Day 13 of the Sara Duterte impeachment trial: 849 acknowledgment receipts, no official receipts

Day 13 of Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial centered on a fairly basic question: What documents are enough to prove that public money was spent on a lawful confidential operation?

Former Commission on Audit (COA) state auditor Roderick Wamil told the Senate impeachment court that the Office of the Vice President submitted 849 acknowledgment receipts to liquidate its P125-million confidential fund for the last quarter of 2022. Not one official receipt was included. Wamil said that in nearly 10 years of auditing more than 30 government agencies, this was the first time he had seen an entire liquidation supported only by acknowledgment receipts, according to GMA News on August 5, 2026.

But his testimony did not show that Vice President Sara Duterte personally took the money. It did, however, put the sufficiency of the OVP’s records at the center of Article I, which covers the alleged misuse and irregular liquidation of confidential funds.

Five highlights from Day 13

1. The OVP submitted 849 acknowledgment receipts and no official receipts

Wamil said the OVP relied on 849 acknowledgment receipts to account for the P125 million released in late 2022. He would not call that standard practice because, during his years at COA’s Intelligence and Confidential Funds Audit Office, he had not seen another agency submit only acknowledgment receipts. GMA News, August 5, 2026

The distinction matters. An acknowledgment receipt records that someone supposedly received money or goods, but it does not carry the same independent proof as a receipt issued by a seller or service provider. For confidential funds, the names and operations may be protected, but the spending is still governed by accounting and audit rules.

2. COA's P73-million disallowance remains enforceable unless a court stops it

Wamil said COA had ordered the OVP to return P73 million from its 2022 confidential fund because the documents submitted were insufficient. He added that the disallowance stands unless the Supreme Court issues a temporary restraining order. GMA News, August 5, 2026

This is more precise than saying COA found that the entire P125 million was stolen. A notice of disallowance is an audit action against an expenditure considered irregular, illegal, excessive, extravagant, unnecessary or unconscionable. It is not, by itself, a criminal conviction.

3. Wamil explained the presumption attached to unsupported funds

During questioning, Wamil said that a notice of suspension issued because an accountable officer failed to produce the required evidence can create a presumption that the funds were used for the officer’s personal benefit. ABS-CBN News, August 5, 2026

The governing rules are in Joint Circular No. 2015-01, issued by COA, the Department of Budget and Management, the Department of the Interior and Local Government, the Department of National Defense, and the Governance Commission for GOCCs. The circular calls for strong internal controls and strict accounting because confidential and intelligence funds are classified by nature. COA-DBM-DILG-GCG-DND Joint Circular No. 2015-01, January 8, 2015

The presumption is rebuttable. It can support an audit finding, but prosecutors still have to prove the impeachable acts alleged in Article I.

4. Medicines listed as informant rewards drew questions

Senator-judge Risa Hontiveros asked whether giving medicines as a reward for intelligence information was normal. Her question followed Wamil’s testimony that part of the 2022 confidential fund was reported as medicines given to informants. GMA News, August 5, 2026

The issue was not whether medicine is useful. It was whether this reported expense fit an allowable confidential activity and whether the OVP could show a clear link between the payment, the information obtained and a successful operation.

Wamil also said that a certification from the former head of the Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group, stating that no untoward incident occurred from December 20 to 31, 2022, did not by itself prove successful information-gathering. He said the records needed to show a causal link between the informant’s information and the claimed result. GMA News, August 5, 2026

5. Michael Poa was allowed to remain on the defense team

Senator-judge Raffy Tulfo questioned whether lawyer Michael Poa had a conflict of interest because Poa joined a 2023 meeting with COA while he was an official connected with the OVP and Department of Education. Poa is now one of Duterte’s defense lawyers.

Presiding Officer Francis Escudero ruled that there was no conflict that barred Poa from representing Duterte because Poa is not the respondent in the impeachment case. The sole respondent is the vice president. Philippine Daily Inquirer, August 5, 2026 GMA News, August 5, 2026

The ruling settled Poa’s participation in the trial. It did not erase the prosecution’s right to ask about what happened during the 2023 COA meeting through admissible evidence.

What netizens reacted to

Public reactions visible under news posts and trial updates were divided. These are anecdotal comments, not a scientific measure of national opinion.

One group focused on the 849 acknowledgment receipts. Commenters asked how COA could verify recipients who used aliases and why no official receipts accompanied a P125-million liquidation. The names associated with earlier congressional inquiries, especially “Mary Grace Piattos,” returned to the discussion after news outlets posted Wamil’s Day 13 testimony. SunStar Davao Facebook post, August 5, 2026 GMA News Facebook post, August 5, 2026

Another group defended the need for secrecy in confidential operations and welcomed the senator-judges’ questions about the limits of COA’s conclusions. Their main point was that incomplete or unusual documents do not automatically prove that Duterte stole the money.

The medicine issue also drew ridicule and disbelief after Hontiveros asked whether the informants were sick. Beneath the jokes was a serious audit question: Was medicine truly compensation for intelligence, and where was the evidence connecting it to a completed operation? GMA News Facebook post, August 5, 2026

The online split largely mirrored the arguments inside the court. Critics saw the records as evidence of a system too easy to abuse. Duterte’s supporters stressed due process and warned against treating audit deficiencies as proof of theft.

What Day 13 established, and what it did not

Day 13 gave the impeachment court a clearer record of what the OVP submitted: 849 acknowledgment receipts, no official receipts, and documents that COA found insufficient for P73 million of the 2022 confidential fund.

It did not settle whether Duterte personally benefited from the money. That is the line the prosecution must still cross. The defense, meanwhile, has to explain why records involving public funds should be accepted when even the state auditor assigned to confidential accounts said he had never encountered a liquidation prepared this way.

The next time someone online says Day 13 proved either “theft” or “complete compliance,” ask for the document or testimony behind the claim. The trial record, not the loudest post, is where that answer has to be found.