MANILA, Philippines — The impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte took another dramatic turn on Tuesday after the Senate Impeachment Court declared Office of the Vice President (OVP) Assistant Secretary and Assistant Chief of Staff Lemuel Ortonio a hostile witness, giving House prosecutors greater latitude to question him about the handling of the office’s confidential funds.
The ruling came during the 18th day of Duterte’s impeachment trial, as prosecutors pursued allegations involving the alleged misuse of P612.5 million in confidential funds allocated to the OVP and the Department of Education during Duterte’s tenure. Of that amount, P500 million went to the OVP, while P112.5 million was allocated to DepEd.
Presiding officer Sen. Francis “Chiz” Escudero declared Ortonio hostile after he confirmed that he remains employed by the OVP and that his appointment is coterminous with Duterte’s term.
In practical terms, the designation allows prosecutors to ask leading questions during direct examination, a significant procedural advantage when questioning a witness whose interests may be considered adverse to the prosecution.
Escudero said the court considered Ortonio’s employment relationship with Duterte in determining that he had an adverse interest in the proceedings. Inquirer likewise reported that Ortonio’s position is tied to Duterte’s tenure in office.
WHO IS LEMUEL ORTONIO?
Ortonio is not an outsider to Duterte’s political and government career.
According to GMA News, he previously served as Davao City’s head of Human Resources Management Office from 2018 to 2022 and headed the Davao City Promotions Center from 2016 to 2018.
He also served as Duterte’s chief of staff when she was Davao City vice mayor from 2008 to 2010.
His current position as OVP assistant chief of staff is coterminous with the Vice President’s term, which runs until June 30, 2028.
That long working relationship became central to the court’s decision to treat him as a hostile witness.
THE P500-MILLION CONFIDENTIAL-FUNDS TRAIL
Ortonio’s testimony comes at a critical point in the prosecution’s presentation of its case.
The House prosecution has been examining how P500 million in OVP confidential funds was withdrawn and subsequently handled.
According to Inquirer, Ortonio allegedly accompanied former OVP special disbursing officer Gina Acosta when the funds were encashed at LandBank’s Shaw Boulevard branch. The P500 million was withdrawn in four tranches of P125 million between late 2022 and the third quarter of 2023.
The cash withdrawals had already emerged as a major issue in the testimony of other witnesses.
In earlier proceedings, a LandBank witness testified that OVP personnel arranged the large cash withdrawals and that Ortonio introduced Acosta to the bank representative. Inquirer also reported testimony that the cash was transported in several gym bags.
And on Tuesday, Ortonio himself confirmed during direct examination that he had accompanied Acosta when she encashed confidential-fund checks.
ANOTHER KEY ISSUE: THE OVP’S FINANCIAL PLAN
The hearing also placed the OVP’s request for confidential funds under scrutiny.
News5 reported that Ortonio acknowledged that the OVP requested confidential funds even though it had not yet formally submitted a detailed physical and financial plan describing the planned confidential activities.
He said the office already had programs in mind when Duterte began her term in July 2022, but documents submitted to the Department of Budget and Management did not yet contain detailed particulars of those activities.
That exchange could become important because the prosecution is attempting to establish how the confidential funds were requested, released, withdrawn and ultimately accounted for.
ORTONIO IS NOW THE SECOND HOSTILE WITNESS
Ortonio is the second prosecution witness to receive the hostile-witness designation in the impeachment proceedings.
The first was former OVP special disbursing officer Gina Acosta, whose testimony has focused heavily on the P500 million in confidential funds.
Acosta previously testified that she released the money to former OVP security chief Col. Raymund Lachica, allegedly following an instruction from Duterte.
Her testimony has been fiercely examined by both sides, including questions over acknowledgment receipts and alleged recipients of confidential-fund disbursements.
Philstar reported that prosecutors had presented receipts bearing names such as “Antonio Pagong,” “Timon Andrew Pusa,” “Don Piang” and “Shane Ngitngit,” while Acosta repeatedly maintained that she personally did not witness what happened to the funds after turning them over.
WHY THE HOSTILE-WITNESS RULING MATTERS
The designation does not mean the court has found Ortonio guilty of wrongdoing, nor does it establish that Duterte misused public funds.
Instead, it is a procedural ruling that gives the prosecution more flexibility in questioning a witness whose position or interests may be considered adverse to the party presenting the witness.
The significance lies in what prosecutors may be able to extract from Ortonio under more pointed questioning — particularly concerning the request, withdrawal, movement and documentation of OVP confidential funds.
The prosecution has been building its Article I case around allegations of systematic misuse and irregular liquidation of confidential funds.
THE NEXT BIG QUESTION
The prosecution’s presentation of evidence is moving beyond the OVP and toward confidential funds associated with DepEd during Duterte’s time as education secretary.
The House has announced that three current and former AFP officers — Col. Manaros Boransing II, Col. Magtangol Panopio and Maj. Gen. Adonis Bajao — have been subpoenaed to testify regarding the alleged handling of P112.5 million in DepEd confidential funds.
That means Ortonio’s testimony could be only one part of a much larger effort by prosecutors to trace where confidential funds went and whether the documentation supporting their liquidation was legitimate.
For Duterte’s defense, the coming testimony could provide an opportunity to challenge the prosecution’s interpretation of the documents and witnesses.
For prosecutors, meanwhile, the stakes are considerably higher: they must establish their allegations with evidence strong enough to withstand cross-examination and ultimately persuade the senator-judges.
The biggest question now is whether Ortonio’s testimony will strengthen the prosecution’s cash-trail narrative — or create another opening for the defense to challenge the impeachment case.
This report is based on the latest available reporting as of August 25, 2026. Allegations presented during the impeachment trial remain allegations unless established by the Senate Impeachment Court.
Leave a Reply