rep. Antonio Tinio said that the unmodified opinion from COA would not change the fact that Dutertes’ office got an ND for its anomalous CF.

Tinio in a message to reporters said that this unmodified opinion would not address Duterte’s unanswered questions about the CF issues, including revelations made during committee hearings conducted by the 19th Congress’s House of Representatives.

READ: Only an impeach trial could bare the`truth’ on secret fund use – Tinio

It was Chua’s panel, the House committee on good government and public accountability, which launched the probe on the CF expenditures made by Duterte’s offices — OVP and previously, the Department of Education (DepEd).

One of the discoveries during the hearings was the revelation of weird names signing off acknowledgement receipts (ARs) for the confidential expenses made by Duterte’s offices.

ARs are submitted to the COA to prove that funding for projects reached its intended beneficiaries, which in this case, are confidential informants.

Antipolo City 2nd District Rep. Romeo Acop noticed that one of the individuals who signed the ARs was named Mary Grace Piattos — a name similar to a restaurant and a potato chip brand.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

Later on, Lanao del Sur 1st District Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong showed two ARs — one for OVP and another for DepEd — which were both received by a certain Kokoy Villamin.  However, the signatures and handwriting used by Villamin in the two documents were different.

Both names were also not found inside the Philippine Statistics Authority database. /mr

TAGS: COA, Sara Duterete impeachment trial

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

© Copyright 1997-2025 INQUIRER.net | All Rights Reserved

This is an information message

We use cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more here.