The Philippines is currently experiencing a political eruption after Vice President Sara Duterte, who also previously served as the Secretary of Education, finally broke her prolonged silence regarding the controversial P112.5 million (approximately $2 million USD) in confidential funds allocated to the Department of Education (DepEd) in 2023. Her long-awaited explanation—that the vast sum was used to conduct a sweeping internal investigation into corruption within the agency—has not quelled the national uproar. Instead, it has drawn immediate and fierce backlash from political observers, legal experts, and opposition lawmakers who dismiss the reasoning as a weak, “afterthought” defense, fueling the very transparency crisis it was meant to resolve.

The Belated ‘Revelation’ and the Laptop Debacle

For nearly a year, the question of how the DepEd confidential funds were utilized remained a volatile mystery. Vice President Duterte had consistently deflected inquiries, often citing the confidential nature of the funds or pointing to the Commission on Audit (COA) as the only body authorized to inspect the expenditure. This stance only deepened public skepticism, especially after the Department of Education’s own finance unit had previously admitted it was unaware of how the Vice President spent the funds, having only received a cover letter for the liquidation.

Speaking at a recent public forum, Duterte claimed that during her tenure, the DepEd conducted its own extensive probe into numerous corruption reports—most prominently targeting the infamous P2.4-billion deal for reportedly outdated and overpriced laptops intended for public school teachers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Duterte’s investigation, she asserted, traced the procurement flaw not to the DepEd itself, but to the Procurement Service of the Department of Budget and Management (PS-DBM), which handled the purchase. Crucially, she directly implicated resigned Ako Bicol Party-list Representative Elizaldy Co and his company, Sunwest Construction and Development Corp., in the alleged scandal. “There were many reports of corruption inside the Department of Education, not just in the central office but also the regional offices,” Duterte stated. “So whenever there are reports, we will investigate, and one of those we investigated was the laptop deal.”

While naming a powerful politician in a corruption scandal would typically be viewed as a decisive move for transparency, the context of her funding mechanism—the multi-million-peso secret fund—has completely overshadowed the revelation, leaving critics unconvinced by the delayed confession.

A ‘Dog Ate My Homework’ Defense? The Critics Strike Back

Political commentators and legal minds have swiftly torn apart the Vice President’s justification, characterizing it as an “utterly implausible” narrative. The primary point of contention is the massive sum of P112.5 million allegedly spent on an internal corruption probe—especially one that focused heavily on a pre-existing scandal already under review by national audit and judicial bodies.

One of the sharpest critiques comes from a legal perspective: If the internal DepEd probe was so comprehensive, utilizing P112.5 million to gather evidence, why was the public only hearing about its scope and findings nearly a year later? More importantly, why has this supposed high-cost investigation failed to result in any new, major criminal cases being filed against the alleged perpetrators? Critics argue that simply reviewing government papers and existing bidding documents—which an internal review would primarily entail—should not require the level of funding typically reserved for deep intelligence and counter-insurgency operations. The suspicion is that the Vice President is retrospectively attempting to create a legitimate public purpose for a highly questionable expenditure.

Furthermore, the timing of the announcement has been called into question. Why wait until congressional investigations and impeachment complaints were actively pursuing the matter to offer a defense that, if true, would have been a powerful, proactive statement against corruption had it been revealed sooner? This delay suggests to many observers that the explanation is merely a strategic, defensive move rather than a genuine act of accountability. The prevailing sentiment among the opposition is that the Vice President is seeking to shift the blame to her predecessor and other external entities, such as the PS-DBM, while facing scrutiny for her own financial management.

The Pattern of Secrecy: OVP Funds and the Impeachment Fire

The DepEd confidential fund debacle is not an isolated incident; it is part of a larger pattern that has plagued the Vice President’s tenure and led to the most significant political challenge of her career: an impeachment complaint and massive budget cuts.

In late 2022, the Vice President’s Office (OVP) faced intense scrutiny for spending an astounding P125 million in confidential funds in just 11 days. The sheer speed of the liquidation process raised major red flags, leading to legislative investigations. The controversy deepened with reports of questionable names appearing on the receipts of the confidential fund expenditures. Lawmakers revealed strange entries for supposed recipients, including monikers that sounded like food items or fictional groups—a level of alleged sloppiness or obfuscation that critics argue is unacceptable for public funds, classified or otherwise. Names like “Jay Kamote” and “Miggy Mango” were flagged, along with a group dubbed “Team Amoy Asim,” suggesting a highly irregular method of accounting for public money.

The combined impact of the P125 million OVP fund and the P112.5 million DepEd fund—totaling P237.5 million in highly scrutinized expenditures—became the core basis for the impeachment proceedings against the Vice President. Although the impeachment complaint was ultimately blocked by the Supreme Court on technical grounds, the political fallout was immediate and devastating. The House of Representatives voted to strip the OVP of its confidential fund allocation for the next budget year, a clear sign of the legislative branch’s lack of confidence in the Vice President’s handling of public funds.

The Public’s Demand for ‘Long Memory’

The political controversy has highlighted the critical distinction between a politician’s “short memory” and the electorate’s “long memory.” Commentators have noted that many high-profile figures, including the Vice President, often engage in what has been termed a “charm offensive” or a strategy of deflection and humor to minimize the severity of scandals. This approach relies on the public’s tendency to forget financial misdeeds in the face of new controversies or charismatic displays.

However, the sustained intensity of the confidential funds debate suggests a shift in public consciousness. Critics are now urging the Filipino people to maintain a “long memory,” demanding that all government officials be held accountable for every peso spent. They emphasize that funds designated for “confidential” purposes are not meant to be completely secret from the public, but rather subject to stringent, albeit confidential, auditing and justification. The continuing failure to provide a transparent and believable account of the P112.5 million expenditure risks eroding public trust in the entire mechanism of government accountability.

As the political drama unfolds, the focus remains on the Vice President. The claim that she used millions to fight corruption has only intensified the demand for evidence. Without concrete, verifiable results—actual cases filed, convictions secured, or detailed reports of the investigation—her defense risks being permanently inscribed in the history books as one of the most glaring examples of a weak attempt to evade accountability for the use of confidential public funds. The ultimate verdict, however, will rest with the Filipino electorate, who are being called upon now more than ever to remember past transgressions when the next election arrives.