MANILA, Philippines — Political debate in the Philippines intensified after former commissioner Rowena Guanzon publicly defended Sara Duterte amid continuing discussions surrounding impeachment complaints filed against the vice president.

During a recent livestream on Facebook, Guanzon addressed accusations circulating online that Duterte allegedly “stole” public funds linked to confidential allocations during her tenure. Speaking bluntly, the former official—who previously served in both the Commission on Audit (COA) and the Commission on Elections (Comelec)—argued that many critics misunderstand how government financial reporting works.

Guanzon stressed that failing to properly liquidate funds does not automatically mean theft. According to her, the COA audit reports indicated that the confidential funds in question had been liquidated and accounted for.

She pointed out that the audit body reportedly issued what is known as an “unmodified opinion,” a term used in government auditing to indicate that financial statements are fairly presented according to established standards.

The former commissioner’s remarks were delivered in strong language, criticizing those who continue to accuse Duterte of corruption despite the audit findings. She also claimed that some narratives surrounding the issue were politically motivated, suggesting that critics wanted to portray Duterte in the same light as other political figures accused of wrongdoing.

The controversy arises at a time when political divisions in the country remain highly visible, especially on social media where allegations and counter-arguments spread rapidly. In such an environment, statements from prominent figures often amplify public debate rather than resolve it.

While Guanzon’s defense relies on technical explanations about audit procedures, critics of the vice president argue that questions about confidential funds involve broader concerns about transparency and accountability in government spending.

Ultimately, the issue reflects a recurring challenge in democratic societies: distinguishing between legal findings, political interpretation, and public perception.

As political arguments grow louder and more polarized, one question becomes increasingly important.

When political debates rely on technical issues like audits and financial reports, how can the public separate factual findings from narratives shaped by political loyalty or opposition?

(Larawan mula sa: Rappler)