Metro Manila (CNN Philippines, September 27) — Two lawmakers on Wednesday weighed in on the legality of the allocation of ₱125 million to the Office of the Vice President’s (OVP) confidential funds in 2022.
In a statement on Sept. 5, the Office of the Executive Secretary (OES) defended the decision of the Office of the President (OP) to approve the release of ₱221.42 million requested by the OVP, which includes the ₱125 million for confidential funds.
The OES said the OP complied with Special Provision No. 1 under the 2022 Contingent Fund, authorizing the OP to approve releases to cover funding requirements of new, existing, or urgent activities that need to be implemented.
Speaking to CNN Philippines’ The Source, House Deputy Majority Leader Janette Garin said the release of the funds was legal as it complies with Special Provision No. 1, noting that what was not allowed was the purchase of vehicles.
She also noted that the source of the funds was the contingent fund lodged before the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) under the special purpose fund and not the OP as earlier reported.
“The usual process is the requesting agency submits to DBM, the DBM vets…and then they forward it to recommend approval to the president. Now the president approves, DBM releases the fund,” Garin explained.
For Gabriela Party-list Rep. Arlene Brosas, the allocation for confidential funds is against Joint Circular No. 2015-01, which provides the guidelines on the entitlement, release, use, reporting, and audit of confidential and intelligence funds.
The circular states that such funds should be used only for activities that are confidential and those relevant to national security and peace and order.
The OES said the ₱125 million requested by the OVP was “for newly created satellite offices.”
While Garin maintained that the allocation of funds was legal, she agreed that the OVP should follow Joint Circular No. 2015-01 when utilizing the ₱125-million funding.
Brosas also said placing ₱125 million under the OVP’s confidential funds violates Article 6, Sec. 25.6 of the 1987 Constitution that states “Discretionary funds appropriated for particular officials shall be disbursed only for public purposes to be supported by appropriate vouchers and subject to such guidelines as may be prescribed by law.”
