Confidential funds have long existed in the Philippine government. They are allocated to multiple offices—both civilian and security-related—and are intended for sensitive operations. However, these funds are also among the least transparent in public spending, often exempt from detailed disclosure.
Despite this reality, a growing public debate raises a critical question:
Why is Vice President Sara Duterte the primary focus of investigations, while confidential funds used by many other government officials receive little to no scrutiny?
Confidential Funds Are Not Exclusive to One Office
Confidential and intelligence funds are granted to numerous agencies and officials, including departments, local government units, and offices under both past and present administrations. Audit reports over the years have repeatedly shown:
Delayed liquidation
Incomplete documentation
Questionable utilization
Yet these findings often result only in audit observations, not sustained investigations or congressional hearings.
Disproportionate Focus Raises Red Flags
The intensity of scrutiny directed at the Vice President stands in sharp contrast to the relative silence surrounding other officials with similar—or even larger—confidential fund allocations.
This imbalance has fueled public suspicion that:
Investigations are being selectively pursued
Accountability is influenced by political alignment
Oversight mechanisms are being used as tools of pressure rather than reform
When enforcement appears unequal, the legitimacy of anti-corruption efforts suffers.
Confidential Funds vs. Public Accountability
While confidentiality is sometimes necessary, it should never mean immunity from oversight. The Constitution mandates accountability for all public officials, regardless of position.
If confidential funds are truly the concern, then every office receiving them should be subjected to:
The same level of review
The same standards of liquidation
The same public explanations
Anything less undermines the principle of equal justice.
The Danger of Politicized Oversight
Selective investigations do not strengthen democracy—they weaken it. When accountability mechanisms are perceived as politically motivated, public attention shifts away from real issues such as:
Systemic misuse of public funds
Weak audit enforcement
Lack of reforms in confidential fund governance
The result is division, distraction, and distrust.
What Real Reform Should Look Like
True reform on confidential funds must include:
Uniform oversight for all agencies and officials
Clear rules on allowable uses
Strict timelines for liquidation
Consistent consequences for violations
Accountability must be institutional, not personal.
Conclusion
If confidential funds demand investigation—and they do—then no official should be exempt, and no single official should be isolated.
Justice that targets only one while sparing others is not accountability.
It is selective justice.
The Filipino people deserve transparency that applies to everyone, not just political opponents.
