Why this status: Evidence has been formally presented or accepted in the record for this claim (e.g. an official filing, an authenticated recording, or an audit finding). This describes the strength of the paper trail, not a verdict of guilt or innocence.
Did prosecution witness Roderick Wamil testify that Joint Circular 2015-01 requires strict, not substantial, compliance in auditing confidential funds?
COA witness: Joint Circular 2015-01 requires strict compliance for confidential funds
Former COA-ICFAO State Auditor Roderick Wamil, testifying for the prosecution, identified Joint Circular 2015-01 (jointly issued by COA, DBM, DILG, DND, and the Governance Commission for GOCCs) as the principal standard used by COA-ICFAO in auditing confidential and intelligence funds since January 8, 2015, and testified that it requires strict compliance rather than substantial compliance because public funds are involved.
Claimed by Roderick C. Wamil — State Auditor, Commission on Audit — Intelligence and Confidential Funds Audit Office (COA-ICFAO); prosecution witness in the impeachment trial (Witness)
Last updated:
Positions
Witness statement
WitnessFormer COA-ICFAO State Auditor Roderick Wamil, testifying for the prosecution, identified Joint Circular 2015-01 (jointly issued by COA, DBM, DILG, DND, and the Governance Commission for GOCCs) as the principal standard used by COA-ICFAO in auditing confidential and intelligence funds since January 8, 2015, and testified that it requires strict compliance rather than substantial compliance because public funds are involved.
Source-linked
“The witness testified that Joint Circular 2015-01 requires strict compliance rather than substantial compliance because public funds are involved.”
Developments
- Impeachment Trial - Day 14Supports this claim
A COA witness testified that at a November 2024 committee hearing, OVP Special Disbursing Officer Gina Acosta stated that, by VP Sara Duterte's directive, she gave the confidential-fund cash advance to a colonel. The witness testified that under Joint Circular item 6.1.1 such cash advances may under no circumstance be transferred between accountable officers, characterizing the transfer as a direct violation.
- Impeachment Trial - Day 15Supports this claim
The witness confirmed she assumed audit responsibility for the Vice President's and DepEd's confidential funds after Atty. Wamil's reassignment to COA Pasay, and testified that Section 6.2.3.7 of the Joint Memorandum Circular allows COA to request other documents necessary for proper evaluation and audit. Defense counsel manifested that COA Circular No. 92-385 (1992) had been superseded by the JMC of five agencies, and Presiding Officer Escudero stated the 1992 circular was impliedly repealed though it was not named in the JMC's repealing clause. On documentation, defense counsel cited item 4.12 requiring disbursements from confidential funds to be supported by documentary evidence of payment submitted to ICPAO in a sealed envelope signed by the SDO, while the witness confirmed item 4.12 states only 'Documents Evidencing Payment' and does not specify the kind of document; Escudero asserted the JMC does not state that receipts must be demanded.
- Impeachment Trial - Day 16Context
At the impeachment trial, prosecution counsel asserted that paragraph 4.2 of Joint Circular 2015-01 requires all confidential-fund allocations to rest on a Physical and Financial Plan (PFP). The witness confirmed no confidential funds may be released without a PFP and testified that the Office of the Vice President complied when it released P125 million for the fourth quarter of 2022. The Presiding Officer stated for the record that the circular does not specifically require details in the PFP, noting the details appear in the documents submitted with the liquidation.
- Impeachment Trial - Day 17Supports this claim
Prosecution counsel asserted at the impeachment trial that Joint Circular 2015-01 provides confidential funds may not be used to liquidate a previous cash advance or be transferred from one accountable officer to another. The witness confirmed she was aware of the prohibition on transferring such funds between accountable officers.
- Impeachment Trial - Day 18Supports this claim
At the impeachment trial, prosecution counsel cited Joint Circular Article 4.2 as requiring confidential and intelligence fund allocations to be backed by a physical and financial plan stating the proposed amount for each program, activity, and project. The witness testified that the plans the OVP submitted named only umbrella programs, such as a 'good governance program' and 'socio-economic delivery programs.'
- Impeachment Trial - Day 19Contradicts this claim
The witness testified that the OVP's August 2022 letter request to the DBM had no PFP attached and that the Joint Circular did not then require one, and that the DBM did not comment on, reject, or flag the submitted documents as non-compliant. He said the DBM recommended approval to the Office of the President, which approved the additional budget, and that designating persons for confidential activities falls within the head of agency's authority. He also testified he could not recall Section 3.24 of Joint Circular 2015-01.
Evidence tiers, explained
The official record of the proceeding itself: session video (VODs) and transcripts, filed pleadings, court orders and rulings, admitted exhibits.
An official or primary document from outside the proceeding: an agency report (e.g. a COA audit), an official order or gazette entry, an authenticated original statement.
Reporting that describes primary material rather than being it — one step removed from the record, whoever the publisher is.
Commentary, analysis, or opinion: an editorial, column, press release, social-media post, or other advocacy or self-published take.
A publicly circulating claim whose provenance cannot be traced to any of the tiers above; never used to set a claim's status.