Image Credits - BNN Breaking
The controversy surrounding Vice President Sara Duterte’s utilization of Confidential and Intelligence Funds (CIFs) in the Philippines has sparked significant inquiries into issues of transparency, legality, and accountability within the government. The public has rightly become concerned about the allocation and spending of these confidential funds.
In 2022, opposition lawmakers raised valid questions about the process through which Vice President Duterte accessed these funds. They highlighted instances where funds were allocated without the necessary congressional authorization by President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. Notably, these funds were absent from the 2021 budget but appeared in discussions related to the 2024 budget.
What adds to the concern is that confidential funds are traditionally associated with security forces and intelligence operations. It is crucial to closely monitor their allocation and use to ensure they serve their intended purposes and do not end up in unauthorized hands.
Official records revealed that Duterte accessed these funds in December 2022 through a transfer initiated by Marcos’ office. Two opposition senators brought attention to this irregular use, expressing worries about the 2024 CIF request.
What are the Confidential and Intelligence Funds?
Joint Memorandum Circular (JMC) 2015-01, issued on January 8, 2015, by key government bodies including the Department of Budget and Management, the Commission on Audit, the Department of the Interior and Local Government, the Department of National Defense, and the Governance Commission for the GOCCs (GCG), provides specific guidelines governing the entitlement, release, use, reporting, and audit of confidential and/or intelligence funds.
As outlined in the JMC, a confidential fund refers to a lump-sum amount allocated in the General Appropriations Act for National Government Agencies, in appropriation ordinances for local government units, and the corporate operating budgets for government-owned and controlled corporations. This fund is intended for confidential expenses incurred by the respective entities.
On the other hand, intelligence expenses pertain to costs associated with intelligence information-gathering activities carried out by uniformed and military personnel, as well as intelligence practitioners, with a direct impact on national security.
To simplify, while confidential funds may be allocated to civilian agencies, intelligence funds are exclusive to military or uniformed agencies. The JMC establishes a clear delineation between the two, ensuring that intelligence funds are appropriately restricted to entities directly involved in national security matters.
Justifications Provided to the Public
Vice President Sara Duterte’s use of Confidential and Intelligence Funds (CIF) in December 2022 drew scrutiny because her office was not supposed to have an allocation for this type of expenditure. The budget bill sponsor acknowledged that Duterte utilized her CIF within just 11 days.
Amid increasing concerns from various stakeholders regarding the CIF allocation to civilian agencies, leaders of major parties in the House of Representatives have agreed to remove these controversial items and redirect them to the funding needs of critical entities such as the National Intelligence Coordinating Agency, National Security Council, Philippine Coast Guard, and the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources.
In a joint statement, these leaders justified the transfer by citing the escalating security threats in the West Philippine Sea and the necessity to safeguard the country’s maritime borders. They emphasized that these agencies are better equipped to counteract security threats, protect territorial waters, and ensure Filipino fishermen’s rights to traditional fishing grounds.
During the approval of the amended budget bill on September 27, Duterte did not provide comments. However, in a separate event at a regional police station, she insisted that her office is entitled to receive CIF for addressing security threats and creating a secure learning environment for students and teachers.
Duterte argued against restricting CIF spending by “arbitrary timeframes,” asserting that the allocation of confidential funds should prioritize the safety and security of the people. She accused critics of CIF as enemies of the state and stated that those undermining funds allocated for peace and order jeopardize national security and development.
This assertive stance by Duterte might be linked to reports revealing her consistent requests for substantial CIFs during her tenure as mayor of Davao City, coinciding with her father’s presidency from 2016 to 2022.
Experts Pushback and Supreme Court Plea
A group of legal and economic experts took legal action by filing a petition before the Supreme Court, seeking to declare Vice President Sara Duterte’s confidential funds as unconstitutional. The petition further requested the court to order the return of the P125-million fund allocated to her office.
The petitioners, including economist Cielo Magno, who resigned from her position as finance undersecretary due to her opposition to the Marcos government’s rice cap policy, emphasized the unconstitutionality of the transfer of P125 million to the Office of the Vice President. Their plea to the Supreme Court explicitly stated, “It is most respectfully prayed that this Honorable Court declare the transfer of the amount of P125 million to the Office of the Vice President as unconstitutional and that the Office of the Vice President be ordered to return the money to the government’s treasury.”
This legal move indicates a challenge from experts in the fields of law and economics, who are seeking judicial intervention to scrutinize and rectify what they perceive as an unconstitutional allocation of funds to the Vice President’s office. The involvement of individuals with expertise in finance, such as Cielo Magno, adds weight to the petition and suggests a multifaceted critique of the financial decision in question. The Supreme Court’s response to this petition will be pivotal in determining the constitutional validity of the confidential funds allocated to Vice President Sara Duterte and may have broader implications for transparency and accountability in government spending.
Final Implications
Vice President Sara Duterte labelled critics of confidential funds as “enemies of the people,” asserting that these funds are essential for maintaining peace and security. This statement came just days after the House of Representatives began the process of reallocating the contentious fund.
Duterte’s request for confidential funds, which was ultimately denied, sparked a public accusation from former President Rodrigo Duterte. He publicly accused House Speaker Martin Romualdez and the entire House of being involved in corrupt activities, going so far as to label the House as the “most corrupt institution” in the country.
This accusation heightened political tensions within the lower chamber, leading to a test of loyalty among House leaders. The aftermath of this internal strife resulted in the removal of former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and another ally of the Duterte administration from their positions as House deputy speakers. The rejection of Duterte’s request for confidential funds and the subsequent public accusations amplified existing political divisions within the House of Representatives, creating a contentious atmosphere and reshaping the dynamics of leadership within the chamber.
Public Reactions
The controversy, particularly regarding the Office of the Vice President’s confidential funds, has proven to be polarizing. Public sentiment during this period overwhelmingly favoured the critics of Duterte’s handling of the funds, as indicated by surveys conducted at the time. The public’s dissatisfaction and concern over the handling of confidential funds significantly impacted Duterte’s public approval rating, dropping from 84% in June to 73% in September. This marked an 11-percentage point decline in just a few months.
The decline in approval ratings underscores the severity of the public’s reaction to the controversy, reflecting a notable shift in sentiment. The unwillingness to address concerns and provide a satisfactory explanation for the use of confidential funds contributed to the erosion of public trust in Vice President Duterte’s handling of financial matters. The controversy not only highlighted issues in clarity but also demonstrated the tangible impact that fiscal controversies can have on public perception and support for political figures.