All sessions
Published recap
Impeachment Trial - Day 16
The impeachment court granted OVP staffer Lemuel Ortonio's request to be excused from this week's hearings for a PRC psychologist licensure exam, and the Presiding Officer stated a subpoena will issue for his appearance on Monday. The former special disbursing officer of the Office of the Vice President testified that she personally encashed the ₱125 million confidential-fund cash advance on December 20, 2022 and released it to Colonel Lachica on the Vice President's instruction, while prosecution counsel alleged the OVP withdrew all ₱500 million as cash across four dates and left it unliquidated. The record also gained stipulated OVP–CGGPA correspondence and preliminary background testimony from the disbursing-officer witness.
Last updated:
Transcript status: Machine-cleanedGo to the transcript in SenateHearingTranscripts
Session record
Claims introduced or updated
- A new standing claim card, "Acosta witness background," was opened to record the preliminary background testimony of the OVP former special disbursing officer, including her statement that this was her second time testifying after a November appearance before the House of Representatives and that she has received no criminal or administrative complaint related to the use of confidential funds; the card is unverified.
- On "The ₱612.5M confidential-funds charge" card, the record now carries the former special disbursing officer's testimony that she personally encashed the ₱125 million cash advance on December 20, 2022 and released it to Colonel Lachica on Vice President Sara Duterte's instruction, alongside prosecution counsel's allegation that the full ₱500 million was withdrawn as cash on four dates and left unliquidated.
- On the "COA witness: Joint Circular 2015-01 requires strict compliance" card, the record now reflects the witness's confirmation that no confidential funds may be released without a Physical and Financial Plan and that the OVP complied for the fourth quarter of 2022, together with the Presiding Officer's statement for the record that the circular does not specifically require details in the PFP.
Evidence & exhibits
- Prosecution counsel identified as stipulated documents Vice President Sara Duterte's September 23, 2024 letter to CGGPA Chairperson Joel Chua stating she would not attend the committee deliberations and requesting termination of the inquiry, and the October 7, 2024 letter of OVP Undersecretary and Chief of Staff Zuleika T. Lopez to the same chairperson.
- Prosecution counsel showed the witness an image that counsel stated was an AI-generated simulated representation of ₱125 million, to which defense counsel objected on the ground that no proper basis had been laid for it as an accurate representation.
- Prosecution counsel offered to prove the qualification of witness Pareja as a 27-year House employee and Service Director of the Legislative Archives and Museum Management Service, with defense counsel stipulating to the witness's current position and the repository function of the House Archives.
Court rulings
- The Presiding Officer stated for the record that Joint Circular 2015-01 does not specifically require details in the Physical and Financial Plan, noting the details appear in the documents submitted with the liquidation.
- The Presiding Officer stated that the court received Mr. Lemuel Ortonio's August 13 letter requesting to be excused from this week's hearings to take a PRC-administered psychologist licensure exam and granted the request.
- The Presiding Officer stated the court will issue a subpoena for Mr. Ortonio to attend the hearing on Monday after his licensure exam.
Open questions
- What will the record show when Mr. Ortonio appears under the subpoena the court will issue for Monday?
- Will the impeachment court rule on the defense objection to the AI-generated simulated money prop before further testimony on the ₱125 million?
- What additional evidence will the prosecution present on whether the ₱500 million in confidential funds was liquidated?
- How will the stipulated OVP–CGGPA correspondence and the House Archives records be developed in later sessions?