EXPLAINER | Guilty as refusal: Erosion of transparency and accountability

During the budget hearings, Vice President Sara Duterte refused to take her oath, disrupting the intended purpose of the proceedings, which was to discuss and evaluate the proposed budget allocations for the Office of the Vice President, including an 8.05% increase for the 2025 budget. 

Her refusal to answer questions and take her oath indicates that the oath represents a formal declaration of accountability and a commitment to truth—both essential for maintaining the integrity of government processes. The oath is not just a formality but a crucial step in establishing trust between government officials and the citizens they serve. 

By declining to take her oath, Duterte indicated a disregard for procedural norms that promote transparency and accountability in public service, raising concerns among lawmakers and the public about her commitment to responsible governance. Consequently, her refusal undermines the credibility of the proceedings. It erodes public trust in governmental institutions, leading to questions about the motivations behind her actions and the overall integrity of the decision-making process.

The request for budgetary increase raised concerns raised under the Republic Act No. 11975, also known as the "General Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2024," was signed into law by President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. on December 20, 2023. This act allocates a budget of ₱5.768 trillion, which represents 21.1% of the Philippines' GDP. It outlines significant financial support for key sectors, including education, agriculture, and infrastructure development. "This budget is more than a spreadsheet of amounts or a ledger of projects... it details our battle plan in fighting poverty and combating illiteracy, in producing food and ending hunger, in protecting our homes, in securing our borders, and in funding our livelihoods."

On September 18, 2024, the tension escalated when Duterte attended a hearing of the House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability but declined to take an oath, asserting her role as a resource person rather than a witness. Her refusal was grounded in the committee’s rules, which stipulate that only witnesses are required to testify under oath. Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo of Pampanga's 2nd District supported Duterte, highlighting that the Supreme Court distinguishes between a witness and a resource person or an accused individual.

Arroyo emphasized that the Constitution guarantees that no one can be compelled to testify against themselves, even during legislative inquiries, while subtly suggesting that Duterte is facing accusations of “malversation of public funds.” This stance ignited a heated controversy among lawmakers, including committee chair Rep. Joel Chua, who insisted that all attendees, regardless of their role, should take the oath to ensure the integrity of their testimonies. He stated, “We require all witnesses and resource persons to take an oath so that we can know if they are telling the truth.”

Until more information is gathered on her budget hearings and deliberations, she is poised to undermine budget transparency and the integrity of government monetary allocations. 

In legislative hearings, resource persons and witnesses serve distinct functions. Resource persons are invited to share their expertise and insights on specific topics, such as economists or financial analysts during budget discussions. Their contributions are advisory and educational, helping lawmakers navigate complex issues to make informed decisions.

Conversely, witnesses are summoned to testify about specific facts or events related to legal or legislative inquiries. They often possess firsthand knowledge of the subject matter or are directly involved in relevant incidents. Witnesses may be subpoenaed to present evidence, and their testimonies undergo legal scrutiny, aimed at establishing facts with potential legal implications.

Duterte's refusal to address budget-related questions undermines her responsibility under the Constitution Budget transparency, rooted in legal and ethical principles, is a cornerstone of good governance, as mandated by the 1987 Philippine Constitution's Article II, Section 28: "Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest."

Laws like the Government Procurement Reform Act (Republic Act No. 9184) and the General Appropriations Act reinforce the need for transparency, ensuring detailed reporting of budget allocations and expenditures. It holds public officials accountable for their financial decisions, ensuring taxpayer money is used effectively and builds public trust by preventing corruption and misuse of funds.

During the initial budget deliberations on August 27, 2024, Vice President Sara Duterte's persistent refusal to answer questions significantly impacted the proceedings, leading the committee to withhold her budget request. 

This refusal disrupted the normal flow of deliberations, preventing lawmakers from obtaining necessary clarifications and justifications for the proposed allocations to the Office of the Vice President (OVP). 

The situation, which prompted a closer examination from committee members, underscores the crucial role of transparency and accountability in budget deliberations. The lack of these elements, coupled with her uncooperative stance, not only led to tension and frustration among committee members but also significantly damaged the collaborative atmosphere necessary for productive discussions. This, in turn, hindered lawmakers from engaging in constructive dialogue and reaching a consensus on the budget.

The situation sets a precedent for future budget deliberations by underscoring the critical importance of transparency and accountability, reinforcing the role of legislative oversight in ensuring the efficient use of public funds.

During the budget deliberations, Vice President Sara Duterte stated, “I decline to participate in a question-and-answer format as my responses would be repetitive.” This stance frustrated lawmakers who were eager for clarity and detailed explanations regarding the budget allocations for the Office of the Vice President.

Members of the Makabayan bloc escalated their inquiries regarding the use of Confidential and Intelligence Funds (CIFs) previously allocated to the Office of the Vice President (OVP). They demanded detailed explanations on how these funds were utilized, stressing the necessity for transparency since CIFs are not subject to the same level of scrutiny as other budget items.

Lawmakers also questioned the appropriateness of allocating CIFs to the OVP, arguing that such funds should be reserved for agencies with clear mandates related to national defense and security, given that the OVP is not directly involved in these areas. 

Additionally, the bloc pointed out the P125 million CIF allocated to the OVP in 2022, which was not included in the General Appropriations Act (GAA), seeking clarification on how these funds were spent and the justification for their allocation without proper legislative oversight.

“Petitioners assail the constitutionality of the release of P125 million confidential funds by the Office of the President (OP) to the Office of the Vice President (OVP) in late December 2022, as well as the request, receipt, and use of this amount by the latter,” the petitioners stated. According to the Commission on Audit (COA), the disclosed funds, totaling P125 million, were reportedly utilized by the OVP within an 11-day period.

The line of questioning led to heated exchanges, particularly with Deputy Minority Leader France Castro, who pressed Vice President Duterte on the transparency and accountability surrounding the use of Confidential and Intelligence Funds (CIFs). 

Tensions escalated as Duterte deflected questions and criticized her interlocutors, ultimately prompting the committee to defer further deliberations on the OVP’s budget to allow for a more thorough review and the gathering of additional information. This deferral could delay the approval of the OVP’s budget and serves as a reminder to other government offices about the critical importance of transparency and accountability in budget discussions. 

Moreover, the incident may adversely impact public perception of the OVP and its commitment to transparency, as the refusal to provide clear answers could be seen as a lack of accountability, potentially eroding public trust. 

Rep. France Castro voiced his sentiments, stating, “Her stonewalling on legitimate questions from members of the House regarding her use of public funds showed utter disrespect for the basic principles of check-and-balance, transparency, and accountability of public officials entrusted with the people’s money.”

On September 12, 2024, the House panel made a bold move by proposing to cut VP Duterte's budget by more than half. The panel recommended a reduction of ₱1.29 billion for the Office of the Vice President (OVP), a decision that could significantly impact the OVP's operations, given that the initially proposed budget for the OVP was P2.395 billion for the fiscal year 2024. The recommended reduction would bring the budget down to approximately P1.105 billion.

Lawmakers have launched investigations into the OVP's management of public funds, focusing on transparency and accountability. The House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability is probing allegations of fund mismanagement, particularly in cases where the Commission on Audit (COA) flagged significant disallowed expenditures due to irregularities. Several lawmakers, including Representative France Castro, have publicly criticized the OVP's budget handling, highlighting the urgent need for greater accountability and responsible financial management, especially in light of traditional practices. 

In response to these concerns, lawmakers have decided to reduce the OVP's budget and reallocate funds to key government agencies like the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) and the Department of Health (DOH). This reallocation reflects dissatisfaction with the OVP's fiscal management. It aims to ensure that taxpayer money is directed toward programs with proven effectiveness, such as social assistance and healthcare services, that directly benefit public welfare.

The committee justified this substantial budget cut by expressing concerns over the OVP's fund utilization and the overlap of its social programs with those already administered by the DSWD and DOH.

Lawmakers argued that reallocating resources to agencies with established track records, like the DSWD and DOH, would result in the more effective use of taxpayer money, as these agencies provide essential frameworks for addressing ongoing social and health challenges through programs such as the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps), which offers conditional cash transfers to low-income families, and the Universal Health Care (UHC) program.

UHC plays a crucial role in providing healthcare access, combating infectious diseases, and ensuring that preventive care and treatment are available to vulnerable populations. Disaster response programs, on the other hand, play an integral role in disaster response efforts, helping affected communities recover by providing much-needed financial and health support. Both programs are vital in addressing long-term social issues like poverty and public health crises. Moreover, they promote healthy lifestyles, thereby contributing to the overall well-being of society. By focusing on these established programs, lawmakers believe that resources can be more strategically deployed to maximize social benefits, particularly during times of crisis and economic difficulty.

The anticipated budget reduction is expected to significantly impact the OVP's (Office of the Vice President) capacity to fund essential public assistance programs, professional services, and cover basic operational costs such as utilities and lease expenses. With the ₱1.29-billion budget cut, the proposed 2025 OVP budget under the House version has drastically reduced the allocation for lease expenses to just ₱32 million, down from a previous high of ₱80 million, resulting in a decrease of ₱48.306 million. Additionally, the budget for utility expenses has been slashed to a mere ₱5 million. This considerable reduction poses challenges to the OVP's operational sustainability and effectiveness in delivering critical services.

The potential depletion of resources could hinder the OVP's capacity to serve constituents effectively, raising questions about the implications for its overall functionality and its role in delivering crucial services to the public. It could lead to a reduction in the quality and quantity of services provided by the OVP, affecting the public's access to essential services.

During the second round of deliberations on September 10, 2024, the committee was forced to defer the Office of the Vice President's (OVP) budget hearing due to the unexpected absence of Vice President Duterte and her representatives. 

This deferral delays the approval process for the OVP's budget, hindering the planning and implementation of programs and activities for the upcoming fiscal year. Frustrated by the lack of transparency and accountability, lawmakers may respond with increased scrutiny and potential budget cuts, with some already suggesting reductions to the proposed budget and placing certain funds on hold until further discussions can be held. 

Furthermore, the absence of Vice President Duterte and her team could negatively impact public perception, potentially being seen as a lack of accountability and transparency, which are crucial for maintaining public trust in government institutions.

The perceived disregard for the budget deliberations may lead to concerns among the public about the effective management of resources and the overall integrity of the government. If citizens believe that their leaders are not willing to engage in open discussions about budget allocations, it could foster skepticism and diminish confidence in the government’s ability to serve their interests. 

This incident may also strain relations between the OVP and the legislative branch, as lawmakers expect cooperation and transparency during budget deliberations, making the absence of the OVP’s representatives feel like an affront to the legislative process. If the budget is significantly reduced or delayed, it could adversely affect the OVP’s operations and its ability to deliver services effectively, leading to broader implications for the programs and initiatives it supports.

The incident has already resulted in heightened scrutiny of the OVP’s budget and spending practices, with lawmakers and the public demanding more detailed explanations and justifications for budget allocations. Consequently, VP Duterte may face increased pressure to comply with legislative inquiries and provide the necessary information to justify her office’s budget, which may require more detailed reporting and greater transparency in future budget hearings.

The absence and subsequent deferral of the budget hearing could have political repercussions for VP Duterte, as her opponents may leverage this situation to question her commitment to transparency and accountability. 

Her unexpected absence, without prior notice or explanation, disrupted the proceedings and left many questions regarding the OVP's budget and fund allocation unresolved. It caused significant frustration among committee members, who were eager to address critical issues surrounding the allocation and oversight of confidential funds.

The lack of detailed justifications for the proposed budget allocations prompted lawmakers to seek clarity on how the Office of the Vice President (OVP) intended to use the funds and which specific programs and initiatives would be supported. 

Questions also arose concerning the utilization of previous budget allocations, particularly the P125 million Confidential and Intelligence Fund (CIF) allocated to the OVP in 2022, as lawmakers sought to understand how these funds were spent and whether they achieved their intended purposes.

Another area of concern was the potential impact of the proposed budget on the OVP’s operations and its ability to deliver services effectively. 

Lawmakers needed clarity on how potential budget cuts might affect the OVP’s programs and initiatives. Additionally, there was heightened interest in how the CIFs allocated to the OVP—amounting to P125 million in 2022 and P500 million in 2023—were utilized, as these funds are not subject to the same level of scrutiny as other budget items, raising significant concerns about transparency and accountability.

In response to the situation, Duterte sent a letter to the House, stating that she had already expressed her position during a previous hearing and encouraged the committee to exercise its discretion regarding the OVP's proposed 2025 budget. 

"The Office of the Vice President has submitted all necessary documentation to the House of Representatives—Committee on Appropriations, including a detailed presentation on the proposed budget for fiscal year 2025," Duterte stated in her letter to Romualdez.

However, more was needed to alleviate the committee's frustrations; instead, it led them to consider potential budget cuts and withhold specific funds until further discussions could occur. Rep. Rodante Marcoleta (SAGIP Party-list) moved to terminate the OVP's budget hearing, noting that during his nearly two decades in government, the two highest positions—the Office of the President and the OVP—have been afforded parliamentary courtesy as part of Congress's "long-standing tradition." He asked, "Is this committee authorized to set aside or discard that tradition?" This highlighted the pressing need for clarification on the budget allocation process. 

Rep. Stella Quimbo (Marikina, 2nd District), vice chairperson of the Committee on Appropriations, asserted that the committee, as the body responsible for reviewing and approving the national budget, has the authority to make decisions regarding budget allocations. She emphasized that "the will of the majority is always respected." 

Rep. Arlene Brosas (Gabriela Women's Party) pointed out that House members had previously been able to question the OVP's budget during former Vice President Leni Robredo's term. She emphasized that "the issue of tradition is not cast in stone. We also have such precedents, where the OVP's budget was thoroughly scrutinized and debated, leading to adjustments in the allocation." she stated in a mix of English and Filipino.

The uncertainty surrounding the OVP's financial allocations, coupled with the Vice President's apparent disengagement from the budget process, led to speculation about the underlying motivations for her absence—whether it stemmed from strategic evasion or an unwillingness to confront critical scrutiny from lawmakers.

As the repercussions of this proposed budget cut unfold, it highlights the delicate balance between governmental accountability and the need for adequate funding to support essential public initiatives.