MANILA — A tense exchange over language erupted at the Senate impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte on Monday, August 17, after former Office of the Vice President (OVP) Special Disbursing Officer Gina Acosta was declared a hostile witness for the prosecution.
Senator-judge Erwin Tulfo questioned why Acosta appeared to have difficulty answering in Filipino during the proceedings, despite having previously responded in Filipino during a House inquiry into the OVP’s confidential funds.
Tulfo said he had reviewed transcripts of Acosta’s 2024 testimony before the House of Representatives and noted that she had been able to answer questions in Tagalog at the time.
The exchange came as Acosta faced questions concerning the controversial disbursement of confidential funds under Duterte’s tenure as vice president.
WHY WAS ACOSTA DECLARED A “HOSTILE WITNESS”?
The Senate impeachment court’s declaration was not based simply on Acosta’s use of Cebuano or her difficulty speaking Filipino.
Presiding officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero declared Acosta a hostile witness after the prosecution pointed to circumstances that could affect her relationship with the respondent, as well as statements she previously made in a counter-affidavit before the Office of the Ombudsman.
Acosta acknowledged that her current OVP position is coterminous with Duterte’s tenure. When asked whether she would lose her job if Duterte were removed from office, she answered that she would no longer have a position in the OVP.
Escudero also cited Acosta’s counter-affidavit, in which she reportedly stated that Duterte did not misuse confidential funds—an assertion that runs contrary to the prosecution’s position in the impeachment case.
Under the court’s ruling, the prosecution may ask leading questions of Acosta. However, Escudero stressed that this does not give prosecutors permission to ask misleading questions.
TULFO QUESTIONS ACOSTA’S LANGUAGE DIFFICULTY
During the proceedings, Tulfo questioned Acosta’s apparent difficulty understanding or answering in Filipino and English.
Acosta had been answering some questions in Cebuano and had sought permission to use the language during her testimony. The defense subsequently asked the impeachment court to provide an interpreter.
Escudero said interpreters are available when needed, while also noting that some senator-judges understand Bisaya.
Tulfo, however, pointed to Acosta’s previous testimony before the House, where she had answered questions in Filipino.
The senator-judge’s questioning quickly became one of the most talked-about moments of Day 16 of the impeachment trial. ABS-CBN, Inquirer, Manila Bulletin and other news organizations separately reported on the confrontation over Acosta’s language use.
THE BIGGER ISSUE: P500 MILLION IN OVP CONFIDENTIAL FUNDS
Beyond the language controversy, Acosta’s testimony is significant because she previously testified about the release of P500 million in OVP confidential funds in 2022 and 2023 to Colonel Raymund Lachica, then associated with Duterte’s security detail.
During Monday’s hearing, Acosta confirmed that Duterte had instructed her to release P125 million in 2022 to Lachica. She likewise confirmed the release of another P375 million in 2023.
Acosta explained that Lachica was considered knowledgeable about implementing confidential activities.
But the testimony also highlighted a potential issue under Joint Circular 2015-01, which governs the handling and use of confidential and intelligence funds.
Acosta acknowledged that disbursing confidential funds was the responsibility of the designated special disbursing officer—not the security officer receiving the funds.
She nevertheless said the money was released to Lachica because he was the designated security officer and that she required utilization reports after the funds were received.
ANOTHER REVELATION: NO SPECIFIC TARGETS?
Acosta also testified that the OVP’s 2022 Physical and Financial Plan did not contain specific targets for the confidential-fund activities being questioned.
The prosecution raised the issue because Joint Circular 2015-01 requires confidential and intelligence fund expenditures to be tied to an agency’s approved plans and programs.
Acosta said there were no specific numbers, locations or costs for surveillance operations listed in the plan at that point, explaining that it was still a plan and that the Special Allotment Release Order had only recently been issued.
WHY THIS MATTERS
The controversy surrounding Acosta’s testimony goes beyond her language preference.
She is simultaneously a current OVP employee whose position is tied to Duterte’s tenure, a former special disbursing officer who handled confidential funds, and now a prosecution witness whose previous statements have raised questions about her position on the alleged misuse of those funds.
The hostile-witness ruling gives prosecutors greater flexibility in questioning her, particularly through leading questions, while keeping the prohibition against misleading questions intact.
The developments are unfolding during Day 16 of the Senate impeachment trial, where Article I focuses on allegations involving the alleged systematic misuse, misappropriation and irregular liquidation of confidential funds connected to Duterte’s time at the OVP and Department of Education.
The case involves allegations concerning P500 million in OVP confidential funds and P112.5 million in DepEd confidential funds. These remain allegations being litigated before the impeachment court, and the proceedings have not themselves established Duterte’s guilt.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
With Acosta formally classified as a hostile witness, the prosecution can continue using leading questions to test her previous statements and testimony.
The bigger question now is whether her answers about the P500-million disbursement, Duterte’s alleged instructions, the role of Lachica, and the OVP’s financial plans will provide the prosecution with additional evidence—or expose inconsistencies that the defense can use to challenge the case.
And as the questioning continues, the language confrontation may prove to be only the opening salvo in what could become one of the most closely watched testimonies of the impeachment trial.
Leave a Reply