Day 22 Sara Duterte impeachment trial: When the confidential-fund names met the PSA

Mary Grace Piattos has no birth, marriage or death record in the Philippine Statistics Authority’s civil registry database.

PSA Assistant National Statistician Marizza Grande gave that testimony on September 7, Day 22 of Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial. Grande was called as a prosecution witness as the Senate impeachment court continued hearing Article I, which accuses Duterte of misuse, misappropriation and irregular liquidation of ?612.5 million in confidential funds. The amount covers ?500 million released to the Office of the Vice President in 2022 and 2023 and ?112.5 million released to the Department of Education in 2023. These remain allegations against Duterte.

What Grande brought to court was a government database check against the names appearing in confidential-fund records. The results were striking. They also need to be described precisely.

A name missing from the PSA database is a finding about the record searched. It is not, by itself, proof that a fictitious person received public money.

Here are five things worth keeping from Day 22.

1. PSA found no civil registry record for 1,685 names

The House’s official account of Grande’s testimony says the PSA checked 2,669 names from the OVP and DepEd confidential-fund payee lists.

For the OVP, 1,287 of 1,992 names yielded no birth, marriage or death record. For DepEd, 398 of 677 names yielded none of the three. Combined, that is 1,685 of 2,669 names, about 63 percent.

Grande said the PSA searched each name against birth, marriage and death records and classified the results as “single match,” “multiple matches” or “no record.” The official House account says she stood by the accuracy of the PSA verification and tabulation presented to the impeachment court.

That distinction matters. The verified fact is that the PSA found no record for 1,685 names. It did not testify that 1,685 fictitious people had been conclusively identified.

2. Some names had single matches with records of minors or people who had died

The PSA also rechecked names for which it found only one person with the same name in its civil registry records.

Grande testified that 37 such names corresponded to people with death certificates, 32 from the OVP list and five from DepEd. Another 25 single-match names corresponded to birth records of minors, 20 from the OVP list and five from DepEd.

One was Marlin Sunga. The only PSA record found under that name was for a person who died at two months old on November 2, 1965.

Beatrice Cuenca had a single birth-record match dated January 7, 2022. Mikay de los Reyes had one dated January 13, 2020. Grande also cited single matches for Fortunato Salig, Emilio Sagan and Rodolfo P. Traya, whose death certificates were dated 2011, 2015 and 2021, respectively.

But “single match” has a specific meaning. Prosecution legal spokesperson Jay Tolosa explained that it meant PSA had found only one person in its records bearing the same name as the one appearing on an acknowledgment receipt.

So the accurate statement is that receipt names matched PSA records belonging to minors or deceased persons. The PSA search did not establish that those minors or deceased persons were the people behind the confidential-fund transactions.

3. Mary Grace Piattos remains a “no record” name

Grande said she personally reverified several names in the PSA database.

Among the names for which she found no birth, marriage or death record were Arthur Baon, Beverly Claire Pampano, Matthew N. Keso, Maxine Callos and Charles Sampalok Jr. Mary Grace Piattos also had no record in any of those three categories.

That is as far as the PSA finding goes.

The prosecution argues that the results support its allegation of irregular liquidation. That is the prosecution’s position, not a finding of guilt by the impeachment court.

4. The defense said the names were aliases

Later in the hearing, Senator-judge Risa Hontiveros asked Duterte’s lawyers whether the names on the acknowledgment receipts were real names or aliases.

Defense lawyer Justin Gular replied: “these are in fact aliases.”

Both GMA News and the Philippine Daily Inquirer reported the statement from the hearing. Gular also said the defense would address the matter when it presents its evidence.

That changes the dispute around the PSA results. If a name on a receipt is an alias, a search for that alias in the civil registry may not identify the person behind it.

But the statement itself does not establish who used each alias or what transaction each alias represented. Gular told the court that the defense would deal with the issue during its own presentation of evidence.

Those questions therefore remained unresolved on Day 22.

5. The lawyers also fought over data privacy

During cross-examination, Gular questioned whether the people listed in the confidential-fund records had consented to the PSA search. Grande said the PSA did not consider individual consent necessary for the House investigation. GMA’s same-day report records the exchange between the defense and prosecution over the Data Privacy Act.

The law itself shows why consent is not the only issue.

Section 13 of Republic Act No. 10173 generally prohibits processing sensitive personal information but provides exceptions. Section 13(f) covers information necessary for protecting lawful rights and interests in court proceedings, establishing or defending legal claims, or information provided to a government or public authority.

The National Privacy Commission’s implementing rules state that this exception also covers information provided to a government or public authority pursuant to a constitutional or statutory mandate.

Day 22 therefore produced a legal argument over the PSA search. I found no official Day 22 record establishing that the impeachment court had ruled the PSA evidence unlawful or excluded it.

Two prosecution witnesses were dropped

There was another procedural development worth noting.

The House prosecution confirmed that it would no longer present Col. Raymund Dante Lachica and Col. Dennis Nolasco as its witnesses. Lead prosecutor Gerville Luistro told the court that the prosecution believed the evidence it had already presented was sufficient for its confidential-fund allegations. That is the prosecution’s assessment, not a ruling by the Senate impeachment court.

The prosecution also announced that it would next advance Article II, which concerns the alleged unexplained wealth of Duterte, ahead of Article III on alleged bribery. Luistro said Article III was not being waived, only presented later.

What netizens were saying

I am limiting the social-media section to comments that can be read directly on their original public posts. These reactions are examples, not a survey of Philippine opinion.

The Marlin Sunga testimony quickly became a focus of discussion on Reddit. In an r/Philippines thread about the two-month-old single match, one user wrote:

“Just this alone. How would you explain this and expect na makakalusot ka sa pinag gagawa mo.”

Another replied:

“”Confidential nga eh” – DDS probably”

Those are direct comments from the thread, not paraphrases.

The alias issue also drew questions in the Day 22 r/Philippines discussion. One commenter asked:

“Question: ano pa ang magiging silbi ng PSA kung ang argument ng defense ay mga alias lang ang ginamit sa receipts?”

Other commenters were already debating what the defense’s alias statement might mean for the PSA evidence.

These posts show some of the arguments circulating online, but they should not be turned into a sentiment score. Reddit users are self-selected, and publicly searchable Facebook, X and TikTok data do not provide a sound basis for claiming how Filipinos as a whole reacted.

What Day 22 changed

Day 22 put numbers behind a question that had followed the confidential-fund controversy for months: who were the names on the acknowledgment receipts?

The verified record now says that 1,685 of 2,669 names checked by the PSA had no birth, marriage or death record. Twenty-five names had single matches with birth records of minors. Thirty-seven had single matches with death records. Mary Grace Piattos had no record in any of the three categories. (Congress.gov.ph)

The record also contains an answer from the defense: the names were aliases.

Neither fact settles Article I.

The PSA results establish what its database did and did not contain. The defense’s statement establishes its position on the names. The Senate impeachment court still has to weigh those facts with the rest of the evidence before it.

For citizens following the trial, Day 22 gives us a more specific question to watch. If the defense relies on aliases to explain the PSA results, will the evidence it presents connect those aliases to actual recipients and lawful confidential-fund transactions?

That is the missing link to follow as the trial moves forward.