MANILA, Philippines — Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial took another dramatic turn after a senior Office of the Vice President official testified that Duterte knew about the activities involving hundreds of millions of pesos in confidential funds—while prosecutors and the defense clashed over an explosive attempt to describe her as the operation’s alleged “architect” and “mastermind.”
The Senate impeachment court ultimately ordered those loaded terms removed from the official record, underscoring a crucial distinction: they were characterizations made by the prosecution, not conclusions reached by the court.
But after the controversial wording was stripped away, a potentially consequential piece of testimony remained.
OVP Assistant Secretary and Assistant Chief of Staff Lemuel Ortonio, appearing as a hostile witness on August 25, told the impeachment court that Duterte knew about the confidential activities and how they were being implemented.
The Question That Triggered a Courtroom Clash
Private prosecutor Mae Divinagracia pressed Ortonio on Duterte’s involvement in the OVP’s confidential-fund system.
After testimony concerning Duterte’s approval of fund-related documents and transactions, Divinagracia attempted to characterize the Vice President as the “architect” and “mastermind” of the confidential-funds matter.
Defense lawyer Kristine Ferrer immediately objected, asking that the language be removed from the record.
Senate President and presiding officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero sustained the objection and reformulated the question around what Duterte actually knew, supervised, permitted or authorized.
Ortonio responded that, based on his knowledge and understanding, Duterte knew about the confidential activities and how they were implemented.
That distinction could become important as senator-judges eventually weigh the prosecution’s evidence against the defense’s case.
‘Scam’ Remark Also Removed From Record
The dispute over “mastermind” was not the only heated exchange.
Divinagracia had earlier questioned the different explanations reportedly submitted by the OVP to the Commission on Audit regarding its confidential-fund expenditures and used the terms “scam” and “nagsisinungaling,” or lying.
The defense again objected.
Escudero granted the motion to strike the language, later agreeing that prosecutors should avoid inflammatory or prejudicial terminology during the proceeding. Senator-judge Alan Peter Cayetano similarly cautioned lawyers about language that could effectively label a party before the court has reached a judgment.
Divinagracia apologized for getting carried away by the prosecution’s zeal while defending the panel’s effort to forcefully present its case.
OVP Asked for ₱250 Million Before Spending Plan Was Submitted
Beyond the courtroom rhetoric, Ortonio’s testimony raised a more substantive issue about how the OVP sought confidential funds shortly after Duterte assumed office in 2022.
Ortonio confirmed that the OVP requested ₱250 million in confidential funds in August 2022, while the corresponding physical and financial plan was prepared and submitted almost a month later.
Philstar reported that Duterte signed the August 22, 2022 request. According to the testimony, the confidential-fund portion of that request did not include supporting computations, projections or a physical and financial plan at that stage.
The plan was dated September 16, 2022 and subsequently submitted to the Department of Budget and Management.
Under the 2015 joint circular governing confidential and intelligence funds, allocations are supposed to be supported by a physical and financial plan showing proposed expenditures for programs, activities and projects. GMA News noted during its coverage that the guidelines do not provide for the kind of belated submission described in Ortonio’s testimony.
The prosecution is using that sequence to question whether the amount was determined before the OVP had fully laid out how the confidential money would be spent.
The defense, however, has maintained throughout the trial that prosecutors have not established misuse of the confidential funds and has previously characterized some prosecution assertions as theories or conclusions that still need to be proven before the impeachment court.
₱125 Million Released—and the 11-Day Spending Question
Although the OVP originally sought ₱250 million, it eventually received ₱125 million in confidential funds for 2022.
Ortonio testified that the ₱125 million used during an 11-day period covered obligations connected with activities from preceding months, according to ABS-CBN and other reports on the proceeding.
The speed with which that first tranche was spent has become one of the recurring issues in the impeachment case.
Prosecutors have argued that the timing, paperwork and liquidation surrounding the confidential funds deserve heightened scrutiny.
The defense disputes the implication that unusual procedures automatically establish wrongdoing.
OVP Aide Says He Used ₱150,000 of His Own Money
Another unusual detail emerged when Ortonio testified that he personally advanced ₱150,000 for what he described as urgent confidential-fund expenses and was never reimbursed.
According to testimony reported by GMA News and ABS-CBN, former OVP special disbursing officer Gina Acosta approached Ortonio concerning an urgent request linked to then-OVP security official Col. Raymund Lachica.
Ortonio said he provided the money from his personal funds.
The episode adds another layer to prosecutors’ effort to reconstruct how confidential operations were financed, documented and liquidated inside the Vice President’s office.
Why ₱612.5 Million Is at the Center of the Impeachment Case
The controversy extends beyond the initial ₱125-million OVP allocation.
The impeachment prosecution is examining a total of ₱612.5 million in confidential funds associated with Duterte’s offices—₱500 million involving the Office of the Vice President and ₱112.5 million involving the Department of Education during Duterte’s tenure as education secretary.
Earlier testimony from LandBank officials traced the release and cash withdrawal of those funds, according to Philstar.
The prosecution’s case includes allegations involving the handling, spending and liquidation of those confidential funds.
Duterte’s lawyers have rejected allegations of misuse and maintain that the prosecution still carries the burden of proving the impeachment charges.
What Ortonio’s Testimony Does—and Does Not—Prove
Ortonio’s testimony could be significant because it connects Duterte directly to knowledge and authorization of the confidential-fund activities.
It does not, by itself, amount to a judicial finding that Duterte committed corruption, personally benefited from the money, orchestrated a “scam” or was legally the “mastermind” of wrongdoing.
Those are precisely the kinds of conclusions the impeachment court has yet to determine.
That is why Escudero’s decision to strike inflammatory terminology matters: the Senate is functioning as an impeachment court, and the ultimate question is not which side produces the most dramatic description but whether the evidence proves the constitutional charges against the Vice President.
As of August 26, the proceeding had reached Day 19, with Duterte’s defense scheduled to cross-examine Ortonio after the prosecution completed its direct examination.
The testimony now leaves the defense with a critical task: explain whether Duterte’s acknowledged knowledge and authorization of the confidential-fund operations can be reconciled with its argument that the funds were properly handled.
And that could determine whether one of the prosecution’s most important witnesses ultimately strengthens—or weakens—the case against the Vice President.
Leave a Reply