MANILA, Philippines — Vice President Sara Duterte and her former security chief were the only officials who knew how millions of pesos in confidential funds were implemented, an Office of the Vice President official told the Senate impeachment court Wednesday, prompting senator-judges to question who was accountable for the spending.
Lemuel Ortonio, OVP assistant chief of staff, testified that Duterte and former Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group commander Col. Raymund Lachica knew how the confidential funds were implemented.
“The way I understand it, Sir, as the head of agency, I would understand that she knows the implementation,” Ortonio said when Presiding Officer Francis Escudero asked whether Duterte knew how the funds were spent.
Escudero then asked whether Lachica also knew how activities funded through the confidential funds were carried out.
“Yes, sir, as the security officer,” Ortonio replied.
Ortonio confirmed that he and OVP Chief of Staff Zuleika Lopez did not have personal knowledge of how the funds were implemented, despite being among the office’s three highest-ranking officials along with Duterte.
The testimony came on the 19th day of Duterte’s impeachment trial.
Ortonio repeatedly told the court that he did not participate in the implementation, disbursement or recording of the confidential funds or in preparing their liquidation reports. He also said he had no personal knowledge of where the money went or which OVP programs received it.
When Escudero asked whether he knew if the funds supported the OVP’s regular programs, Ortonio said he had no personal knowledge of how the confidential funds were implemented.
Duterte had final sign-off
Senator-judge Risa Hontiveros asked whether Duterte decided and approved major actions involving the confidential funds, including requests for funding, the amounts sought, their justification and use, and responses to auditors.
Ortonio said he provided Duterte, as head of the agency, with copies and information and that documents submitted to the Commission on Audit carried her final sign-off.
Hontiveros then asked whether Duterte was therefore the “most responsible” official for the funds.
“Based on that, ma’am, being the head of agency, ma’am, I would say so, ma’am,” Ortonio replied.
Senator-judge Vicente Sotto III separately questioned Ortonio about Lachica’s status at the OVP.
Ortonio said Lachica was not an OVP employee. The Armed Forces of the Philippines designated Lachica to lead the vice presidential security unit.
Lacson seeks OVP records
Senator-judge Panfilo Lacson said senator-judges still had questions about names appearing in documents related to reward payments and whether those individuals actually received money as informants.
Lacson proposed that the impeachment court subpoena records on the OVP’s programs, activities and projects, physical and financial plans, and expected outcomes.
“There is a presumption the funds were used properly, but there’s still that doubt that we cannot remove because there are so many issues that came out during the trial,” Lacson said.
Escudero said the court could exercise its authority to obtain documents at the appropriate stage of the proceedings.
He said the impeachment court generally allows the prosecution and defense to present the evidence they consider necessary. After both sides finish presenting their evidence, however, the court may call or recall witnesses, summon other persons and issue subpoenas for relevant documents.
Lacson questions budget descriptions
Lacson also questioned what he described as “copy-paste” descriptions in the OVP’s regular budget and confidential and intelligence fund plans.
He cited the 2022 and 2023 General Appropriations Acts and OVP physical and financial plans, noting that the office received P621.6 million in regular funds and P125 million in confidential funds in the fourth quarter of 2022.
In 2023, the OVP received P2.21 billion in regular funds and P500 million in confidential funds, Lacson said.
He said the documents contained virtually identical program descriptions and physical targets for regular and confidential funds, including references to surveillance areas and activities conducted without security-related incidents.
Lacson said the descriptions should have differed between the regular and confidential fund plans.
He later clarified that when he called the practice “stupid,” he referred to the descriptions and nomenclatures of the programs, physical and financial plans and physical targets, not to any individual.
