Vice President Sara Duterte has been accused of plunder, bribery, malversation of public funds, graft, culpable violation of the Constitution, and betrayal of public trust. Alongside the vice president, 14 officials from the Office of the Vice President (OVP) and the Department of Education (DepEd) were also named, including OVP chief of staff Zuleika Lopez and former DepEd undersecretary Michael Poa, as well as security and administrative officers allegedly involved in fund disbursements. According to the complainants, Duterte allowed the turnover of entire cash advances to unbonded military officers assigned to her security group—individuals who legally could not receive or handle government funds. Vice President Sara Duterte is now facing plunder and several other criminal and administrative complaints before the Office of the Ombudsman over the alleged misuse of ₱612.5 million in confidential funds—an issue previously raised in her impeachment case that was later archived. The complaint was filed on Friday, Dec. 12, by civil society leaders, including 2025 Ramon Magsaysay Awardee Fr. Flaviano Villanueva and former Finance Undersecretary Cielo Magno. Complainants also urged the Ombudsman to request Duterte’s bank records from the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC). As of writing, the vice president has not issued a response. Admissions made during House hearings in 2024 were also cited, including the release of ₱125 million to Col. Raymund Dante Lachica and millions more to Lt. Col. Dennis Nolasco. The complainants further flagged suspicious liquidation documents, including acknowledgement receipts signed under fabricated names such as “Mary Grace Piattos,” “Nova,” and “Oishi.” They also pointed to testimonies from former DepEd employees who reported receiving monthly cash envelopes ranging from ₱12,000 to ₱50,000 to “ensure cooperation” in handling confidential funds—acts they say amount to bribery. Villanueva stressed that confidentiality cannot be used as a shield to evade accountability, while Magno said the Ombudsman complaint serves as an alternative avenue after the Supreme Court voided the impeachment, which violated the Constitution’s one-year bar rule. This repeated practice, they said, constituted a serious diversion of public resources.
