The sanctity of confidential and intelligence funds (CIF) is paramount for any government aiming to safeguard its security and sovereignty, both on a national and international scale. These funds act as the silent backbone of state security operations, allowing intelligence agencies and security forces to preempt, counter, and neutralize threats that could destabilize the nation.

Without these funds, governments lose their ability to maneuver discreetly and effectively in the face of emerging challenges.

Powerful nations allocate immense resources to their intelligence budgets, reflecting the significance of confidential operations in securing state interests:

1. United States: The U.S. spends approximately $90 billion annually on its intelligence community, covering the CIA, NSA, and other clandestine agencies. These funds are pivotal for global surveillance, counterterrorism, and cyber defense.

2. Russia: Russia’s intelligence funding is not fully transparent, but estimates place it at several billion dollars annually. Agencies like the FSB and GRU use these resources for covert operations, cyber warfare, and counter-respionage.

3. China: China allocates over $20 billion for intelligence activities, focusing on cyber espionage, global influence operations, and internal security through agencies like the Ministry of State Security.

These figures underscore how first-world nations rely heavily on intelligence funding to safeguard their national interests. In popular culture, spy novels and action flicks often depict scenarios where sensitive information, such as a list of covert agents, is SOLD TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER and falls into the hands of enemies, highlighting the real-life consequences of intelligence breaches.

Here and now, the ongoing scrutiny of the confidential funds of the Office of the Vice President (OVP) by the House of Representatives has ignited a debate fraught with potential risks to national security. While Congress has the constitutional duty to ensure fiscal responsibility, this inquiry must be approached with EXTREME CAUTION. The exposure of CIF details to public scrutiny could pave the way for both domestic and foreign adversaries to EXPLOIT state vulnerabilities.

The danger is NOT theoretical.

The CPP-NPA-NDF, the country’s longest-running internal security threat, stands to gain significantly from any intelligence exposure. These groups, along with their urban collaborators and political operators, thrive on information leaks that compromise state security. For them, details of intelligence operations provide a roadmap to counter government efforts, endangering operatives and derailing anti-insurgency campaigns.

Moreover, FOREIGN POWERS with vested interests in the Philippines’ political, economic, and military affairs would also benefit. These nations could exploit vulnerabilities exposed by CIF disclosures, advancing their agendas at the expense of the Philippines’ sovereignty. Whether through cyber intrusions, diplomatic manipulations, or covert operations, these foreign entities represent a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER.

Whether different agencies, including the OVP, AFP, and PNP, fund the same informants or covert operatives raises valid concerns about potential duplicity and redundancy. However, the exposure of such details could jeopardize not only the agents involved but also the integrity of ongoing operations. For example, revealing an agent's multiple aliases or funding sources—such MAYBE as "Mary Jane Piattos"—could compromise their safety and effectiveness.

Lawmakers must consider that some issues, while intriguing, involve state secrets. Disclosing sensitive information would give enemies of the state, including terrorist organizations and hostile foreign powers, a strategic advantage. Once these secrets are exposed, the damage is irreversible.

I recall the controversy surrounding the AFP’s intelligence funds 13 years ago. It serves to me as a sobering reminder for all of us. The late Angelo Reyes, a respected military leader, took his own life amid allegations surrounding military intelligence funds. His tragic decision underscored the weight of protecting institutional integrity and state security.

This incident should caution lawmakers against inadvertently undermining the very institutions they seek to oversee. By exposing the CIF of the OVP, they risk creating a VERY BAD AND DANGEROUS PRECEDENT that could unravel the entire intelligence and security framework of the Republic, including that of Congress.

This issue is more than a budgetary debate—it is a potential flashpoint for undermining national security. The principle of securitization emphasizes that security concerns transcend politics and governance errors. Our honorable lawmakers must be reminded to exercise prudence and circumspection, that they are stepping on a very SLIPPERY SLOPE.

As a public safety and security governance practitioner, I most respectfully enjoin them to recognize that exposing CIF details is a "one-shot deal" with no turning back.

Should the CIF issue spiral out of control, it could erode not only the credibility of the OVP but also the security frameworks of the AFP, PNP, and other agencies. If confidential funds become subject to public scrutiny, it provides a free ticket for adversaries—domestic insurgents, foreign powers, and even rogue elements within—to exploit these vulnerabilities.

In the end, the government stands to lose everything while its enemies, internal and external, gain the upper hand. The integrity of the Republic depends on preserving the confidentiality of its intelligence apparatus, for once it is compromised, the nation faces an existential threat.