Sara Duterte trial recap, Aug. 26: Sub judice ruling, 'Lachica spent funds'

MANILA, Philippines — The impeachment court ruled on the nineteenth day of trial that it would now impose penalties on parties that make public remarks about the case, the same day Vice President Sara Duterte publicly accused the prosecution of resorting to "political theatrics."

Wednesday, August 26 was a long session for the court, which first delivered its ruling on outside comments before hearing the cross-examination, redirect and re-cross of OVP assistant chief of staff Lemuel Ortonio, followed by the questions from the senator-judges.

After Escudero's repeated questioning, his second attempt at hearing it on record, Ortonio confirmed Lachica did "spend" the confidential funds handed over to him by former OVP special disbursing officer (SDO) Gina Acosta. He maintained such an action of "spending money" fell under his duties of "implementing" the confidential operations.

Ortonio is the second witness by the prosecution to be formally designated as hostile by the court, meaning his interests are considered counter to the stance of the prosecution. 

Here are the three highlights from today's proceedings. 

1. On same day Chiz imposed penalty for outside comments, Sara cries foul over 'political theatrics' in trial

Duterte around 10 a.m. today released a statement denouncing the "insults, speculation" and "political theatrics" of the proceedings. 

She said the two impeachment complaints against her, filed at the House, were done so "without a shred of evidence," and that prosecutors should not be "fishing for evidence during the trial." 

Without naming who, Duterte's statement cited a senator who called a witness "stupid," a lawyer who called her the "mastermind of a scam," and a witness who referred to her as a "brat."

Sen. Raffy Tulfo used the word "stupid" on August 24, while questioning Acosta about receipts carrying different informant names but a single signature. Acosta said she had relied on Lachica's explanation that the matters were confidential. "So for me, in this case, you're stupid in the name of blind loyalty," Tulfo told her.

The scam remark was not made in court. Private prosecutor Mae Divinagracia told reporters yesterday: "To us, it's a scam, a scam masterminded by the Vice President." 

Duterte goes on to say that these "insults" imply a "need to feign confidence in the face of a weak presentation." 

The vice president's statement was posted on social media around 10 a.m., around the same time Escudero began to read out the court's ruling on violators of the sub judice rule, which bars all parties of the impeachment trial from commenting publicly on its merits.

While past violators are not covered by the ruling, Escudero stressed that the court will now strictly enforce Rule 18 with penalties. From here on out, all parties — including the prosecution, the defense, the senator-judges and Duterte herself — can be sanctioned by the court. 

A first offense draws a reprimand in open court. Every violation after that carries a fine of P30,000.

The court may also bar an offending lawyer from speaking, objecting or examining witnesses on the floor. Where the offender is a lawyer, Escudero said, the record of violation goes to the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Supreme Court for possible action on their license.

2. Lachica disbursed confidential funds? Escudero gets OVP official to say he "spent" the money during the confidential operations

Ortonio has been careful to say that, while he relied on the word of Lachica to draft his responses to state auditors on the OVP's use of confidential funds, the military officer is not the OVP's disbursing officer of confidential funds — a responsibility only assigned to bonded former SDO Gina Acosta.

However, Acosta's previous testimony, along with Ortonio's confirmations yesterday, show that the cash left Acosta's hands in full, and that Lachica had control of the payments made with the secret funds. 

Escudero's questions at the tail end of today's proceedings sought to establish on the record whether that arrangement amounted to a disbursement by Lachica, which the 2015 joint circular reserves for a bonded SDO.

The presiding officer had asked exactly what Ortonio meant when he said Lachica "implemented" while Acosta "disbursed." 

Ortonio answered that Lachica "performed" and "coordinated" activities on the ground. 

"Bakit binigay kay Colonel Lachica 'yung pera at bakit siya gumastos kung perform at coordinate lang pala? Did Col. Lachica spend the money?" Escudero asked.

"I would say so, that being the implementor of the different activities, he spent the money for the different confidential activities," Ortonio said.

At this, Escudero tried to get him to repeat his answer, but with a different word: Did Lachica "disburse the money for various confidential activities?"

"I would say he implemented the different activities," Ortonio said.

Escudero commented on Ortonio's answer, saying: "Nasa spend na tayo. Binago ko lang ng konti, disburse, bumalik ka na naman sa implement. Again, spend, disburse. It means the same thing."

Asked again whether Lachica made payments, Ortonio said yes, paying was part of his duties as implementor. Escudero also got him to confirm that the confidential funds "disbursed" to him by Acosta made him the end-user.

That last answer is what Escudero pressed on next: if Acosta disbursed the money to Lachica and Lachica was the end user, the presiding officer said, then Lachica should have signed an acknowledgment receipt for it, and that receipt should have stayed in the OVP file, instead of being returned to Lachica.

"Kung end user si Lachica, bakit niya binawi 'yung acknowledgement receipt niya nung nagbigay na siya ng mga acknowledgement receipt para sa di umano binayaran niya?" Escudero asked. "Hindi ba dapat tinago niya 'yun? Bakit hindi tinago sa file?"

Asked whether he is aware of any acknowledgment receipt signed by Lachica, Ortonio said no. Asked why he never looked for one, he said the audit memorandum had asked only for the documentary evidence of payments covering the implementation.

"I did not request for it anymore," Ortonio said.

This exchange is important given that Ortonio earlier in the proceedings, in his answers to Sen. Tito Sotto, that Lachica is not an employee of the OVP. Lachica was the group commander of the Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group, a designation ordered by the Armed Forces of the Philippines, Ortonio told Sotto.

This means Ortonio held no employment status at the OVP. 

Escudero had previously tried to pursue the same line of questioning with Acosta, who would not budge and insisted she alone disbursed the funds.

3. Padilla uses turn to justify OVP aliases by recalling pen names of Philippine revolutionaries 

Sen. Robin Padilla used most of his time for questions by challenging the prosecution about the code names Philippine revolutionaries used in the 1800s. 

However, neither the COA notices of disallowance, nor the article of impeachment itself (Article I), raises the use of aliases as a violation by Duterte.

Padilla enumerated a number of code names used by the historical figures that belonged to the revolutionary Katipunan, including Dimasalang, Siling Labuyo, Tikbalang, Taga-ilog, Maypag-asa, Buwan, Magdalo, Lakambini, among others.

He also referenced Marcial Bonifacio, the code name that the late senator Ninoy Aquino used when he returned to the Philippines from exile in the United States.

"Ito po ang pinalalabas ng prosecution, na may mga pangalan na katawa-tawa," Padilla said. "Eh mas nakakatawa po itong mga pangalan noong mga nangyari noong araw."

Divinagracia said she could not comment without knowing why those names were used. Using an alias without disclosing the real name violates the Anti-Alias Law, she said.

Sen. Bam Aquino, who was the immediate next to ask questions, quipped that his uncle had no confidential funds, nor did his code name surface in the acknowledgement receipts of the OVP.

Divinagracia pointed out that aliases were a "non-issue" as it was "never reached." 

To recall, it was Acosta during her testimony who confirmed that the code names in the OVP's receipts were aliases.

COA disallowed P199 million of the OVP's 2023 confidential fund spending because acknowledgment receipts were its only support, and another P62 million in rewards because the OVP produced nothing to show the information-gathering had worked.