*Dr. Rodolfo John Ortiz Teope, PhD, EdD, DM
Imagine entering a government office and seeing two locked boxes. Parehong nakasara, parehong may lamang pera ng bayan, at parehong may nakasulat na “Restricted.” Dahil hindi natin nakikita ang laman, natural lamang na isipin nating pareho ang dalawang kahon.
But they are not the same.
One may contain money for confidential surveillance by a civilian government agency. The other may finance intelligence and counterintelligence operations directly affecting national security. Magkatabi silang binabanggit bilang Confidential and Intelligence Funds, or CIF, kaya para sa ordinaryong mamamayan, parang iisa lamang sila. Pareho silang lihim, ngunit magkaiba ang kanilang legal purpose, authorized users, at limitations.
I examine this issue not only as a political analyst and intelligence analyst, but also as a former local legislator and a professor of public safety and law enforcement. I understand why certain government operations must remain secret. An informer may be killed if his identity is exposed. A surveillance operation may collapse if its methods become public. A planned attack cannot be prevented if the suspects already know that the government is watching.
But I also write as a Filipino citizen seeking transparency and accountability, because public money does not cease to be the people’s money merely because it is placed inside a confidential envelope.
I write this not to influence the people’s position on the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte. I am not here to persuade anyone to convict her, acquit her, defend her, or condemn her. I write as a wishful thinker—perhaps still holding on to what sometimes feels like a hopeless hope—that beyond the anger, political loyalties, and deafening noise, some Filipinos will pause and understand the deeper meaning behind the controversy.
We are living in a war of narratives. Facts are selected to suit political loyalties. Legal questions are reduced to slogans. Allegations are treated as truth, while legitimate questions are dismissed as propaganda. Sa ganitong panahon, disinformation is no longer merely an inconvenience. It has become a threat to national security because it destroys public trust, divides the people, and weakens institutions.
Vice President Sara Duterte and the Office of the Vice President may possess legitimate reasons for using their Confidential Funds. There may have been actual threats, genuine surveillance activities, confidential sources, and lawful operations that could not be publicly disclosed. Fairness demands that we remain open to that possibility.
But legitimacy cannot be created by political speeches, partisan commentaries, viral videos, or social-media posts. Neither the prosecution nor the defense can conclusively establish legality through narratives alone.
The expenditures must ultimately be justified by evidence possessed by the OVP: operational plans prepared at the proper time, authorizations, threat assessments, coordination records, acknowledgment documents, accomplishment reports, liquidation papers, and other records required by law.
If those documents establish that the funds supported lawful and authorized activities, the Vice President deserves the benefit of that evidence. But if the records are absent, fabricated, inconsistent, or incapable of demonstrating a legitimate public purpose, accountability must follow—regardless of her position, popularity, political family, or number of supporters.
Under Joint Circular No. 2015-01, a Confidential Fund generally supports surveillance and information-gathering activities of civilian agencies within their lawful mandates. An Intelligence Fund finances intelligence and counterintelligence activities of uniformed, military, and authorized intelligence practitioners that directly affect national security.
Sa simpleng paliwanag, ang Confidential Fund ay para sa sensitibong operasyon ng civilian agencies, samantalang ang Intelligence Fund ay para sa national-security operations ng mga ahensiyang may intelligence mandate. Hindi porke may Confidential Fund ang isang civilian office ay maaari na itong kumilos na parang AFP, PNP, NICA, or a national intelligence agency.
Confidential Funds may finance the purchase of information necessary for national security and peace and order, operational vehicles, safe houses, and supplies whose ordinary procurement would compromise an operation. They may also finance properly approved rewards to nonemployee informers when the payment is connected with a specific operation and supported by evidence of accomplishment.
Intelligence Funds are more narrowly reserved for intelligence and counterintelligence affecting national security and approved covert or semi-covert operations against security threats and lawless elements.
Neither category is a blank check. These funds cannot ordinarily pay government salaries, overtime, allowances, additional compensation, representation, consultancy, entertainment, or the construction and acquisition of buildings and housing structures.
The funds associated with the OVP were classified as Confidential Funds, not Intelligence Funds. The OVP therefore could not transform them into Intelligence Funds merely by describing certain activities as “intelligence gathering.”
Can Confidential Funds support surveillance intended to protect the Vice President? Possibly, but not automatically. A discreet operation to verify a credible assassination threat, identify hostile surveillance, or prevent a clear and present danger may qualify.
But routine protection is different. Bodyguards, regular deployments, travel security, vehicles, fuel, salaries, overtime, and allowances are normally protective-security or administrative expenses. Ang surveillance upang tuklasin ang isang tunay na banta ay maaaring confidential, ngunit ang ordinaryong pagbabantay ay hindi awtomatikong nagiging confidential operation.
A legitimate confidential activity must remain within the agency’s mandate, appear in an approved plan, possess a valid security or peace-and-order objective, and be coordinated with the proper law-enforcement agency whenever practicable. Its expenditures must also be supported by documents and accomplishment reports for specialized COA audit.
Confidentiality may restrict public access to sensitive details, but it does not eliminate liquidation and auditing. Hindi man maaaring malaman ng publiko ang pangalan ng informer, dapat mapatunayan sa awtorisadong auditor na may lehitimong impormasyon, may awtorisadong bayad, at may resultang nakamit.
The issue becomes more delicate when a medical mission is described as a cover for gathering information. A medical mission is not, by itself, a confidential activity. Medicines, doctors, nurses, equipment, food, transportation, and patient treatment are humanitarian expenses that should come from regular program funds.
Suppose an authorized officer meets an informer during a medical mission and receives specific information about a genuine threat. The properly approved payment for that information may potentially qualify as a confidential expense. But the medical costs remain ordinary program expenses.
Hindi puwedeng dahil may isang confidential meeting sa medical mission ay confidential na rin ang lahat—mula gamot hanggang pagkain at pamasahe.
The confidential component must be separated from the public-service program. This is the principle of financial severability. Kung may tunay na confidential component, ihiwalay ito sa ordinaryong gastos. Huwag gawing kumot ang salitang “cover” upang takpan ang buong expenditure.
If the mission was genuinely designed as operational cover, there should already have been a protected but verifiable plan before it occurred. May authorization ba? May specific threat at operational objective ba? May coordination at accomplishment report ba? A cover must be part of the original design—not an explanation invented after the money has already been spent.
There is also a moral issue. People attend medical missions because they are sick, poor, or unable to afford healthcare. They arrive carrying prescriptions, medical records, and hope. Dumarating sila hindi bilang intelligence sources kundi bilang mga taong naghahanap ng lunas.
If their vulnerability is used to collect political information, identify critics, or monitor communities, something deeply human is violated. Kapag ang medical mission ay kinatakutan sa halip na pagkatiwalaan, hindi lamang pera ang nasisira. Pati tiwala ng mamamayan ay unti-unting namamatay.
Other democracies show that secrecy and accountability can coexist. The United States publicly discloses the total or top-line amount of its National Intelligence Program while protecting operational details, but its intelligence community remains subject to congressional, executive, and inspector-general oversight.
The United Kingdom’s Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament examines the policies, administration, expenditures, and certain operations of MI5, MI6, GCHQ, and other intelligence institutions. Australia likewise audits government entities and examines their financial controls, although classified information may require secure handling.
Their systems differ from ours, but the principle is universal: Public secrecy does not have to mean institutional blindness. Hindi kailangang isapubliko ang pangalan ng informer upang magkaroon ng accountability. A democracy can protect national secrets without protecting wrongdoing.
Every claimed confidential operation must answer five connected questions: Was the fund properly classified? Did the agency possess the legal mandate? Was the activity authorized? Was every expense directly connected with the operation? And do documents prepared at the proper time establish its payment, purpose, and accomplishment?
As a political analyst, I understand partisan narratives. As an intelligence analyst, I respect the protection of sources and methods. As a former legislator, I know that an appropriation is never a blank check. As a professor, I believe that authority must always be accompanied by responsibility.
But above all, as a citizen seeking transparency and accountability, I cannot accept that public money stops being the people’s business once it is called confidential.
Let us return to the two locked boxes. Their keys cannot simply be handed to the public because some secrets protect the country and save lives. But those keys must always remain in the hands of the law.
Confidentiality may conceal the details of a lawful operation, but it must never conceal the absence of one.
If the documentary trail exists, let it speak for the Vice President. If it does not, let its silence speak for the Filipino people.
A government secret may belong to the State.
But every peso inside it will always belong to the Filipino people.
Dear Reader,
I invite you to explore my complete collection of published books now available on Amazon. Whether you are seeking in-depth analysis, strategic insights, or engaging narratives, my catalog covers a range of essential topics designed to inform, inspire, and provoke thoughtful discussion.
You can browse all my current titles, read excerpts, and order your copies directly through my official Amazon Author Page:
Click this Image to View:
Warm regards,
*About the author:
