Senator-judge Raffy Tulfo sharply confronted former Office of the Vice President (OVP) special disbursing officer Gina Acosta during Day 17 of Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial, questioning why apparent red flags in confidential-fund documents did not prompt her to demand further verification.
Tulfo’s most striking remark came after Acosta explained that she relied on former OVP security officer Col. Raymund Dante Lachica, whom she said was responsible for implementing confidential activities on the ground.
“You are stupid in the name of blind loyalty,” Tulfo told Acosta, arguing that an ordinary person handling government funds should have questioned documents containing unusual names and what appeared to be identical signatures.
The receipts that raised Tulfo’s questions
During the hearing, prosecutors presented acknowledgment receipts connected to the OVP’s confidential funds.
Among the names appearing in the documents were Antonio Pagong, who was listed as receiving ₱100,000 for information; Timon Andrew Pusa, ₱100,000 for transport rental; Don Piang, ₱250,000; Shane Ngitngit, ₱150,000; and Xuniso P. Belat, ₱100,000.
Tulfo questioned why Acosta did not immediately challenge the unusual entries, particularly documents where different names allegedly appeared alongside the same signature.
Acosta said she had raised the issue with Lachica, but was told the information involved sensitive and confidential operations. She maintained that Lachica was the officer tasked with implementing the activities on the ground.
That explanation prompted Tulfo’s “blind loyalty” remark.
Acosta, meanwhile, responded that she did not understand what the senator-judge meant.
Acosta says she relied on Lachica to account for the money
The exchange was part of a much broader examination of how the OVP handled its confidential funds during Duterte’s tenure.
Acosta testified that ₱500 million in confidential funds was released to Lachica, covering one ₱125-million release in December 2022 and three ₱125-million releases in 2023.
She said Lachica was responsible for implementing the confidential operations and that she relied on documents he submitted when preparing liquidation reports.
Acosta also acknowledged that she did not personally witness Lachica handing money to the supposed recipients listed in the acknowledgment receipts.
This became a central point of questioning because Acosta was the accountable officer, even though she said she was not physically present when the alleged transactions occurred.
A bigger issue: Where are the original documents?
Another significant development emerged during the hearing: Acosta testified that Lachica took back the acknowledgment receipts after the liquidation documents had been prepared and submitted to the Commission on Audit (COA).
According to her testimony, Lachica had signed documents acknowledging receipt of the confidential funds, but later retrieved those documents after Acosta completed the liquidation process.
Acosta said the process was also used during Duterte’s time as Davao City mayor.
The testimony raised questions from prosecutors about how the government could independently verify the actual movement and eventual recipients of the cash if the documents used to establish the fund releases were no longer in the OVP’s possession.
Acosta also admitted she did not know why Sara Duterte chose her
Earlier in the same hearing, Acosta acknowledged that she did not know why Duterte selected her to serve as special disbursing officer despite her lack of formal training for the role.
She had served as an SDO in Davao City and later at the OVP, where she became responsible for handling confidential-fund transactions.
The testimony therefore put the spotlight not only on the unusual names appearing in the receipts, but also on the chain of responsibility surrounding the release, documentation and liquidation of hundreds of millions of pesos in confidential funds.
The “blind loyalty” clash is only one piece of the impeachment fight
The Senate impeachment court is examining allegations involving the use of confidential funds under Duterte’s OVP and Department of Education tenure. Acosta has been presented by the House prosecution as a hostile witness.
The prosecution has also been considering whether to call Lachica to testify, particularly because Acosta repeatedly identified him as the person who implemented the confidential activities and supplied documentation for the expenditures.
For now, Tulfo’s confrontation has become one of the most striking moments of the trial—but the larger question remains unresolved:
If an accountable government officer did not personally witness the transactions, relied on another official’s explanations, and no longer possessed some of the key receipts, how can the public be assured that the confidential funds were actually spent as reported?
That question could become increasingly important as the impeachment proceedings move deeper into the paper trail surrounding the OVP’s confidential funds.
Leave a Reply