MCT IMPEACHMENT TRACKER: DAY 19 | THE QUESTIONS NOW LEAD TO LACHICA

These are my notes from the hearing. If I missed anything critical, please let me know. I will be happy to verify and correct it.

Day 19 did not answer the central question in the confidential-funds case: where did the money actually go?

It did, however, make the chain of responsibility clearer. Gina Acosta said she handed the cash to Col. Raymund Dante Lachica. Lemuel Ortonio said he helped answer the Commission on Audit, but did not inspect the supporting documents and had no personal knowledge of the payments. Both witnesses pointed toward Lachica when asked who knew how the operations were carried out.

At the same time, Ortonio identified Vice President Sara Duterte, as head of the agency, as the official with the greatest responsibility for the funds.

THE COURT DRAWS A LINE ON PUBLIC STATEMENTS

The hearing opened with Presiding Officer Francis Escudero ruling on statements made outside the impeachment court.

The issue arose from a complaint by defense lead counsel Sheila Sison about a Facebook post by prosecution lawyer Amando Ligutan. Ligutan said he was explaining a legal principle in his capacity as a law professor, not attacking the defense.

Escudero said Ligutan could continue teaching law, but must separate that role from his work as a prosecutor. He then announced that Rule 18 would be strictly enforced.

The rule bars public comments about the merits of the pending case by the presiding officer, senator-judges, prosecutors, defense lawyers, Vice President Duterte and witnesses.

Previous statements would not be punished. For future violations, the court set the following procedure and penalties:

- An alleged offender will be ordered to explain within 24 hours why they should not be cited for contempt.

- A first offense may bring a public reprimand and stern warning in open court.

- A second or succeeding offense may bring a fine of up to ₱30,000 for each violation.

- The court may restrict an offending lawyer from speaking, objecting or questioning witnesses.

- Lawyers may also be referred to the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines or the Supreme Court.

Escudero reminded the senator-judges that they may continue asking questions, but must do so with what he called "cold neutrality."

While the ruling was being announced, Duterte released a statement accusing the prosecution of relying on insults, speculation and political theatrics. Lead prosecutor Gerville Luistro brought it to the court's attention.

Escudero imposed no sanction because the statement was issued while he was still announcing that the rule would apply only to future conduct. He instructed Duterte's lawyers to remind their client that Rule 18 applies to her as well.

THE INITIAL REQUEST HAD NO SUPPORTING PLAN

Ortonio returned to the witness stand for his second day of testimony. He had already been declared a hostile witness after the prosecution argued that his position and answers were adverse to its case.

During cross-examination, Ortonio confirmed that the Office of the Vice President's August 2022 request for confidential funds did not include a Physical and Financial Plan. He said his understanding was that the rules did not require the plan to be attached to the initial request. Supporting documents were submitted later, in September.

That distinction matters. The testimony established that the plan was not submitted with the request. It did not conclusively establish when the plan itself was prepared.

Ortonio also emphasized that the Department of Budget and Management recommended the request and the Office of the President approved the release. But approval to release funds is different from proof that the money was later spent and liquidated according to the rules.

The Joint Circular on confidential and intelligence funds requires a Physical and Financial Plan approved by the agency head. The plan should state the estimated amount for each program, activity or project.

THE DEFENSE POINTS TO PRELIMINARY AUDIT FINDINGS

The defense asked Ortonio about the Audit Observation Memoranda and Notices of Suspension issued by COA. He agreed that these were not final audit decisions and said he could not remember them expressly using the word "misused."

An Audit Observation Memorandum flags a concern and asks an agency to explain or correct it. A Notice of Suspension temporarily holds an expense in question while documents or explanations are being evaluated. Neither one is a final ruling, but neither one clears the expense.

COA later issued formal Notices of Disallowance, which are decisions that certain expenditures should not be allowed and may have to be returned.

The ₱73.287 million disallowance covering the OVP's confidential spending in late 2022 is already final within COA, although it may still be challenged before the Supreme Court. A separate ₱375 million disallowance covering the first three quarters of 2023 remains under appeal within COA.

The two disallowances therefore do not have the same procedural status. Neither one, by itself, is an impeachment conviction. The Senate must still decide whether the evidence proves an impeachable offense.

ORTONIO LIMITS WHAT HE PERSONALLY KNEW

Ortonio repeatedly described a limited role. He said he did not personally withdraw or disburse the cash, implement the confidential activities, prepare the liquidation reports, record the individual expenses or witness payments to informants.

His involvement was mainly in preparing the OVP's replies to COA and serving as liaison with the auditors.

Under questioning, he acknowledged that he did not personally know how the money was spent and could not independently determine whether the claimed operations were legitimate. When asked who knew how the activities were carried out on the ground, he pointed to Lachica.

Ortonio also testified that Duterte knew about and authorized the confidential-fund process. He confirmed that the OVP's replies to COA were submitted to her for review and final approval.

THE DOCUMENTS STAYED INSIDE A SEALED BOX

Senator-Judge Sherwin Gatchalian asked Ortonio about the documents submitted to COA.

Ortonio said former OVP special disbursing officer Gina Acosta gave him the documentary evidence of payment inside a sealed box. He did not open it, inspect the acknowledgment receipts, or verify the names, signatures and amounts. He attached the sealed documents to the OVP's reply and submitted them to the auditors.

He said he acted only as a liaison and did not believe he was authorized to open confidential records. He also said he trusted Lachica because Duterte trusted Lachica to handle the operations.

This left a troubling gap. Ortonio helped prepare an official answer to COA, but could not personally vouch for the records used to support that answer.

LACHICA RECEIVED THE CASH BUT WAS NOT THE OVP'S DISBURSING OFFICER

Ortonio confirmed that Lachica was not an OVP employee. He was an Armed Forces officer assigned to lead the Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group.

He was also not the OVP's designated and bonded special disbursing officer. That position belonged to Acosta.

Acosta testified earlier that, on Duterte's instructions, she handed Lachica four tranches of ₱125 million, totaling ₱500 million from late 2022 through the third quarter of 2023. She could confirm handing him the cash, but could not personally say what happened to it afterward.

Ortonio initially distinguished Acosta's role in "disbursing" the funds from Lachica's role in "implementing" the confidential activities. After repeated questioning, he acknowledged that Lachica spent the money while carrying out those activities.

This is a key compliance question because the rules assign actual disbursement to the agency head or a designated and bonded special disbursing officer. Lachica was neither. COA's 2023 Notice of Disallowance named him among those liable because he received the cash despite not holding that designation.

THE MISSING RECEIPT

Escudero returned to Acosta's earlier testimony that Lachica initially signed a receipt acknowledging that he received the money. According to Acosta, that receipt was later taken back and was not among the records submitted to COA.

Ortonio said he did not know why it was taken back and did not ask for a copy.

If it still exists, that receipt could provide a direct documentary link between the special disbursing officer and the person who physically received the cash.

THE ALLEGED PAYMENTS TO INFORMANTS

Ortonio said his understanding was that Lachica released the funds to informants or agents involved in confidential activities. He did not witness those payments. Acosta also did not witness Lachica handing money to the people named in the acknowledgment receipts.

The direct testimony therefore establishes that Acosta handed the cash to Lachica. What happened between Lachica and the supposed recipients rests on Lachica's explanations and on documents later submitted for liquidation. Neither Acosta nor Ortonio independently verified that part of the money trail.

THE ₱122 MILLION MEDICINE QUESTION

Senators returned to the reported use of ₱122 million for medicine-related rewards or assistance: ₱40 million in late 2022, ₱42 million in the first quarter of 2023 and ₱40 million in the second quarter.

Ortonio said his understanding was that informants received cash and used it to buy medicines for themselves. He also admitted that he had no personal knowledge that the money was actually spent that way.

The Joint Circular permits rewards to informants, but the payments must be approved by the agency head, tied to a specific confidential activity and supported by records showing the result of the information-gathering or surveillance work. Calling a payment a reward does not establish that those requirements were met.

Senator-Judge Raffy Tulfo asked why the supposed medicine rewards included individual amounts such as ₱50,000, ₱170,000 and ₱200,000. Ortonio could not explain the figures from personal knowledge.

THE ₱40 MILLION ENTRY THAT DISAPPEARED

Senator-Judge Francis Pangilinan showed that a ₱40 million medicine-related entry in earlier accomplishment reports no longer appeared in the report for the third quarter of 2023.

COA issued an Audit Observation Memorandum on October 4, 2023. The third-quarter accomplishment report was dated October 9, five days later, and the ₱40 million entry was gone.

Pangilinan suggested that the report may have been changed after auditors raised concerns. Ortonio said he did not prepare the report and could not explain the omission.

The timing raises a legitimate question. It does not, on its own, prove that anyone deliberately falsified the report.

REPEATED PLANS AND DISPUTED ALIASES

Senator-Judge Panfilo Lacson compared Physical and Financial Plans from different periods and said they appeared to repeat the same general descriptions and amounts. He questioned whether the documents had simply been copied without identifying the operations that supposedly required the money.

The court has not ruled that the plans were fraudulent. Still, a lack of operational detail would make it harder to show that the amounts were based on distinct, carefully identified activities.

Senator-Judge Robin Padilla defended the use of aliases in dangerous or confidential work by citing historical figures who used pseudonyms. Senator-Judge Bam Aquino responded that using an alias is not the same as receiving confidential funds.

The real issue is not whether an informant may use an alias. It is whether the names in the receipts corresponded to real people who received government money for legitimate confidential operations. The Philippine Statistics Authority witness expected to address the identities had not yet testified by the end of Day 19.

WHO CARRIED THE GREATEST RESPONSIBILITY?

Senator-Judge Risa Hontiveros asked Ortonio who carried the greatest responsibility for the confidential funds. He answered that, as agency head, it was Duterte.

Under the Joint Circular, the agency head approves cash advances, oversees the use and disposition of confidential funds, maintains internal controls, approves liquidation and accomplishment reports, and ensures that supporting records are submitted.

The defense may argue that an agency head is entitled to rely on subordinates and security officers. That argument will have to be weighed against the responsibilities the rules assign directly to the head of the agency.

WILL LACHICA BE CALLED?

Several senator-judges questioned why the person repeatedly identified as the ground implementer had not been presented as a witness.

Senator-Judge Erwin Tulfo said Lachica should be called because Acosta and Ortonio kept pointing to him when asked who knew what happened to the money.

The prosecution had listed Lachica as a possible witness but had not decided whether to present him. Escudero explained that the court could not force either side to call a particular witness while each side was still presenting its main evidence. After that stage, the court may call or recall a witness and subpoena records on its own.

No order summoning Lachica was issued on Day 19.

WHAT COMES NEXT

The court approved a revised prosecution schedule.

Col. Manaros Boransing II and Col. Magtangol Panopio were scheduled for September 1. Maj. Gen. Adonis Bajao was removed from the list after difficulties locating and serving him with a subpoena.

Atty. Michael Wesley Poa and PSA Assistant National Statistician Marizza Grande were requested for September 2. Poa, a former Department of Education undersecretary and spokesperson under Duterte who is now part of her defense team, is expected to be questioned about DepEd's ₱112.5 million confidential funds. Grande is expected to address whether names in the confidential-fund records can be found in civil-registry databases.

The hearing adjourned at about 3:06 p.m. The next session was set for September 1 at 10:00 a.m.

THE NUMBERS IN CONTEXT

The OVP received ₱625 million in confidential funds from late 2022 through all four quarters of 2023. Article I of the impeachment case, however, examines ₱500 million from the OVP covering late 2022 through the first three quarters of 2023, plus ₱112.5 million from DepEd.

For the OVP portion, COA issued disallowances with a combined face value of ₱448.287 million:

- ₱73.287 million for late 2022, final within COA but still open to a Supreme Court challenge

- ₱375 million for the first three quarters of 2023, still under appeal within COA

A COA disallowance is an audit ruling, not an impeachment verdict. The Senate must make its own judgment on whether the proven conduct amounts to an impeachable offense, including betrayal of public trust.

WHAT DAY 19 LEFT US WITH

Day 19 made the chain easier to follow but did not complete it.

Acosta, the designated special disbursing officer, said she handed the cash to Lachica. Ortonio helped answer the auditors, but did not open the box of supporting records and could not personally confirm the payments. Both officials pointed to Lachica when asked who knew how the operations worked on the ground.

Ortonio also testified that Duterte knew about and authorized the process, reviewed the OVP's replies to COA and carried the greatest official responsibility as head of the agency.

None of this proves that Duterte or Lachica personally pocketed the money. It does not prove that every named recipient was fictitious, that every operation was invented or that an audit violation automatically becomes betrayal of public trust.

It does leave the impeachment court with a question that Day 19 could not answer: How did ₱500 million in confidential funds pass through the OVP when the officials who handled the cash and answered the auditors could not independently explain what happened after the money reached a military officer who was not the agency's designated disbursing officer?