Day 19 of Sara Duterte Impeachment Trial: Who Checked the Receipts?

“At that time po, Sir, I was not able to see the acknowledgement receipts, Sir.”

That was Office of the Vice President Assistant Chief of Staff Lemuel Ortonio answering Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian on Day 19 of Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial.

Ortonio said documentary evidence of payments had been handed to him by former special disbursing officer Gina Acosta in a sealed box. He submitted the documents to the Commission on Audit (COA) as part of the OVP’s response to an Audit Observation Memorandum, but did not open the package or examine the acknowledgment receipts himself.

That left senator-judges with a basic question: If an OVP official helping answer COA’s audit findings did not examine the supporting documents, who did?

Day 19 also dealt with what lawyers and senator-judges may say outside the courtroom, the P122 million reportedly given to informants to buy medicines, the use of aliases in confidential operations, and the witnesses who may fill some of the gaps in the coming hearings.

Here are five highlights.

1. The impeachment court will enforce Rule 18

Presiding Officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero ordered stricter enforcement of Rule 18 of the Senate impeachment rules, which bars the person impeached, senator-judges, prosecutors, lawyers and witnesses from publicly commenting on the merits of the pending case. Statements cited from before the ruling would not be penalized. Escudero also reminded Duterte’s defense team that the restriction applies to the Vice President.

Under the rule announced by Escudero, a first offense will bring a reprimand and stern admonition in open court. Subsequent offenses will carry a P30,000 fine.

The ruling followed a dispute over prosecution lawyer Amando Virgil Ligutan’s Facebook post about whether misleading questions are allowed during cross-examination. Ligutan told the court that his “teacher’s instinct” prompted him to post. Escudero told him that while being a teacher remains part of who he is, he has to “unbundle and decouple” that role while acting as counsel in the impeachment case.

2. Ortonio submitted records he had not examined

The more consequential exchange came when senator-judges questioned Ortonio about the OVP’s response to COA.

Ortonio said Duterte instructed him to prepare the response to the Audit Observation Memorandum in consultation with then security chief Col. Raymund Lachica. But when Acosta gave him the documentary evidence of payments, the records were already sealed. He said he submitted them without looking at the acknowledgment receipts.

Gatchalian asked what would happen if the documents were fake or if Lachica’s account was not true. Ortonio said he trusted Lachica because Duterte had given the security officer her trust and confidence to carry out confidential activities. Senator Francis Pangilinan then pressed Ortonio on how he could know what he was submitting if he had not opened the package.

This does not by itself prove that the receipts were false. What it establishes is that Ortonio, despite helping prepare the OVP’s audit response, testified that he did not personally verify the supporting records.

3. Ortonio said Duterte and Lachica knew how the funds were spent

Asked who knew how the confidential funds were actually spent, Ortonio pointed to Duterte and Lachica.

When asked whether Duterte knew, Ortonio said: “The way I understand it, as the head of the agency, I would understand that she knows the implementation.”

Escudero later clarified whether Ortonio was saying that Duterte and Lachica knew how the confidential funds were spent and liquidated even though Ortonio and OVP Chief of Staff Zuleika Lopez did not. Ortonio answered yes.

That testimony needs to be stated carefully. Ortonio did not present personal knowledge of each transaction. In fact, he also told the impeachment court that he had no personal knowledge of how the confidential funds were disbursed or used.

The prosecution and defense will still have to establish what Duterte and Lachica actually knew, approved or directed through testimony and documentary evidence.

4. Senator-judges questioned the P122 million for medicines

Senator-judge Raffy Tulfo questioned Ortonio about P122 million in confidential funds reportedly used to buy medicines as rewards for informants.

Ortonio said he did not ask Lachica how the medicines were purchased and trusted what the security officer told him. When Tulfo asked whether it was Ortonio’s responsibility to know, the witness said he was not sure. Tulfo responded: “It defies logic talaga, really, Sir. You’re not really making sense at all.”

The exchange matters because it separates two questions that can easily get mixed together. One is whether confidential informants may receive money in connection with confidential operations. The other is whether these particular expenditures, supporting records and methods of liquidation complied with government rules.

Day 19 did not settle that legal question. It showed how little Ortonio said he personally knew about what happened after the money reached Lachica and the informants.

5. From Katipunan aliases to “Mary Grace Piattos”

The unusual names appearing on OVP acknowledgment receipts returned to the discussion when senator-judge Robinhood Padilla defended the use of aliases in confidential activities. He cited aliases used by Philippine heroes and revolutionaries and later referred to Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino Jr.’s use of “Marcial Bonifacio.”

Senator-judge Bam Aquino responded that his uncle did use the name Marcial Bonifacio when returning to the Philippines, but added that Ninoy Aquino did not have confidential funds or appear on confidential-fund acknowledgment receipts.

There is an important distinction here. The impeachment court has heard allegations and questions about names such as “Mary Grace Piattos,” but Day 19 did not establish through Philippine Statistics Authority testimony that all disputed identities were fictitious.

That verification is still ahead. The prosecution plans to present PSA Assistant National Statistician Marizza Grande to testify on whether the identities appearing in OVP confidential-fund liquidation documents are reflected in government records.

Netizen reactions: divided even among impeachment watchers

Online reaction should not be confused with public opinion. A Reddit impeachment megathread is a self-selected group of people following the proceedings, but it does give us a glimpse of what engaged viewers were arguing about during Day 19.

Ligutan’s Facebook explanation divided commenters. One Reddit user who said they generally sided with the prosecution still criticized his “I’m a teacher” explanation and welcomed Escudero’s reminder about court rules. Another commenter took the opposite view, saying Ligutan’s post had helped non-lawyers understand the rule on misleading questions.

Others thought the defense had given Ligutan’s post more attention by raising it in court. One commenter described the episode as an example of the Streisand effect, where an attempt to challenge or suppress attention can end up drawing more attention to the original issue.

Lachica was another point of debate. Some commenters wondered why the prosecution appeared reluctant to present him, while others saw the decision as trial strategy. One commenter said his testimony could “make or break their case.” These are opinions from individual users, not evidence about what Lachica would actually say.

The same caution applies to memes about Piattos, Ninoy Aquino and Katipunan aliases. They may make the courtroom exchanges easier to share, but they do not answer the evidentiary question the impeachment court still has to resolve.

The next test is the record

Day 19 exposed a gap in the OVP’s handling of its audit response: an assistant chief of staff who helped prepare the reply to COA testified that he sent supporting documents without examining the acknowledgment receipts inside. At the same time, the court has not yet heard the PSA witness who is supposed to check whether the disputed recipient identities appear in government records.

The next hearings give citizens specific claims to watch.

Michael Poa, a member of Duterte’s defense team and a former Department of Education undersecretary, is expected to testify about the DepEd’s P112.5 million confidential funds. Grande is expected to address the identities in the OVP liquidation documents. Colonels Manaros Boransing II and Magtangol Panopio have also been scheduled to testify.

And then there is Lachica. Senator-judge Erwin Tulfo called him the “missing link” because several witnesses have repeatedly referred to him. Escudero said that if neither the prosecution nor the defense presents Lachica, the impeachment court itself has the discretion to call him.

So before sharing the next viral claim that an alias has already been proven fake, that an expenditure has already been proven legal, or that the case has already been won or lost, check what the witnesses actually said under oath.

The record should come before the meme.