The political temperature in the Philippines continued to rise as Vice President Sara Duterte faced intensifying scrutiny over alleged misuse of confidential government funds. The twist on June 22 came when the Office of the Ombudsman and the House of Representatives issued conflicting statements about who initiated the complaint. This procedural tug-of-war has sparked widespread speculation about the true motivations behind the case.
The allegations relate to Duterte’s disbursement of ₱650 million in confidential and intelligence funds during her tenure at the Department of Education and the Office of the Vice President. While Duterte’s camp insists the funds were spent legally and transparently, opposition-aligned legislators have accused her of technical malversation and abuse of power.
Ombudsman Samuel Martires stated that the House Committee on Good Government submitted the formal complaint, an assertion later denied by Speaker Martin Romualdez’s office. According to House sources, the committee merely relayed findings from a congressional report and never officially filed any charges. The discrepancy has muddied the narrative and opened the door to accusations of political orchestration.
From a nationalist and conservative standpoint, the charges appear less about accountability and more about sidelining Duterte as a formidable contender in the 2028 presidential race. Her allies argue that the left-leaning political class is using legal instruments to weaken reform-minded leaders who don’t play by oligarchic rules. The episode also reveals a troubling trend: the growing use of legal institutions as blunt instruments in political rivalries, rather than as impartial arbiters of justice.
Calls are now mounting for broader audits of confidential funds across all government offices, not just those led by perceived political outsiders. For many Filipinos who feel disenfranchised by traditional elites, Duterte’s ordeal is not just a legal battle—it’s a referendum on whose interests the government truly serves.
