MANILA, Philippines — A tense moment erupted at the Senate impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte after Senator-judge Erwin Tulfo sharply confronted former Office of the Vice President (OVP) special disbursing officer Gina Acosta, accusing her of allowing loyalty to cloud her judgment as she answered questions about the controversial handling of confidential funds.
The exchange came during the trial’s 16th day on August 17, when Acosta took the witness stand in connection with allegations involving the use of confidential funds at the OVP.
Tulfo questioned Acosta’s responses and her apparent difficulty speaking in Filipino, pointing out that she had previously answered questions in Tagalog during a 2024 House hearing. He urged the impeachment court to require her to speak in a language that would allow the proceedings to move forward more clearly.
The senator’s frustration intensified as he challenged what he viewed as unquestioning loyalty, delivering a blunt warning that resonated beyond the courtroom: blind loyalty, he suggested, should never replace independent judgment and accountability.
A Witness at the Center of a High-Stakes Trial
Acosta’s testimony has become a crucial part of the impeachment proceedings because of her former role as an OVP special disbursing officer.
During the hearing, she testified that Vice President Duterte had instructed her to release ₱125 million in confidential funds to Col. Raymund Dante Lachica, who was identified in testimony as an OVP security officer and Duterte’s former security chief. Acosta said the money was withdrawn in cash and handed over in connection with the confidential funds operation.
The prosecution has argued that the transaction raises serious questions about the authority and process behind the release of the funds. Duterte’s camp, however, continues to contest allegations against the Vice President as the impeachment proceedings unfold.
Acosta was also declared the prosecution’s first hostile witness in the trial, allowing prosecutors to ask leading questions. The designation does not mean a witness is automatically lying; rather, it reflects the court’s determination that the witness may be unwilling or adverse to the party that called them.
The Language Dispute That Sparked the Confrontation
Much of the hearing was slowed by questions over the language Acosta preferred to use while testifying. She asked to answer primarily in Bisaya, prompting repeated clarifications and translations during questioning.
Tulfo challenged her apparent difficulty with Tagalog, citing her previous testimony before the House of Representatives, where she had responded in Filipino. Philstar similarly reported that Tulfo questioned the change in her language use and urged the court to require clearer communication during the proceedings.
The prosecution, meanwhile, suggested that some of Acosta’s inconsistencies or difficulties could be attributed to the pressure of testifying in a high-profile impeachment trial.
But for Tulfo, the issue appeared to go beyond language. His confrontation underscored a larger question now hanging over the proceedings: When does loyalty to a superior become an obstacle to telling the whole truth?
More Questions Than Answers
Acosta’s testimony also renewed scrutiny of how large amounts of confidential funds were handled. She confirmed that the ₱125 million was transported in four traveling bags, a detail also reported by multiple news organizations covering the proceedings.
The prosecution has maintained that Acosta’s testimony is significant because it directly addresses who authorized and received the funds. The defense, meanwhile, has challenged aspects of the prosecution’s presentation and continues to dispute allegations surrounding the confidential funds.
As the impeachment trial moves forward, the heated exchange serves as another reminder that the battle is not only about documents and money—it is also about credibility, accountability, and the testimony of people who were inside the government offices now under scrutiny.
For the public, the question is becoming harder to ignore: Will loyalty protect the people involved—or will the truth eventually force them to choose between allegiance and accountability?
Leave a Reply