Private prosecutor Atty. Lorna Kapunan has accused Vice President Sara Z. Duterte of utilizing the withdrawal of three out of four impeachment articles to position herself as a victim while failing to address lingering questions regarding public funds.
In an interview, Kapunan dismissed complaints from the defense alleging that prosecutors damaged Duterte’s reputation by raising accusations regarding confidential funds and grave threats before dropping those specific articles.
“It is she who has destroyed her reputation,” Kapunan said.
Kapunan maintained that debates surrounding the dropped articles should not divert public attention from the core financial issues already presented before the court.
“It is our funds. It’s our public funds,” Kapunan also said.
Addressing claims that the prosecution’s strategy was unfair because the allegations were aired publicly before Duterte could respond in the same forum, Kapunan stated that the Vice President’s attacks against the trial do not clarify how public money was handled.
“It is she who is remaining silent about accountability for public funds,” Kapunan said.
Kapunan further criticized Duterte for questioning the integrity of the senator-judges, the prosecution team, and the overall trial mechanism. She challenged assertions that political motives drove the proceedings.
“Who is using this impeachment trial as a political theater? She,” Kapunan said.
Kapunan emphasized that the general public remains the most affected party in the ongoing dispute over government spending.
“I don’t think she is the victim. It is the whole nation. It is the public that is the victim,” Kapunan also said.
Kapunan cited the approximately P73-million Commission on Audit (COA) disallowance discussed during the interview, stressing that the funds must be returned.
The administrative disallowance involves P73.287 million in Office of the Vice President (OVP) confidential expenditures incurred from December 21 to 31, 2022. COA affirmed the decision with finality on October 5 after finding that the spending lacked sufficient supporting documentation.
The disallowance ruling stands as an administrative matter distinct from the impeachment court’s procedural decision to withdraw Article I. The prosecution’s remaining charge centers on Article II concerning alleged unexplained wealth.