Ortonio says Lachica spent OVP confidential funds, sought no receipt

By Francis Allan L. Angelo

An Office of the Vice President official told the Senate impeachment court that former OVP security officer Col. Raymund Dante Lachica spent the confidential funds handed to him, then retreated to his earlier wording when presiding officer Sen. Francis “Chiz” Escudero pressed him on the difference between spending and disbursing.

Ortonio, one of the signatories to all of the OVP’s answers to the Commission on Audit on the audit observation memoranda, the notice of suspension and the notices of disallowance, had maintained throughout his testimony that former special disbursing officer Gina Acosta disbursed the money while Lachica merely implemented activities.

Spending versus implementing

Asked by Escudero whether the security officer spent the money handed to him by Acosta, Ortonio said: “I would say so sir, that being the implementor of the different activities sir, he spent the money for the different confidential activities.”

When Escudero repeated the question with the word “disburse” substituted for “spent,” Ortonio reverted to saying Lachica implemented the activities.

“Mr. Ortonio, nasa spend na tayo. Binago ko lang ng konti, disburse, bumalik ka na naman sa implement. Again, spend, disburse. It means the same thing,” Escudero said.

Ortonio held to his position. “It’s Miss Gina Acosta who disbursed the funds, and then si Colonel Lachica ‘yung nag-implement or conduct nung mga confidential activities,” he said.

Asked whether Lachica made payments, he said paying was part of the security officer’s duties as implementor.

Escudero then asked whether it was Ortonio’s theory that Acosta disbursed to Lachica as an end user.

“‘Yun po ‘yung ano ko… that’s my understanding po sir on that,” Ortonio said.

Escudero also established Lachica’s standing under Joint Circular No. 2015-01. “Based on the JC, he is not an accountable officer. It’s the SDO,” Ortonio said.

He confirmed that this was why Lachica’s signature appears on none of the documents the OVP submitted to auditors, and again confirmed that Lachica is not an OVP employee.

Asked whether a non-employee may be designated as security officer and given that much in funds to disburse, Ortonio said the circular sets no specific guidelines on who may be designated and provides that the head of agency may designate a security officer to implement programs and activities.

Asked to define what implementation means, Ortonio answered: “To perform the different activities on the ground.”

He said it could involve coordinating with informants or agents, and that this was the extent of what he could give.

“Sa mga salitang perform at coordinate, saan po doon yung paggastos ng confidential fund?” Escudero asked.

Missing receipt

The presiding officer turned to the receipts, asking why Lachica took back his own acknowledgment receipt when he handed over the liquidation documents, given Acosta’s testimony.

“Bakit niya binawi? Bakit hindi tinago sa file?” Escudero asked.

Ortonio said he had no knowledge of that, and that the acknowledgment receipts bearing various aliases reached him from Acosta inside the box he submitted to auditors.

He said he was not aware of any acknowledgment receipt signed by Lachica.

Asked why he did not look for one despite his own theory that Acosta disbursed to Lachica, Ortonio said his request had been for the documentary evidence of payments for the implementation.

“I did not request for it anymore sir,” he said.

Earlier in the questioning, Ortonio said the aliases on the acknowledgment receipts were never raised by state auditors. “It was not raised in any of the observations from COA, sir,” he said.

He said the office did not answer the matter because no question was posed, and gave the same explanation for the spending of PHP 125 million over 11 days.

On the 2023 disallowance, Escudero put it to Ortonio that the PHP 375 million was disallowed because Acosta gave the money to Lachica, as she had testified.

When Ortonio began to describe that as one of the observations, Escudero corrected him: “It’s not an observation anymore, Mr. Ortonio. It’s a notice of disallowance.”

Ortonio agreed and confirmed the notice cites the transfer from one officer to another under the joint circular.

Asked whether he knew at the time that Acosta had handed over the fourth quarter of 2022 and all three quarters of 2023, he said: “At the time na nangyari lahat sir, I would have no personal knowledge sir.”

He said he learned of it only in October 2023, while drafting the first reply covering the last quarter of 2022.

For his final question, Escudero summarized the OVP’s use of the funds according to Ortonio’s testimony, saying the plans carried good governance and socio-economic program delivery while the money went to informants to keep the Vice President safe wherever she traveled for work, buying information in exchange for cash, food, chairs, computers and medicine, with success shown by the fact that nothing untoward had happened to her.

Ortonio offered one correction, saying the purpose was “to ensure that the activities of the OVP will be implemented safely and that no untoward na mga mangyayari in the performance of the different activities ng OVP,” covering not only Vice President Sara Duterte but also the people attending the events.

Escudero accepted the correction and asked whether that was the reason Lachica gave him for handing money to informants as rewards or to buy medicine, chairs, computers and food. “Yes, your honor,” Ortonio said.

Senators press for documents, answers

Sen. Ping Lacson asked Ortonio for the current security classification of the physical and financial plans covering the OVP’s good governance and socio-economic programs, and whether the activities had been terminated.

Ortonio said he had no idea as to the classification and assumed the activities were finished.

Lacson then asked the court to compel production of the documents. “Ang dami sa amin nagtataka totoo ba talaga yung nakatanggap sila ng reward … Para lang matapos na yung aming panghuhula, baka pwedeng maipresenta all the documents,” he said.

“Ngayon hula kami ng hula eh,” he added.

Escudero answered that as a general rule the court sits as a passive body and leaves it to the prosecution to subpoena what it needs.

He said that after both sides present their evidence in chief, the court may call or recall a witness, call one neither party named, and issue subpoenas for documents and testimony.

Lacson said doubt would linger until the actual document is shown to the senators. “There’s a presumption na nagamit ng maayos. But still, there’s that doubt,” he said.

Sen. Zubiri asked whether the impeachment court could appeal to COA for a final ruling on its notices of disallowance to the OVP. Escudero said COA cannot be compelled.

Sen. Raffy Tulfo asked Ortonio whether the OVP’s informants were seriously ill, given the amounts the office recorded for the payment of medicine as rewards.

Ortonio said he had no personal knowledge.

Tulfo said the sums alone should have prompted questions. “Ito ang dami 170K, 50K, 200K each informant. Napakalaking halaga bawat isang informant pambili ng gamot, dapat magtataka ka,” he said.

“At the time po sir, I did not ask anymore kay Colonel Lachica,” Ortonio answered, saying he trusted what the security officer told him about the informants.

Told that it was his responsibility to know because he signed the reply to auditors, he said: “I’m not sure, if I’m the one who’s responsible to know.”

Tulfo pointed out that the Department of Health gives away medicine that expires in storage, and asked why the OVP did not seek supplies there rather than spend confidential funds.

Ortonio again declined to comment, citing his lack of knowledge of the implementation.

The senator told him his answers were not credible.

“Nakakahiya po doon sa mga eskwelahan na kung saan ka nag-aral at nag-graduate because ngayon pinakita mo na na nagsasalita ka na para kang… Sorry, sir. Sorry, sir. Nagtatanga-tangahan,” Tulfo said.

Ortonio objected. “I personally take offense to that comment,” he said. “I actually just did my duty. I did my work, sir, based on what was tasked of me, including the limitations that I can do to the duty that I will be doing.”

Tulfo replied that the public has more cause to be offended. “Paano naman po ‘yung mga taong bayan? They’re being offended sa paglulustay niyo ng pera. Pera ng taong bayan po ito ang pinag-uusapan natin,” he said.

He added that in Ortonio’s place he would resign rather than continue signing documents bearing informant code names he could not account for.

Ortonio noted that the matter is not settled. “This matter of the confidential fund, is still pending the final decision. We are currently still submitting our motion for reconsideration on this one,” he said.

Sen. Erwin Tulfo asked Ortonio whether he ever doubted the security officer’s accounting of the confidential funds, given that Lachica produced no documents or receipts and only described where the money went.

“Hindi ka ba kahit na katiting man lang ang duda, sir, na medyo mali ang paggasta ng confidential fund ng OVP ni Colonel Lachica?” Tulfo asked. “Wala man lang. None at all.”

Ortonio said questions did arise initially, but “with the replies that I got from the security officer, we were able to respond to them already, to COA,” he said.

Tulfo put it to him that as a trusted official close to the Vice President he should have raised the matter with her, and that the spending continued for several months and several quarters without anyone doing so.

Ortonio answered that the office did not let it pass because Duterte had read and signed off on all the OVP’s replies. “Hindi naman po na hinayaan, because all the replies naman are also given to the vice president for her review and final approval before it is being signed.”

Asked whether that meant Duterte saw what the money had bought before Ortonio signed the OVP’s responses to COA, he said: “Yes sir.”

 

Escudero warns Duterte on trial by publicity

Separately, Escudero warned Duterte that she, too, could be sanctioned for publicly commenting on the merits of her impeachment case after the court moved to strictly enforce its rule against “trial by publicity.”

The warning came Wednesday, Aug. 26, as Duterte released a statement accusing participants in her trial of resorting to “insults, speculation” and “political theatrics” and maintained that the impeachment complaints against her were filed “without a shred of evidence.”

Escudero made clear that Rule 18 applies not only to prosecution and defense lawyers but also to senator-judges and the Vice President herself.

Asked specifically whether Duterte could be penalized for violating the rule, Escudero said she was covered as a party to the proceedings.

The court decided to “wipe the slate clean” on previous statements, meaning possible violations committed before Wednesday’s ruling would not be penalized.

Escudero warned, however, that public comments from that point onward would be subject to sanctions.

A first offense carries a reprimand and stern admonition in open court.

A second offense and every succeeding violation carry a PHP 30,000 fine.

The court may also restrict an offending lawyer or party from speaking, objecting or examining witnesses during the proceedings.

If the offender is a lawyer, the impeachment court may transmit a certified record of the violation to the Supreme Court, the Office of the Bar Confidant and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for possible disciplinary action.

Escudero said prohibited comments include statements assessing disputed facts, witness credibility, the relevance or weight of evidence, the sufficiency of evidence or the legal viability of an impeachment charge.

The warning took on added significance because Duterte issued her statement around the same time the impeachment court was laying down the stricter rules.

Duterte argued that prosecutors should prove the charges using evidence already supporting the impeachment complaints rather than go “fishing for evidence during the trial.”

Without naming them, she cited a senator who called a witness “stupid,” a lawyer who described her as the “mastermind of a scam,” and a witness who referred to her as a “brat.”

Raffy Tulfo used the word “stupid” while questioning Acosta on Aug. 24 about acknowledgment receipts bearing different purported recipient names but apparently similar signatures.

“For me, in this case, you are stupid in the name of blind loyalty,” Tulfo told Acosta after she said she relied on explanations from Lachica because the transactions were confidential.

The “scam” remark came from House private prosecutor Mae Divinagracia outside the courtroom.

“To us, it’s a scam, a scam masterminded by the Vice President,” Divinagracia told reporters.

Duterte said such remarks suggested a “need to feign confidence in the face of a weak presentation.”

Escudero’s ruling effectively draws a line under previous statements from all camps.

Prosecution seeks Poa on DepEd funds

Also on Wednesday, the House prosecution panel moved to put one of Duterte’s own defense lawyers on the witness stand next week, turning its attention to PHP 112.5 million in confidential funds spent by the Department of Education while Duterte was education secretary.

Lead prosecutor and Batangas Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” Luistro asked the court to summon lawyer Michael Wesley Poa to testify on Sept. 2.

Poa is now part of Duterte’s impeachment defense team, but he previously served as her chief of staff and spokesperson at DepEd, placing him inside the department when the questioned confidential fund transactions took place.

The situation could put a member of the defense panel under oath and subject him to questioning by the prosecution about events in which he was personally involved before becoming Duterte’s lawyer.

Luistro initially sought a subpoena ad testificandum for Poa and Philippine Statistics Authority Assistant National Statistician Marizza Grande.

Escudero said compelling Poa to appear may be unnecessary because he was already in the courtroom and had indicated his willingness to testify.

“Given that Atty. Poa is here and more than willing to testify, as intimated earlier, then we jump to Atty. Poa, should the other earlier two witnesses fail to appear on September 1, without need of issuing a subpoena to Atty. Poa,” Escudero said.

Poa said he was prepared to answer questions concerning his role at DepEd, particularly his participation in matters surrounding the Commission on Audit’s Audit Observation Memorandum.

“Kung ang saklaw naman ng tanong ay I think will be on DepEd at anong naging partisipasyon ko, which was the AOM, sasagutin ko naman yan,” Poa said.

His testimony could fill a gap in the prosecution’s effort to trace how DepEd responded when state auditors questioned its confidential fund spending.

Former COA Intelligence and Confidential Funds Audit Office auditor Roderick Wamil previously testified that DepEd spent PHP 112.5 million in confidential funds in 2023, divided into PHP 37.5 million for each of the first three quarters.

The funds were reported for activities involving counterinsurgency, drug abuse prevention and control, anti-illegal activities and counter-extremism or terrorism programs.

Wamil testified that DepEd failed to submit sufficient supporting documents for the spending and that its physical and financial plan covering the PHP 112.5 million was signed and approved by Duterte.

Joint Circular No. 2015-01 imposes special controls on such expenditures because their confidential nature limits ordinary public scrutiny.

The circular restricts spending to specified purposes and requires documentation linking rewards to informants, for example, to successful information gathering or surveillance and a particular confidential activity.

Wamil testified earlier this month that Poa and OVP Chief of Staff Zuleika Lopez attended a September 2023 meeting with state auditors after deficiencies were found in confidential fund submissions.

According to Wamil, the officials asked whether COA could issue the less formal audit query rather than an Audit Observation Memorandum.

Poa has disputed suggestions that they were seeking favorable treatment, saying the request was not an attempt to avoid an audit but concerned the appropriate audit process and the supporting documents required for liquidation.

The prosecution is also seeking Grande’s testimony as it continues scrutinizing the identities appearing in confidential fund liquidation records.

The impeachment court has been presented with thousands of records covering PHP 612.5 million in confidential funds: PHP 500 million spent by the OVP from the fourth quarter of 2022 through the third quarter of 2023 and PHP 112.5 million spent by DepEd during the first three quarters of 2023.

Grande is expected to address whether purported confidential fund recipients appearing in government records can be matched with official civil registry data.

The prosecution is also preparing military officers Col. Manaros Boransing II and Col. Magtangol Panopio as witnesses.

Poa previously testified during a 2024 House inquiry that he asked then-DepEd Undersecretary and retired Maj. Gen. Nolasco Mempin to secure certifications from military units supporting PHP 15 million in confidential fund expenditures for informants.

Boransing and Panopio subsequently acknowledged issuing the military certifications but said they did not know the documents would be used in liquidating DepEd confidential funds.