“As Caesar loved me, I weep for him; as he was fortunate, I rejoice at it; as he was valiant, I honour him: but, as he was ambitious, I slew him,” these words resonate not only with the learners in literature and poetry courses but among political science students as well.
Yes, you’re right, these were Brutus’ words during the funeral for the slain Roman leader, Julius Caesar.
I invite you to note well—nota bene—the last phrase: “but, as he was ambitious, I slew him.” All told, said Brutus, it was Caesar’s ambition that did him in.
To repeat: it was because of ambition that Julian Caesar met his end—not in the hands of Rome’s enemy but in the hands of Romans so known to him—whose unrestrained desires and aspirations conflicted with the logical consequences of Ceasar’s exploits and conquests.
This admission of Brutus—a close peer, associate, and fan of Caesar, sounds ominous today as it was when sounded by Brutus at the steps of that Great Roman Edifice centuries ago. Treachery? Disloyalty? Love of country? Clashing ambitions?
Be the better judge!
Rust Never Sleeps
Are we witnessing the unfolding of a historical parallelism today with that infamous event that took place right inside the halls of the Roman Senate some decades—44 years, Before the Common Era?
Let me attempt to refresh our collective memory. Early into the 6-year term of a Presidential and Vice-Presidential tandem that was bruited to span at least 12-years of UniTeam’s supremacy—with the jaundiced bloc having taken so much beating during the Duterte Administration (remember the Ocho Deretso?), what appeared to be a super-strong partnership and made much stronger by the steely and alloyed resolve to hold on together with the President providing mentorship to his Veep (after all, Bongbong Marcos needs to train his understudy as he, under the 1987 Constitution, is barred from seeking reelection) and Sara Duterte (learning the basic ropes in statecraft and benefiting from 6-year internship which, by then, must have fortified her confidence level by 2028), succumbed to its own rust.
As Neil Young & Crazy Horse sang: Rust Never Sleeps.
And the rust was provided by the ambitions of those who cannot wait for 12 years—they wanted badly to be in the order of succession right after PBBM. Ergo, Veep Sara must be yanked out of the ruling party pronto!
Consequently, even before the midterm 2025 elections, the once formidable tandem—propelled by 32 million voters—was headed for the rocks. BBM and Sara Duterte must go separate ways. So today’s reality: unless lightning strikes them into a reunion, no human force can mend the fissure.
How It All Begun
Let it not skip our memory that the current political hullabaloo had been triggered by the House of Representatives as they deny the Office of the Vice President’s budgetary request for P500M confidential funds. The amount, the HOR felt, is not only unprecedented but irregular as well—the Veep being a mere spare tire in our constitutional order. So, deny the Veep, they did!
Ostensibly, the supporters of the Veep—the former President included, did not like what the House leadership did to the second highest official of the land specially over the Veep’s confidential funds. Thus, FPRRD challenged the House leadership to apply to itself the very measure it wants the Veep to be subjected to: accountability.
Put differently, the HOR should comply with their liquidation of expenses according to Hoyle. The former Chief Executive hollered: the HOR is the most corrupt agency in the government. It went ballistic saying that the HOR liquidates its expenses by way of a mere certification—a process agreed upon only by both chambers of Congress, and not in accord with COA’s auditing rules and procedures. Hence, improper, illegal, unconstitutional.
To date, the HOR has yet to comment on the constitutionality of its liquidation by certification—a mode that is outside the modes defined by the constitutionally-mandated state auditors: the COA.
Observers believe that FPRRD’s demand has constitutional moorings. It should be noted that the Executive and the Judicial departments both observe the requirements of the State Auditing Code of the Philippines. This Code is religiously complied with by the Constitutional Commissions—including the COA, and even the Ombudsman. What then is the constitutional basis of both chambers of Congress for excepting themselves from the constitutional coverage of COA’s auditing rules and regulations?
Laws and JurisprudenceLet’s revisit some laws and jurisprudence: The Administrative Code of 1987 (EO 292) provides: “Declaration of Policy. — All resources of the government shall be managed, expended, or utilized in accordance with law and regulations and safeguarded against loss or wastage through illegal or improper disposition to ensure efficiency, economy and effectiveness in the operations of government. The responsibility to take care that such policy is faithfully adhered to rests directly with the chief or head of the government agency concerned” (Book V, Title I, Subtitle B, Chapter 1, Section 1).
Section 2(7), of Chapter 1 thereof, defines “resources” as “the actual assets of any agency of the Government such as cash, instruments representing or convertible to money, receivables, lands, buildings, as well as contingent assets, such as estimated revenues applying to the current fiscal period not accrued or collected, and bonds authorized and unissued.”
Section 2(8): “‘Government agency’ or ‘agency of the government,’ or ‘agency’ refers to any department, bureaus or office of the National Government, or any of its branches and instrumentalities, or any political subdivision, as well as any government-owned or controlled corporation, including its subsidiaries, or other self-governing board or commission of the Government.”
That said, let us now listen to what the Supreme Court has said about the COA and its constitutional mandate, viz.: “(The) Commission on Audit is a constitutional agency vested with the power, authority and duty to examine, audit and settle all accounts pertaining to the revenue and receipts of and expenditures or uses of funds and property owned or held in trust by the government or any of its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities (Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. COA, 218 SCRA 203 [1993]).”
Further, it held: “The power of the Commission on Audit to audit and examine government expenditures is enshrined in Section 2(1), Article IX-D of the 1987 Constitution (National Housing Corporation v. COA, 226 SCRA 55 [1993]).”
Furthermore, it ruled that: “The Commission on Audit is a constitutionally-created independent and separate body, and neither Congress nor the Executive Department has the power to detract from its mandated duties, functions, and powers (DBP v. COA, G.R. No. 88435, promulgated January 16, 2002).”
Still, furthermore, the High Court said:
“The Constitution also granted to Commission on Audit the power to promulgate accounting and auditing rules and regulations including those for the prevention and disallowance of irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant or unconsciously expenditures (National Housing Corporation v. COA, Supra).”
In his book, The Administrative Code of 1987 Annotated, pp. 1093-1094, former Asst SolGen Renan E. Ramos, citing the Supreme Court ruling in Aguinaldo v. Sandiganbayan, 265 SCRA 121 [1996], wrote: “Commission on Audit’s approval of a government official’s disbursements only relates to the administrative aspect of the matter of his accountability but it does not foreclose the Ombudsman’s authority to investigate and determine whether there is a crime to be prosecuted for which such official is answerable.”
Thus, it is now beyond cavil that “The responsibility for state audit is vested by the Constitution on the Commission on Audit (Mamaril v. Domingo, 227 SCRA 206 [1993].”
And the “Commission on Audit shall have exclusive authority to define the scope of its audit and examination, establish the techniques and methods required therefore and promulgate accounting and auditing rules and regulations (Danville Maritime, Inc. v. COA, 175 SCRA 701 [1989]).”
Unfortunately—or as dictated by political one-upmanship geared towards 2028, there’s no responsive answer from the House leadership ever since that elder Duterte’s dare—only diversionary offensives.
Until, of late, Quad Committee—and just recently, the PenTaComm, were concocted—all HOR committees capable of uncovering skeletons bearing the footprints of the Dutertes were grouped into one multi-barreled noise machine.
And it seems, a responsive action to the former President’s challenge is not looming on the horizon.
In basketball, court tacticians are wont to say: “The best defense is offense.” This is what the House Speaker and his defenders did. And they’re doing it without let up—drowning every attempt to demand from the HOR full compliance of the COA liquidation procedures.
But if you still have any question why the House cannot just put the issue to rest by simply complying with the proper COA-prescribed liquidation procedures despite the conflagration that has torn apart the once formidable alliance— the UniTeam, listen to this: Because when that happens, that is, the COA puts its foot down and requires the HOR to apply the audit and liquidation procedures enforced in the Judiciary and the Executive, then the conflagration will inevitably shift its locale to the HOR Committee on Accounts—a domain where the spouse of the Speaker holds court. It will be too hot an environment for the well-protected lady.
So destroy the Veep—at all cost! The script must be pursued, the plan must be observed, and the impeachment charges against the Veep must be pressed. There shall be no let up—the campaign must be sustained. The charges need not hold water; the optics, after all, are what will matter.
