MANILA — House prosecutors said the latest Commission on Audit (COA) findings involving P168 million in Office of the Vice President (OVP) relief operations showed similarities with issues previously raised over the agency’s use of public funds.

House impeachment team adviser and spokesperson Ace Barbers described the OVP, led by Vice President Sara Duterte, as “very consistent” and a “suki,” or frequent subject, of adverse COA findings.

“Ang masasabi ko lang diyan, very consistent ang OVP sa ganyang klaseng mga parang suki ng COA adverse findings,” Barbers said at a press briefing.

Lanao del Sur 1st District Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong, another prosecution spokesperson, said the latest findings were separate from Duterte’s impeachment case but involved similar questions about supporting documents.

“May similarity ’yung pinag-usapan nating confidential funds dito sa impeachment court, though this is a separate case altogether. Pero may similarity,” he said.

In a special audit of the OVP’s use of its 2025 Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Fund, COA flagged documentation and procedural deficiencies involving P168 million that affected auditors’ ability to verify whether relief reached intended beneficiaries.

Barbers said the OVP must establish a clear audit trail for the use of the funds.

“Mahalaga ’yung audit trail doon sa ano, kasi P168 million ito eh. Ito ay, again, pera ito ng taong-bayan na dapat maliwanag at all accounted ang bawat pisong ginastos para dito,” he said.

Alonto Adiong said the findings recalled questions raised during the impeachment trial over documentation supporting the OVP’s confidential fund expenditures.

“Andoon pa rin ’yung nire-require ng COA na bakit walang resibo?” he said.

“Kasi unang-una, pag ayuda ’yan, mag-aayuda ka. Una, saan mo dadalhin ’yung ayuda? Sino’ng nag-benefit dito sa ayuda? Paano ka nag-release ng mga ayuda? So mukhang ’yun ang lacking na mga documents,” he added.

Published reports said COA found unidentified beneficiaries, undocumented changes in relief distributions, incomplete beneficiary records and discrepancies between OVP and local government reports.

Alonto Adiong said he saw the similarities as part of a broader pattern.

“I think the pattern is being established when there’s a sense of impunity. That, I guess, glaring display of the mindset na that sense of untouchability. Na nobody can actually call them out, that they are above the law,” he said.

“And ’yung feeling of being untouchable is what makes these apparent similarities very glaring. Ganoon ’yung nakikita natin na attitude and behavior,” he added.

Barbers, however, said the OVP should be given sufficient time to respond to the COA findings.

“So they have really to explain. I’m sure they’ll be given enough and sufficient time to answer these adverse findings of the COA,” he said.

“And if they can satisfactorily respond to the issues that are raised in these findings, then maybe they can avoid being a respondent to a notice of disallowance or a notice of suspension,” he added.

The OVP told auditors that conditions during disaster operations could change on the ground and require adjustments. COA maintained that such changes should be properly documented and supported.

The special audit is separate from Duterte’s impeachment trial and does not constitute an adverse opinion on the OVP’s overall financial statements. COA issued an unmodified opinion on the OVP’s 2025 financial statements, indicating that auditors found them fairly presented, in all material respects, under the applicable financial reporting framework.