Sara Duterte refuses to answer OVP confidential fund queries, cites impeachment defense

Trisha Anne Segumban 

Vice President (VP) Sara Duterte declined to answer questions on the office of the Vice President’s (OVP) confidential fund (CF) during the House appropriations committee hearing, saying her response could reveal her defense for a possible impeachment trial. 

Photo Courtesy of Bombo Radyo Bacolod

On September 16, Duterte was repeatedly asked by ACT-Teachers party-list Rep. Antonio Tinio about the Commission on Audit’s (COA) notice of disallowance on P73 million worth of OVP confidential fund transactions.

Tinio also questioned the OVP’s liquidation reports that included acknowledgment receipts signed by names not found in the Philippine Statistics Authority’s records. 

Among the names cited were “Mary Grace Piattos,” “Fernando Tempura,” and even “Chel Diokno,” which lawmakers earlier flagged as fictitious. 

“Madam Chair, this is the subject of an impeachment trial,” Duterte said. 

Tinio countered that there is no impeachment trial pending in the Senate since the complaint against Duterte was archived. 

The VP maintained that she could not discuss defense strategies or intelligence operations without risking national security. 

She added that the questions about COA’s audit procedures should be raised directly to the agency during its hearings. 

In a media interview after the budget hearing, Duterte said she expects another impeachment complaint to be filed against her by February 2026. 

She noted that under constitutional rules, new impeachment complaints can be lodged one year after the House acted on the previous petitions. 

“Because if that does not prosper within 2025,” I’m sure they will file in 2026, they will file in 2027, or in 2028 right before the presidential elections,” Duterte said. 

The House impeached Duterte in 2024 after finding irregularities in confidential fund liquidation reports from both the OVP and the Department of Education (DepEd), which she previously headed. 

The Supreme Court (SC) later ruled the impeachment unconstitutional for violating the one-year bar rule, prompting the Senate to archive the complaint while awaiting the House’s motion for reconsideration.