Labeling activities as surveillance or intelligence gathering does not automatically prove that the Office of the Vice President (OVP) properly spent its confidential funds, a House prosecution lawyer asserted during Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial.
Atty. Lorna Kapunan raised the distinction as defense attorney Kristine Ferrer cross-examined Commission on Audit (COA) witness Xylene Mae del Campo. Seeking to justify the OVP’s 2023 spending, Ferrer presented protective intelligence operations reports detailing venue surveillance, threat assessments, participant profiling and coordination with military and police intelligence operatives.
Although del Campo acknowledged that such tasks resemble intelligence or confidential work, Kapunan objected to the defense’s characterization of the funds. “We are not talking about intelligence funds. We’re talking about confidential funds,” Kapunan stressed, noting that distinct audit rules govern each allocation.
Del Campo maintained that the OVP’s submitted reports failed to meet the audit requirements for reward payments, which demand clear proof that an operation yielded concrete results. While basic information gathering expenses were permitted, she noted that the submitted documents were insufficient to validate reward payouts.
When the defense argued that preventing an incident demonstrates success, Kapunan objected to the premise as hypothetical. Presiding Officer Francis Escudero allowed the line of questioning, noting that the OVP reports explicitly recorded zero untoward incidents.
As heated exchanges flared between the opposing attorneys, Escudero stepped in to remind both lawyers to maintain professional decorum and set aside what he described as a generational gap in the courtroom.
“I promise to henceforth behave,” Kapunan replied in jest after lightheartedly offering to exercise restraint.
Del Campo was presented by the prosecution panel to substantiate charges involving the alleged misuse of OVP confidential funds.