House Prosecutor and Bicol Saro Party-list Representative Terry Ridon said on Saturday that the Commission on Audit’s recent unmodified opinion would not affect its previous order directing the Office of the Vice President (OVP) under Sara Duterte to return P448 million in confidential funds to the government.
According to a Super Radyo dzBB report by Carlo Mateo, Ridon said in a news forum that COA’s unmodified opinion for calendar year 2025 should not give the public the impression that an office already has a “clean slate.”
Ridon said that through an unmodified opinion, auditors had determined that the OVP’s financial statements were “well-presented,” but this did not mean that the transactions complied with the law, regulations, and auditing rules.
He stressed that the notices of disallowance on the use of public funds still exist.
In April, the COA affirmed the notice of disallowance on the OVP’s disbursement of P73 million in confidential funds from December 21 to 31, 2022. The COA also revealed that another notice of disallowance had been issued to the OVP, covering the P375 million in confidential funds disbursed during the first, second, and third quarters of 2023.
Financial records
At the news forum, Ridon said the prosecution was confident it would be able to convince the Senate impeachment court to issue a subpoena for the financial records of Duterte and her husband Manases Carpio.
Senator-judges deferred action on the prosecution panel’s request until Monday, July 20.
“So mataas po ‘yung pag-asa namin na makukumbinsi namin ang korte sa darating na Lunes na ito doon po sa batayan kung bakit kailangang i-subpoena ang lahat po ng dokumento,” he said.
(We are highly confident that we will be able to convince the court this coming Monday on the basis of why all the documents need to be subpoenaed.)
Ridon also rejected Duterte’s camp’s allegations of a “fishing expedition.”
“Ang totoo ho, wala hong fishing expedition kung balyena ‘yung nahanap. Kasi ang pinag-uusapan ho natin dito, hindi naman ho baryang-baryang pera. Ang pinag-uusapan ho natin dito, P6.7 billion in total transactions over the course of 20 years. P4.4 billion inflows into the bank accounts of the Duterte-Carpio couple,” he said.
(The truth is, this is not a fishing expedition when a whale has been found. We are not talking about small amounts of money here. We are talking about P6.7 billion in total transactions over a 20-year period, including P4.4 billion in inflows into the bank accounts of the Duterte-Carpio couple.)
Ridon added that there should be a “baseline” to measure Duterte’s assets.
GMA News Online has reached out to Duterte’s camp for comment but has yet to receive a response. —VBL, GMA News
Facts Only
* Terry Ridon stated the COA’s unmodified opinion would not affect the order for the OVP to return P448 million in confidential funds.
* Ridon asserted that an unmodified opinion on financial statements does not confirm compliance with laws, regulations, or auditing rules.
* Notices of disallowance regarding confidential fund use still exist.
* The COA affirmed a notice of disallowance for P73 million disbursed in 2022.
* Another notice of disallowance covered P375 million disbursed in the first, second, and third quarters of 2023.
* Ridon expressed confidence in convincing the Senate impeachment court to issue a subpoena for financial records.
* Ridon quantified transactions as P6.7 billion over 20 years, with P4.4 billion inflows into the Duterte-Carpio couple's bank accounts.
Executive Summary
Full Take
The narrative presents a tension between institutional findings (COA opinion) and ongoing legal/prosecutorial actions seeking accountability. The framing around the COA's unmodified opinion attempts to suggest finality, while Ridon pushes back by emphasizing that presentation does not equate to legality, thereby redirecting focus from the financial appearance to actual compliance with regulations. The reference to the P6.7 billion transaction history and asset inflows serves as an attempt to shift the public discourse away from specific fund returns toward a broader scope of financial scrutiny involving the couple. The insistence on establishing a "baseline" for assets suggests an underlying challenge to opacity, suggesting that surface-level compliance reports are insufficient when examining long-term wealth accumulation. This dynamic reflects a struggle over whose definition of 'truth'—auditor-stated presentation versus prosecution-sought documentation—will govern the narrative moving forward.
What institutional mechanisms exist beyond subpoenas for establishing asset baselines? How can the public distinguish between procedural compliance and substantive legality in cases involving large, long-term financial flows? What are the secondary effects on political legitimacy when legal proceedings focus on wealth accumulation rather than direct fund accountability?
Sentinel — Human
The content reads like direct reporting of a legal/political exchange, characterized by specific financial figures and quoted statements, suggesting strong human journalistic sourcing.