This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.
‘The sheer vastness of these potentially misused funds sets this matter apart from other instances of irregularity and disallowance,’ Representative Joel Chua says of Vice President Duterte’s flagged and disallowed confidential expenses
MANILA, Philippines – Plunder is not a word that is casually thrown around by lawmakers, especially against the Vice President, but House good government committee chairperson Joel Chua did so on Wednesday, September 25, to defend the congressional inquiry into Sara Duterte’s budget utilization.
“The sheer vastness of these potentially misused funds sets this matter apart from other instances of irregularity and disallowance. These amounts easily surpass the threshold for the crime of plunder under our laws,” Chua said.
The Commission on Audit (COA) asked the Office of the Vice President (OVP) to return P73 million in disallowed confidential expenses in 2022, and flagged P164 million in confidential expenses for the first three quarters of 2023.
The country’s plunder law says any public officer who acquires ill-gotten wealth totaling at least P50 million shall be guilty of the crime of plunder.
“This committee is not about politics, not about attacks, it is not even about the release or approval of any budget, as some have implied. This investigation is not prompted by any motive other than a desire to make the numbers make sense,” Chua said.
“This committee, and these proceedings, are about accountability — we seek to learn the truth of how public money is being used, and whether or not our current laws, rules, and procedures are sufficient to ensure the security and safety of these funds,” he added.
Duterte, who has denied misusing public funds, skipped the inquiry on Wednesday, claiming the probe stands on unsubstantiated allegations and violates the rights of persons appearing before the panel.
“Issues already pending before the Supreme Court should not be discussed before the House, lest we violate the rule on sub judice, or the rule that restricts comments and disclosures pertaining to judicial proceedings. Speaking or commenting on the matter may directly or indirectly impede, obstruct or degrade the administration of justice,” the Vice President added. – Rappler.com
