August 26, 2026

...

The Senate President, the Presiding Officer, and the Senator-Judges of the Impeachment Court.

The Sergeant

at Arms is directed to make a proclamation.

All persons are commanded to keep silent under pain of penalty. while the impeachment court is in session for the trial of Vice President Sara Zimmerman Duterte.

The impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Zimmerman Duterte is hereby called to order. We shall be led in prayer by Senator-Judge Mark Villar.

Let us put ourselves in the presence of God.

Heavenly Father, we come before You today seeking Your guidance and wisdom. Align our hearts with Yours and our plans with Your purpose. Grant us the wisdom to discern absolute truth from partisan noise. We ask for that generous wisdom, Lord, so we can make decisions that reflect Your love and justice. Clear our minds so that we can make fair and righteous rulings in this impeachment trial. May we always lean on Your understanding and not our own. Provide us with the courage to rule with strict impartiality, ensuring fairness to both the accused and the people we serve. May our decisions honor the Constitution, uphold the rule of law, and preserve the integrity of our nation. Guide us in humility, compassion, and integrity as we serve, knowing that we are accountable to You above all. In Jesus' name we pray. Amen.

senator-judge, Lacson, senator-judge, Lapid, senator-judge, Legarda, senator-judge, Marcoleta, senator-judge, Marcos, senator-judge, Padilla, senator-judge, Pangilinan, senator-judge, Sotto III, senator-judge, Erwin Tulfo, senator-judge, Raffy Tulfo, senator-judge, Villanueva, senator-judge, Camille Villar, senator-judge, Mark Villar, senator-judge, Zubiri, the presiding officer, senator-judge, Escudero, the senate president, senator-judge, Gatchalian.

17 senator-judges present, the chair declares the presence of a quorum.

In accordance

with the rules of procedure on impeachment trials, the chair now recognizes the duly elected presiding officer to preside over the proceedings of the impeachment court.

Thank you, Mr. Senate President. If there are no objections, we shall dispense with the reading

of the August 25, 2026 Journal of the Senate, sitting as an impeachment

court, and shall consider the same. as approved.

The Clerk of Court will please call the case before the Impeachment Court.

Kindly turn on the mic of the Clerk of Court.

Case number 004-2026 in the matter of Impeachment Trial of Vice President Sara Zimmerman, Duterte.

Appearances for the parties.

Same appearance. For the prosecution, Your Honor, we are ready.

Good morning, Honorable Chua. For the respondent.

Same appearance for the respondent accused. Good morning, Your Honors.

Good morning, Attorney Poa.

As discussed yesterday by the Presiding Officer, we shall

begin with a brief reply of Attorney Ligutan before the Court's ruling with respect to the points raised by the lead counsel for the respondent and some other matters that pertain similarly to that topic and then proceed with the cross-examination of Attorney Kristine and the redirect and or recross, if any.

Your Honor. Yes,

Honorable Chua.

I will now turn over to Atty. Ligutan for his brief reply.

Atty. Ligutan is recognized for his hopefully brief reply. Yes, Atty. Bawa.

Just before we give Atty. Ligutan his time, Your Honor, I just wanted to make a quick manifestation. It was just brought to our attention yesterday that after the proceedings that we had yesterday that an interview was given wherein I think What was discussed yesterday about the word scam, etc. was repeated during an interview. Now, while it may have been stated in a matter that's sort of a matter of factly, we do hope that this will be included in the ruling of the Honorable Presiding Officer. At least for guidance. Thank

you,

Your Honor.

Yes, Atty. Ligutan.

You are recognized, sir. You may proceed when you're ready. With respect to your, shall I call it, counter-manifestation. It is brief, Your Honor. Thank you, Attorney Ligutan. You may proceed.

A teacher, a lawyer, a rule on cross-examination, a Facebook post. How did we get here?

Last August 12, before trial was adjourned, it was a Wednesday.

Out of the blue, the defense. Made a manifestation, or should I say, a big issue of my Facebook post earlier that morning. My post reads,

A principle all lawyers and law students know by heart.

Misleading questions are not allowed, even on cross-examination. Period.

The defense remarked, it is a reaction To that viral exchange between the opposing counsel that morning, a lawyer for the defense said, in effect, that misleading questions are allowed.

We all heard it. It immediately caused an uproar on social media, especially in the legal community where it is a well-entrenched rule that misleading questions are not allowed even on cross-examination. It is a truism as irrefutable as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west. It is a principle all lawyers and law students should know by heart.

But why post it on Facebook?

Your Honors, why not?

Yes, I am a lawyer.

But more than just a lawyer, first and foremost, I am a teacher.

Isa po akong guro, usako ka maestro, and I'm proud to be one. I have been a lawyer for almost 16 years, but I have been a teacher, an educator for almost 20.

At alam ng ating mga magigiting na guro, sa buong kapuloan, na ang pagtuturo ay likas sa ating mga guro. Ang pagtuturo, ang pagtatama ng mali, ay walang pinipiling lugar at walang pinipiling panahon. That's why I made that post. I was concerned that the statement made in open court that misleading questions are allowed will go unchecked. My teacher's instinct kicked in. I

wanted the students I left in Cebu especially.

In the University of San Jose-Recoletos School of Law, where I have been teaching for the past 15 years, and recently in the University of Cebu School of Law, and in Diliman, my alma mater, the University of the Philippines College of Law, and all law students out there, I want them to know that a teacher had heard that wrong statement in open court and he is correcting that mistake. On Facebook, as I have been doing the past years. To the defense, I shall not name names. I will not put you on the spot.

But the post is not about you. It's not personal. It is about the law that we all adhere to. It is about what we teach the public who are watching our trial.

Correcting a mistake is never wrong. Doing it while a hearing is ongoing online does not make it not right. Ang pagtatama ng mali ay kailanman hindi ipinagbabawal kahit sa loob ng impeachment court na ito.

Now the defense said they found it troubling or in bad taste for a prosecution lawyer like me to quote, do this, unquote. in the middle of a courtroom hearing. But do what? Correct a wrong?

On the contrary, Your Honors, what is more troubling is for the defense not to admit their mistake and instead call out a lawyer, a teacher who just stated what is correct in his own time and in his own. Facebook account. What is troubling is if we turn a correction of a mistake by one side into a shield from fair criticism for the other.

Now the defense is asking this court to act on my post. It is elevating it to a serious courtroom violation.

But what did I violate? I did not discuss the merits of the case. I did not discuss the strength or the weakness of the oral arguments or evidence of either side. I only stated without mentioning any name, using the most neutral of font color and background, black and grey, without adding any emoticon,

without splicing anything. What the rules of procedure simply provide. that misleading questions are not allowed even on cross-examination. Your Honors, we in the prosecution also have rights.

I, for one, did not surrender my freedom to teach and to enlighten when I decided to participate in this trial. Patuloy po ako magiging guro kahit sa loob. nag-impeachment court na ito.

Lastly, Your Honors, the defense mentioned humility that I should have been humble enough not to post that now viral statement.

Your Honors, being a Provinciano from Leyte, Samar, and Cebu, and coming from a middle-income family born without a famous family name,

who had to compete for his spot in this capital. I know a thing or two about humility. The defense cannot lecture me on humility.

If there's somebody who needs to be reminded about humility, it's them, the defense.

It is the opposite of humility. It is pride, not to admit a mistake or worse, call out someone who simply corrected that mistake.

Good morning.

That does not fall under my definition of brief counsel, but we will take it nevertheless.

For the record, before the chair makes its ruling on these matters, the TSN says, Attorney Kapunan,

leading And then she corrected herself, misleading questions are not allowed on cross.

Attorney Ferrer, she said they are allowed. Now, the TSN cannot possibly cover the overlapping voices if at all. So most likely what happened, although we will check the video, would be Attorney Ferrer commenting on the earlier statement that was corrected later on by attorney Kapunan and changed leading to misleading. Perhaps attorney Ferrer was referring to leading

questions and not misleading questions. But having said that, nevertheless, the court will include that as part of its ruling with one caveat, attorney Ligutan. While you do not remove Your hat as a teacher wherever you go. The same is true with this representation who had my fair share of teaching as well.

Under the rules of the Senate, unfortunately, you have to unbundle it. You have to decouple it. Under the rules of the Senate, if you are counsel for the parties, you cannot comment on the merits outside of a fair and true report of what happened.

In this case, based on the TSN, I am not sure of the accuracy given that the statements made were pertained to both leading and misleading questions. Number two, it still does not take away. Your being a teacher does not take away your responsibility under the CPRA to

a fellow lawyer who you are jousting with or arguing with or competing against. This impeachment

court.

The remarks of the good gentleman, the attorney Ligutan, the counsel for the panel of prosecutors, is noted and will be entered into the records.

Thank you, sir. Chair will now make its ruling with the permission of

the body from the restroom because it's difficult to read while sitting down a long ruling.

You may sit down, attorney Chua, for a bit. This will take some time.

With the permission of the senator-judges. The Chair wishes to address certain matters as it is necessary

to protect the integrity of this trial. It has come to the Chair's attention over time that public statements attributed to persons covered by the Rules of Impeachment, whether made in interviews or in social media, appear to concern the evidence, the credibility of witnesses, and issues pending before this Court, which may fall within

the prohibition under

Rule 18 of this Court. Although the immediate matter arose from statements and conduct involving respective counsel last August 12, it raises broader concerns affecting the impartiality, decorum, and integrity of the impeachment court. Before imposing or enforcing standards of restraint upon the parties and their own counsel, the court must first look inward and put its own house in order. The Chair shall therefore resolve these matters in three parts. First, the duties of impartiality and decorum incumbent upon senator-judges. Second, the scope, coverage, and prospective enforcement of Rule 18. Third, the specific guidelines governing compliance with Rule 18. First, senator-judges impartiality, decorum, and the internal remedy. The chair begins where institutional discipline must always begin, with the court itself. The restraint, impartiality, and decorum demanded of the parties and their counsel must first be exemplified by those who sit in judgment. As senator-judges, let us keep in mind our oath, quote, to do impartial justice according to the Constitution and the laws of the Philippines, close quotations, and the requirement under Rule 3 of the Rules of Impeachment to observe political neutrality therein defined as, quote, The exercise of a public's official duty without unfair discrimination and regardless of party affiliation or preference. The chair likewise cites the relevant provisions of the 2025 Code of Judicial Conduct and Accountability or CPRA on impartiality and the subjudice rule. Canon 3, Section 10 provides, quote, During dependency of a case, a judge shall not knowingly make any comment in and out of court that could reasonably be expected or perceived to affect its outcome, impair the fairness of the process, or diminish the public's confidence in the court's impartiality. Canon 4, Section 24 provides, quote, A judge shall not engage or use any form of expression which tends to violate. or has the effect of violating the subjudice principle, provoke or inflame divisive and contentious issues of public concern, or project an image not compatible with the dignity of their position. Taken as a whole, these principles remind us of our duty to preserve the impartiality of this Court and the fairness of these proceedings. As the Court said in People v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 118882, This court has repeatedly and consistently demanded, quote, the cold neutrality of an impartial judge as the indispensable imperative of due process. Judicial proceedings are not orchestrated plays in which the parties are supposed to make motions and reach the denouncement according to a prepared script. There is no writer to foreordain the ending. Close quotation.

A judge must not only be impartial, but must also appear to be impartial, as an added assurance to the parties that his decision will be just. Litigants are entitled to no less than that. For avoidance of doubt, this shall not prevent senator-judges from examining the evidence where the examination belongs, during the proceedings, and on the record. The Supreme Court in People v. Gambor, GR 152183, said, The trial judge is accorded a reasonable leeway in putting such questions to witnesses as may be essential to elicit relevant facts, to make the record speak the truth. A judge may examine or cross-examine a witness. He may propound questions to test the credibility of the witness and to extract the truth. He may seek to draw out relevant and material testimony. though that testimony may tend to support or rebut the position taken by one or the other party. It cannot be taken against him if the clarificatory questions he propounds happen to reveal certain truths which tend to destroy the theory of one party. Taken together, Rule 17 and the Gambor case confirm. that a searching question is not partial merely because the answer may aid one side or weaken the other. The prosecution and the Respondents' Council must be prepared to answer such questions. The inquiry must remain relevant, material, fair, and directed toward clarification of truth. It must not devolve into a speech, harassment, partisan advocacy, or an announcement of a conclusion already reached. The line is clear. Senator-judges may test the evidence here under oath and on the record, exercising the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. When constituted as an impeachment court, the Senate does not cast aside the discipline of parliamentary practice, except where the specific rules on impeachment or the adjudicative nature of these proceedings require otherwise. The rules of the Senate establish parliamentary precedents and courtesies of the Chamber continue to bind every member sitting as senator-judge under Rule 34, Sections 93 and 94 of the Rules of the Senate. Deem acts or language that offend a senator or any public institution or third party to be unparliamentary and prohibit the use of offensive and improper language against another senator or public institution or third party. Henceforth, I hope senator-judges shall refrain from unparliamentary remarks, personal attacks, imputations of improper motive, and other language incompatible with the dignity of these proceedings and of parliamentary courtesy to other people. The Chair will at all times extend to his fellow senator-judges the courtesy, befitting equals, and reasonable latitude that serious deliberation requires. Differences in judgments and vigor in debate are to be expected. and shall as far as practicable be met with patience, flexibility, and respect. Should circumstance so require, however, the Chair will not hesitate to enforce the rules of this Impeachment Court, the rules of the Senate, particularly sections 95 and 96 in this Chamber. Firmness need not be unkind, nor courtesy come at the expense of duty. Both serve the same end, the fair and honorable administration of justice. Further, where a senator-judge is alleged to have violated the impeachment oath, Rule 3, Rule 18, or any other applicable rule of the Senate. An available institutional remedy within the Senate is the filing or referral of an ethics complaint to the Senate Committee on Ethics and Privileges in accordance with the internal rules of the Senate. Under Rule 10, Section 1316 of the Rules of the Senate, the Committee on Ethics has jurisdiction over all matters relating to the conduct, rights, privileges, safety, dignity, integrity, and reputation of the Senate and its members. Any disciplinary action remains for the Senate to determine under Article 6, Section 16 of the Constitution and applicable rules. This shall not be a proper subject matter to be taken up within this impeachment court so as not to divert the attention from the impeachment trial against the respondent in this case. Accordingly, the Chair reminds all senator-judges, first, to observe the impartiality and political neutrality required by their oath and the rules. to observe the parliamentary rules, precedents, and courtesies of the Senate and refrain from unparliamentary, offensive, or improper remarks. Third, to exercise their authority under Rule 17 to question witnesses, prosecutors, and counsels for the respondent and the prosecutor during the proceedings on the record instead of through commentaries in social media. Second ruling, Rule 18, scope coverage and prospective enforcement. Note on the statement prospective enforcement. Having addressed the conduct expected of senator-judges, the Chair now turns to Rule 18 and the persons expressly covered by it. The Chair makes this ruling not only in response to the manifestation and motion made by counsel for the respondent, Attorney Sheila Sison, on August 12 and after due consideration of Attorney Ligutan's explanation, but also on the basis of the Chair's independent findings of seeming violations of Rule 18. These incidents come after the Chair's earlier advice to both panels to designate the respective spokespersons so that the necessary and appropriate communications may be made within the limits prescribed by the rules. Since that advice has not been fully observed, the Chair now finds it necessary to restate and strictly enforce those restrictions. Article 18 of the Rules on Impeachment provides The presiding officer, the members of the Senate, shall refrain from making any comments and disclosures in public. Pertaining to the merits of a pending impeachment trial, the same shall likewise apply to the prosecutors, the person impeached, and their respective counsel and witnesses. This rule exists to balance the public's right to information on matters of public concern with the need to protect the integrity of the proceedings from public prejudgment. The rules of court apply only suppletorily to these proceedings. When the rules on impeachment expressly and specifically govern a matter, they control. Since Rule 18 directly governs public comments and disclosures pertaining to the merits of the pending impeachment trial, it is for this Court, in the exercise of its authority and sound discretion, to determine whether a particular statement violates that rule. Henceforth, with respect to prior statements or conduct covered by Rule 18, the Court shall extend grace, exercise liberality, and wipe the slate clean. Tabula rasa, so to speak. From this point forward, however, Rule 18 shall be strictly enforced and be given full force and effect. Accordingly, the chair hereby strictly enjoins all persons covered by Rule 18, you know who you are and based on the records, we know who you are, from making public statements or otherwise discussing, sharing, or endorsing comments pertaining to the merits of this pending impeachment trial and from engaging in trial by publicity as they directly threaten the independence of the court. Degrade the dignity of the tribunal and risk turning it into a circus and weaponize the media to substitute public outrage for actual evidence. We are in receipt of the appearances of the parties. So uncovered po ng Rule 18 would be all those who appeared both from the panel of prosecutors and the counsel for the panel of prosecutors. Chair earlier reminded The parties designate a specific spokesperson. Wala pong problema kung hindi naman siya kasama sa panel. Walang problema kung hindi siya kasama sa counsel for the panel of prosecutors. The spokespersons are free to say whatever they want to say, but not in their limitations insofar as the panel of prosecutors and the counsel for the panel of prosecutors is concerned.

Clearly, up to today, the spokesperson of both parties are still part of the counsel for the parties, some with more violations than others. So without enumerating the counsels where this rule applies, I think you know who you are, given the entries of appearance you've already made. These restrictions apply with particular force not only to counsel for the parties, but also to us, senator-judges, and all other persons whose public statements are governed. by Rule 18. Rule 18 makes specific mention of the respondent. It does not make mention of the complainants in this case, given the public nature of this case. So outside of the senator-judges, outside of the counsels for the parties, particularly mentioned would be the respondent herself, as well as the witnesses called.

Third ruling, guidelines for compliance with Rule 18. To ensure a common standard, the Chair now states the guidelines governing compliance with Rule 18. That line is crossed when a public comment by any person covered by Rule 18 falls within the phrase, quote, pertaining to the merits. In this regard, jurisprudence has consistently distinguished matters going into the merits of a case from those which are merely procedural, incidental, or collateral.

As a technical legal term, merits has been defined in law dictionaries, as a matter of substance in law, as distinguished from matter of form, and as the real or substantial grounds of action or defense, in contradistinction to some technical or collateral matter raised in the course of a suit. In Badoy v. Magdoza-Malagar, A.M. No. 220916, S.E., Comments on the merits of the case may refer to the credibility of witnesses, the character of the accused, the soundness of alibis offered, the relevance of the evidence presented, and generally any other comment bearing on the guilt or innocence of the accused. Pursuant to the en banc case of in republished threats hurled by attorney de Vera, AM number 01-1203-SE, 1. No party shall make public comments, statements, insinuations, or rhetorical questions that 1. Prejudge the issue to predict the outcome of the trial 2. Question pending rulings 3. Substitute media pressure for evidence 4. Promote distrust and undermine public confidence in the court by creating the impression that the court cannot be trusted to resolve the case impartially and violate the right of the parties to have their case tried fairly by an independent tribunal uninfluenced by public clamor and other extraneous influences. For purposes of this trial, a statement pertains to the merits when viewed in its full

context.

It evaluates a disputed fact. The credibility of a witness, the relevance or probative value, weight or sufficiency of a particular evidence, assessment as to the legal viability of an article of impeachment, or a substantive defense advocate's particular disposition of the charges or announces or forecasts the ultimate vote. Conversely, this Court recognizes the qualified privilege of a fair and true report. Regarding these proceedings, as affirmed in the Supreme Court in ABS-CBN v. Ampatuan, GR No. 22-7004, based on the jurisprudential standard derived from Article 35 of the Revised Penal Code, a fair and true report means a neutral, objective, and accurate recounting of the proceedings made in good faith without any comments or remarks. For the guidance of all the parties concerned, the Chair now issues the procedural guidelines for violations of Rule 18. The Impeachment Court will exercise its powers summarily under Rule 5 adhering strictly to the due process parameters set by the Supreme Court. First, a 24-hour show-cause order. No oral accusation or press pronouncement shall precede the formal charge. Any party cited for a particular violation will be issued a written show-cause order either motu proprio or upon motion by either party and will be given exactly 24 hours to submit a verified written answer. Pursuant to the Supreme Court's end-bank doctrine in Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan , due process and disciplinary proceedings against lawyers and parties does not require a trial-type formal hearing. The presiding officer will rule summarily based solely on the submitted pleadings upon the lapse of the 24-hour period subject to appeal or reconsideration by any member of the court. Now, the burden of proof pursuant to Stratcom Corp v. Etong and Webb v. Gatula

Any punitive sanction requires this court to find that, quote, a person's act must be done willfully or for an illegitimate or improper purpose. Thus, the good faith or lack thereof of the person being cited in contempt should be considered. Hence, the contemnor is presumed innocent and the burden of proving that the contemnor is guilty of contempt lies with the movement. For violations of Rule 18, the Court shall follow a two-strike rule. Violations will be met with a strict graduated penalty system. First defense, public reprimand and admonition. The penalty is a severe reprimand and stern admonition in open court, placed permanently on the record as a final warning. Second defense, a monetary fine. The penalty, pursuant to the prescribed ceiling under Rule 71, Section 7 of the Court, The court will impose a maximum statutory fine of 30,000 per

violation . Furthermore,

exercising the court's inherent case management powers under Rule 4, 5, 6, and 8 to preserve the orderly proceedings, the offending lawyer or party may also be subjected to a defined prospective restriction on speaking, objecting, or examining witnesses on the floor. Each subsequent violation of Rule 18 shall be punished the same way as a second offense, third, fourth, so on, with a fine of 30,000 pesos. In all cases wherein a member of the Bar is concerned, independently, pursuant to the case of Inre Almacen, the certified incident record will be transmitted and formal referral will be made to the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and or the Supreme Court.

possible disciplinary sanction regarding the person's license to practice. The court also reminds respective councils of the parties that CPRA canon 2 section 19 prohibits lawyers to comment or publicize opinion pertaining to a pending proceeding in a manner that may cause prejudgment, sway public perception, influence the tribunal, or create a widespread perception of guilt or innocence. CPRA likewise requires professional responsibility on the use of social media and prohibits the dissemination of false or unverified claims or disinformation. Rule 18 does not, by its terms, cover outside observers or spokespersons who are not counsels of record. Such persons, however, remain subject, when applicable to the rules on indirect contempt and if they are members of the bar, to CPRA. To the CPRA, rather. Counsel of record must litigate their respective causes before the court, not in the court of public opinion, through interviews, social media posts, or publicly generated, authorized, encouraged, or disseminated through surrogates. Counsel cannot have their cake and eat it too. They cannot invoke the authority of this court while simultaneously seeking to influence the proceedings through extrajudicial publicity.

The chair has in its hands certain statements to cite as an example, as examples rather, without naming names. But you know who you are, who mentioned these quotes. Quote. Hindi naman pinag-uusapan dito yung kontrata. Pinag-uusapan dito yung banta. Yung banta. Nakita niyo sa video. May nagbanta talaga. At si Vice President yun. Hindi ba? If this was stated by a spokesperson or any third party observer, it would not have been a problem. But this was stated by a council. of record. Actually, more specifically, one of the counsels for the private prosecutors.

The country witnessed what I have been saying all along. The complaint is not supported by evidence. An impeachment proceeding should be grounded on credible evidence, not speculation, manufactured narratives, or unsupported allegations. The rule of law depends on facts, not fiction.

Meron ba talagang mamamatay tao? Napakaliwanag na ho sa sagot diyan. Meron. Ano ho ang prueba natin? Yung tinatawag na admission against interest ng vice president. Again, to reiterate, if this was stated by any other party or person, not a member of the panel of prosecutors, not counsel for prosecutors, not the counsel for respondents, it would have been perfectly okay. But since this was stated by one of those covered by Rule 18, it is covered by Rule 18.

Since na-establish na namin yung hinahanap namin doon sa talagang testigo lamang, tatlong testigo lamang, finurgo na namin yung ibang mga testigo, na-establish na namin ang gusto naming establish sa Article 4. Itong mga bank records, bank records don't lie. Hindi na ho itong pwedeng ma-spin. Yan at sabihin gawa-gawa lang ng prosekusyon ng gobyerno. Itong mga usapin na ang explained wealth ng Vice President.

It is clear that the Vice President had a direct hand on this. She signed off to it. No, not just the use, but the way it was liquidated.

na hindi kailangan sabihin pa na ginamit ito para sa personal na paggamit ng Vice President itong confidential funds na ito dahil sabi nga niya nakalagay na yan doon sa Joint Circular. Quote, siguro naman it's plain for everybody to see yung conclusion, no? Yung conclusion na tama ba yung pinagamitin ng confidential fund hanggang kailan ba yung pagpipikit mata natin sa isang bagay na napaka-klaro naman. Quote, To be fair, let's wait for their defense if they have any or their evidence. But so far as we are concerned, our position, you violated the public trust. Fraudulent liquidation, so you have violated the law. You already betrayed the people's trust.

dun sa pagpapakita ng maling paggamit ng confidential fund.

Quote, to us it's a

scam, a scam that was masterminded by the Vice President. Again, these are statements that may be said by any third party, but certainly not by any of the counsel for the parties. I would like to give credit where credit is due as well. There are some counsel for the parties who have been very circumspect with their statements. and you also know who you are. After hearing these examples, no person covered by Rule 18 may reasonably claim uncertainty as to where the line is drawn. The statements ready to the record are illustrative, not exhaustive. They are cited not to punish past conduct, but to give clear and fair warning of the standard that shall govern henceforth. As the Chair stated in my opening statement. The discretion entrusted to this Court will be exercised with a steady hand, liberal where justice permits, but exacting where fairness, due process, and the integrity of these proceedings demand. Consistent with that commitment, the Court will strictly enforce the restraint required of counsel outside the courtroom, while ensuring that within the courtroom, counsel are afforded reasonable latitude to present their arguments, challenge rulings, through proper channels and advocate their respective causes fully and fairly. This discretion does not require counsel to remain silent within the impeachment court. The Supreme Court ruled in ABS-CBN Corporation versus Patuanas earlier cited that the court recognizes that lawyers may criticize the courts and their decisions subject to the responsibilities they bear as officers of the court. Such criticism, however, must be legitimate. made in good faith and directed toward the proper administration of justice. Rule 18 closes the avenue of litigating the merits through interviews, social media, and the court of public opinion. It does not close the courtroom to legitimate advocacy. If counsel believes that the ruling is erroneous, that the proceeding has become unfair, or that conduct affecting the trial requires correction, The proper course is to bring the matter before the court where it may be heard, answered, and resolved on the record. Rule 18 demands restraint beyond these walls. It does not command silence within them. This court will not close the door to trial by publicity. Rather, this court will close the door to trial by publicity, but it will keep the courtroom open to the disciplined advocacy where evidence is tested. Error is corrected and justice is done. Within these chambers, counsel shall be afforded reasonable latitude to present their theory of the case and vigorously test the evidence. Emotions may run high and frustrations may arise in the course of adversarial proceedings, but neither excuses a departure from the restraint and decorum expected of officers of the court. The case of Navarrete v. Court of Appeals , mirrors the exact situation that has transpired before the court. With respect to the words, swindlers, plunderers, stupid, and bastards, uttered by private respondent in the course of her testimony, we are inclined to disagree that such language is too ignominious and degrading for a lawyer to say to a fellow lawyer in the courtroom. In Baltao v. Falsis III, AC 1444-3, the Court said, While a lawyer is entitled to present his case with vigor and courage, such enthusiasm does not justify the use of offensive, abusive language. Language abounds with countless possibilities for one to be emphatic but respectful, convincing but not derogatory, illuminating, but not offensive. The latitude afforded to counsel is not a license to substitute inflammatory, intemperate, or undignified characterizations for proof. Consistent with the Chair's earlier ruling, the term scam mastermind modus operandi as used during the past proceedings stands stricken from the record. Counsel remain free to advance the factual and legal theories underlying their positions, but they must do so through evidence, recent argument, and court-appropriate language, not through expressions that prejudge disputed facts, attribute wrongdoing not yet established, cast offensive personalities upon others, or needlessly inflame the proceedings. Language uttered in the presence of the court that amounts to disrespect, offensive personalities, or misbehavior that obstructs

or interrupts the proceedings may, when the applicable threshold is met, be dealt with as direct contempt. under the Rules on Impeachment, with Rule 71 Section 1 of the Rules applying supratorily. Whether or not such language rises to the level of direct contempt, counsel remain independently bound by the CIPRA to observe courtesy and civility and the use of dignified language in all their professional dealings, even as adversaries. This brings the chair to the relevant provisions of the CIPRA independently of Rule 18, Canon 2 of the CIPRA requires every lawyer at all times to observe respect and courtesy in personal and professional dealings. Canon 2, Section 2 further requires lawyers to act with courtesy, civility, fairness, and candor towards fellow members of the bar. These duties govern how counsel treat one another both in and outside the courtroom. Canon 2 section 4 likewise requires dignified language in all personal and professional dealings and prohibits abusive, intemperate, offensive, or otherwise improper language, whether oral or written, and whether made through traditional, electronic, mass, or social media. For the avoidance of doubt, Rule 18 applies only to the persons expressly covered therein, the presiding officer, the senator-judges, the prosecutors, the person impeached. and their respective counsel and witnesses. With respect to counsel, Rule 18 applies specifically to those who have formally entered their appearance before the impeachment court. Separately, when a spokesperson is a member of the bar but has not entered his or her appearance, the relevant provisions and indirect contempt under Rule 71, Revised Rules of Court, and when warranted, the CIPRA shall nonetheless apply to said person. In any case, This shall be without prejudice to any recourse to Rule 71, Revised Rules of Court with respect to any person who may commit indirect contempt against the Impeachment Court not covered by Rule 18. Accordingly, the Chair hereby declares, number one, directing all persons covered by Rule 18 to refrain from making, sharing, endorsing, or otherwise amplifying any public statement concerning the merits of the pending trial. Counsel for both parties are further directed to observe. the applicable provisions of CIPRA. Number two, reiterates the Chair's suggestion that each party consider appointing a spokesperson who is not a member of their legal team, or if they are, for it to be clear to them that these rules shall apply to them, given that they are counsel for the parties strictly. If the parties elect to retain their current spokespersons, the Rule 18 shall be strictly applied as to them. The court further advises respective counsel that the violation of this order may carry consequences separate from contempt. Where the same conduct appears to violate CIPRA, the chair may direct the clerk to transmit the certified copy of the pertinent order, transcript, and records to the Supreme Court or the Office of the Bar Confidant for whatever action the Supreme Court may deem proper. Such transmittal is a referral. not a finding or penalty of professional discipline. Disciplinary jurisdiction over members of the Bar still remain with the Supreme Court. Further, for avoidance of again doubt, a referral through the Office of the Bar Confident shall not rest on an alleged violation of Rule 18 standing alone. Such referral may concern other conduct outside of Rule 18 and becoming of a member of the Bar. The chair then issues this final warning on any willful disobedience of this order. It shall be dealt with accordingly, henceforth. The ruling prescribes the standards governing future conduct and does not by itself adjudge any identified person guilty of contempt or liable for a professional violation. The chair closes with separate reminders to the prosecution, counsel for the respondent, and senator-judges. To the prosecution, the primary duty of a public prosecutor is not to convict, but to see to it that justice is done. This duty is expressly stated in Canon 2, Section 31 of CIPRA, and echoed in Attorney Francisco v. Attorney Zuniga-Lagman, AC 13035. The prosecution's object must therefore be the just resolution of the case, not victory at all costs. This obligation governs not only the evidence and arguments presented before the court, but also counsel's conduct outside of it. To the respondent and to her counsel, the corresponding duty of defense counsel is not to secure an acquittal at all costs. In People of the Philippines v. XXX , the Supreme Court reminded counsel for the accused of their fiduciary duty to provide competent efficient, consensuous, and diligent representation. Under the same reason, counsel for respondent must faithfully protect their client's constitutional and procedural rights, rigorously test the prosecution's evidence, and hold the prosecution to the burden of proof governing these proceedings while remaining within the bounds of the law, ethics, and the lawful orders of this court. To my fellow senator-judges including this representation. The chair adopts the reminder in Webb v. De Leon, GR numbers 12, 1234, and 121245. Quote, More than convicting the guilty and acquitting the innocent, the business of this court is to assure fulfillment of the promise that justice shall be done and is done, and that the only way for this court to obtain an acquittal And that is the only way for this court to obtain an acquittal from the bar of public opinion. That obligation rests upon every senator-judge to decide solely upon the record, under the Constitution, and under our rules, and in a manner worthy of the confidence of the people to whom this court is ultimately accountable.

Thank you, and we may proceed with the trial at hand.

Before recognizing the Honorable Chua, Chair would like to instruct the Clerk of Court to kindly situate Mr. Ortonio to the witness stand. Yes, Honorable Chua.

Your Honor, may I now turn over to the Counsel for the Prosecution, Attorney Mae Sancho Divinagracia.

Attorney May is recognized and also before recognizing Attorney Christine. We

will just ask for Attorney Kristine R. Ferrer to be recognized, Your Honor.

Yes,

Attorney Christine

and Attorney May then.

Ginong Ortonio, kayo po ay patuloy na tetestigo sa ilalimang naunan niyong panunumpa po. At kung saan nanumpa kayo magsasabi ng katotohanan at pawang katotohanan lamang. Naunawaan po niyon?

Yes po, Your Honor.

We may proceed now with cross. Attorney Christine,

you ready?

Your Honor, if I may be recognized.

Yes, Attorney May. Your

Honor, before Before the defense counsel proceeds with her cross-examination, the prosecution respectfully moves that the defense be directed to conduct its cross-examination in non-leading question form, Your Honor. Yesterday, Your Honor, this honorable court declared Mr. Ortonio a hostile witness pursuant to

Rule 132, Section 13 of the Rules of Court. And in so ruling, effectively, this honorable court also declared that the interest of this witness is aligned with the respondent. Now, Your Honor, the permission to conduct leading, sorry, the permission to propound leading questions on cross-examination under Rule 132, Section 10A of the Rules of Court. rests solely on the presumption that the interest of the witness to be cross-examined is hostile or is adverse to the cross-examiner, making it difficult for the cross-examiner to put into the mouth of the witness words that he expects to be elicited. Now that presumption, Your Honor, has already been overcome by the declaration of this honorable court so what we expect Your Honor is merely cross-examination in form but not in substance because in substance Your Honor the cross-examination would effectively be like the respondent herself cross-examine sorry the respondent cross-examining or direct examining conducting a direct examination of her very own assistant chief of staff. Last Monday, Your Honor, we witnessed how the defense under the guise of cross-examination supplying testimonies to the witness, Ms. Gina Acosta, and merely expecting her to supply yes to each and every question, Your Honor. And that is the very evil sought to be prevented by the rule against leading questions on direct examination. Your Honor, I understand before I'm lectured on the contents of the rules of court, I'm very much aware of what the rules of court provide, but I'm also very much aware, Your Honor, that under the rules of this honorable court, the rules of court is merely suppletory in application. And in fact, the presiding officer is granted leeway to rule on every matter of evidence.

Comment, Attorney Christine.

Yes, Your Honor. Rule 132 of the Rules of Court does not convert a hostile witness as our own witnesses, Your Honor. So, therefore, we are not obliged to ask direct examination questions, Your Honor. Thank you. If I may, Your Honor.

Short reply and so replying, Attorney May, kindly cite a

legal basis outside of the Rules of Court since you said it's not in the Rules of Court.

Your Honor, I'm citing the very own rules of this honorable court. saying that the rules of court is merely suppletory in application and at the end of the day, it will be the presiding officer who will be deciding on matters of evidence. And early in the proceedings, Your Honor, if I remember correctly, two senator-judges encouraged this honorable court to look beyond the wordings of the law and consider the intent for its application.

Is that it? Attorney May?

Yes, Your Honor.

Chair will make a ruling. Rules of court, although it has merely suppletory application to these rules, nevertheless do apply in the rules of court state specifically that leading questions may be asked on cross-examination without any exception nor any limitation. And as held in the Bolas case, there is no need to interpret the rules in case where there is no doubt and the rule is quite specifically clear. Number two, We already have a precedent, at least with respect to the previous witness declared as a hostile

witness in the person of Gina Acosta, where the court allowed counsel for the respondent

to ask leading questions. You shall be accorded the same privilege, Attorney May, on the part of the prosecution, should the respondent rather present a hostile witness during the presentation of their evidence in chief. The court shall apply the rule equally. So ordered.

Thank you, Your Honor.

You may proceed, Attorney May, or rather Attorney Christine. Yes, Your Honor. When you're

ready. Yes, Your Honor. Before I start with my cross-examination, just to put the record straight, Your Honor, when I said they are allowed I was referring to leading questions, Your Honor, because the journal dated August 12, 2019 would show that I was indeed asking a leading question before Attorney Kapunan objected, Your Honor. So if we take a look at it, with all due respect, the objection was even improper at that time, Your Honor. But I want that issue to be

closed.

That was similarly pointed out by the Presiding Officer, Counsel. Thank you,

Your Honor. Sorry, Your Honor, before I proceed. May my colleague be recognized?

Of course. Attorney Lorna.

Your Honor, please. First of all, I'd like to commend the presiding justice. Very clear. The rules, the ruling on sub judicia is very clear and we will take it with strict compliance, Your Honor.

Thank you, counsel. I'd

like to manifest though that again, the statement of counsel is misleading. because it was very clear, it was very clear, and the transcripts will show that the immediate phrase which led to my remark was not about leading, it was about misleading, Your Honor. If I heard it, if the whole legal profession heard it, if this courtroom heard it, if the outside audience heard it, then it must be It is what it is. She had said misleading is allowed and I responded to that and I'd like that to be on record, Your Honor. Let us not mislead again this honorable court. Thank you. Your Honor.

Without, the chair already made a ruling earlier regarding this matter brought about by the lead counsel. In lieu of that, the chair will simply furnish the parties with a copy of the TSN.

wherein, I will quote again for the record, for the last time and then we proceed with cross. It's already 11. Attorney Kapunan, leading, comma, misleading questions are not allowed on cross. Attorney Ferrer, they are allowed.

This is what the transcript says. and it has no reference to Attorney Ferrer stating specifically that misleading questions are allowed and perhaps the confusion arose

with respect to the TSN again not being able to capture the perhaps overlapping

statements made by both counsels and we should leave it at that already, counsels, and move on.

Thank you, Your Honor.

So when you're ready, no more manifestations, Attorney

Christine.

None, Your Honor.

Proceed to cross. Yes, proceed to cross.

Attorney May, you shall be the counsel for the prosecution.

Yes, Your Honor.

Okay, you may proceed, ma'am, when you're ready.

Good morning, Mr. Ortonio.

Good morning, Mama Imbuntad.

Earlier, you said or you confirmed that no PFP or the No PFP was attached to the August 2022 letter request of the OVP to the DBM. Do you remember that?

Yes, ma'am. That's correct.

And the reason for this was because at that time, it is not being required by the Joint Circular to attach the PFP to that letter.

Based on my understanding, ma'am, attaching the PFP is not required to the letter request, ma'am.

Thank you. Nonetheless, when the DBM asked for documents in response to that request, you complied and submitted documents, correct?

Yes, that's correct, ma'am.

And you submitted those documents through your letter dated September 9, 2022.

Yes, through our transmittal letter to the DBM.

Thank you. And the DBM, in fact, accepted your subsequent transmittal?

Yes, that's correct, ma'am.

And the DBM did not say that those documents which you transmitted on September 9, 2022 were not compliant with the Joint Circular or with the law?

We did not receive any comment, ma'am, regarding the submitted PFP.

And the DBM, in fact, did not reject your submission.

No, ma'am. We did not receive any comment from the DBM.

And you confirm also that the DBM even recommended the approval of your request to the Office of the President after your submission of those documents, correct?

Yes, ma'am. That's correct, ma'am.

And your request... for additional budget was actually approved by the Office of the President.

That's correct, ma'am.

And in the process of approving your request for additional budget, no issue whatsoever was raised by either the DBM or the Office of the President regarding the documents that you submitted.

We did not receive any comment regarding the submissions that we've made.

Thank you. You were also asked yesterday regarding the good governance program that was mentioned in the PFP for the fourth quarter of 2022. Do you recall that?

Yes, ma'am.

And as someone who supervises the administrative and financial management office of the OVP, You confirmed that the confidential funds for the fourth quarter of 2022 was requested to ensure the safe implementation of the OVP's good governance program.

That's correct, ma'am.

And the confidential funds were not used to fund the good governance program in itself, but the implementation thereof. Yes,

that's correct, ma'am.

Now we go to the 2023 PFP, which I assume you also recall. The 2023 PFP indicated that the phrase socio-economic program delivery instead of good governance program. Do you recall that?

Yes, ma'am.

And the socio-economic program delivery is a program of the OVP for the 2023?

Yes, that is the encompassing program title for all the projects of the OVP.

For the year 2023. For

the year 2023.

Again, the confidential funds for the year 2023 were not used to fund the social economic program itself. This time, Your Honor, I will have to object.

Um...

Not yet done, Your Honor, with the question.

Not

yet?

Yes.

Can we finish your question, counsel?

Yes, Your Honor. The confidential funds for the year 2023 were not used to fund the socio-economic program itself, but the safe implementation thereof. Before

the witness answers, the answer of the witness is stricken off, yes?

Yes, Your Honor. This witness, Your Honor, based on his answers yesterday, is incompetent to testify on that. Why do I say that, Your Honor? First, this witness admitted yesterday that it was the Vice President herself who requested the confidential funds. And second, Your Honor, he himself explained that he had no participation whatsoever in the disbursement of said confidential funds. So this witness, Your Honor, by his own admission, is incompetent to testify where the confidential funds were spent or what the confidential funds were spent on. Quick

reply, Your Honor.

Yes. Yesterday,

yes, the witness also testified that he is the administrative and financial management officer. Sorry, Your Honor. He is the supervising officer of the administrative and financial management office of the OVP and that all budgets, as a general rule, are being approved by him, Your Honor.

participated in the request for the confidential funds in the year 2022, Your Honor.

Your Honor, if I may just make a very quick rebuttal.

Before the Chair makes a ruling, yes.

Your Honor, we've heard it straight from the horse's mouth. The statement of this witness yesterday was that that was the general rule. Since that is merely the general rule, there are exceptions. And he also mentioned, Your Honor, that confidential funds It's not among those ones that went through him.

We've dealt this. Too many exchanges already, counsels. If the witness knows, he may respond. And as you very well know, Attorney May, sometimes a hostile witness may give a different answer on cross, which is a proper subject matter for redirect, if ever. when your time comes. Witness may answer. Yes, Mr. Ortonio, you may respond to the question. Thank

you, Your Honor. The way I understand the question is that the confidential funds was not used for any of the regular programs of the OVP under the socio-economic delivery programs for the 2023. So with that, sir, I can say Yes, the confidential funds were not used for the purpose of the implementation of the socio-economic programs of the OVP in itself.

And you know that information by virtue of your position not only as the Assistant Chief of Staff but also as the supervising officer of the Administrative and Financial Management Office of the OVP?

Yes, ma'am, that's correct. Thank

you.

The socio-economic program can be found in the 2023 General Appropriations Act. Yes ma'am,

that's correct ma'am.

And it's a line item in fact under the 2023 GAA.

Yes, correct ma'am.

As the Assistant Chief of Staff of the OVP, Were you made aware of the reason why the Good Governance Program was changed to Socio-Economic Program Delivery in the 2023 PFP, if you know?

Based on my recollection, ma'am, there was a change in the program title from Good Governance to Socio-Economic Program in 2023 so that it encompasses Parang maku-cover nung title ng program yung all of the projects of the OVP because all the programs of the OVP addresses yung socio-economic concerns that the office would want to address.

Thank you. Let's go to the AOMs and the notice of suspension.

You testified that as the Assistant Chief of Staff, you drafted and signed the replies to the AOMs received by the Office of the Vice President for the fourth quarter of 2022 as well as the first to third quarters of 2023. Do you confirm that?

Yes, that's correct, ma'am.

And you also signed the OVP's response and supplemental response to the notice of suspension dated December 13, 2023 relative to the confidential funds for the fourth quarter of 2022. Do you confirm

that? Yes, that's correct, ma'am. I'm one of the signatories.

And because of that, you have studied all of the AOMs as well as the notice of suspension.

Yes, that's correct, ma'am.

The AOMs sought clarification on the liquidation documents of the OVP, correct?

Yes.

The AOMs and the notice of suspension did not contain the phrase, if you recall, did not contain the phrase misuse of funds, if you can recall.

Based on my recollection, ma'am, I cannot recall. Your Honor,

best evidence, sorry, original documents rule, Your Honor.

Your Honor, I know the... Your Honor, I

know the... Counselors, we can move on because before your objection, witness already said that he cannot recall, so move on, Attorney Christine.

Thank you, Your Honor. Okay, and in that, in those AOMs, can you recall if there was any finding of misuse of funds? Already asked and answered, Your Honor. I'm asking about findings, Your Honor.

Witness may answer. She's asking about findings, counsel.

Based on my understanding, ma'am, no misuse, ma'am, although there were certain clarifications that were made.

Thank you. And the notice of suspension also does not contain any finding or findings on the misuse of funds?

None that I can recall. Just some clarifications, ma'am.

Thank you. And the AOMs and the notice of suspension were not final findings of the COA-ICPAO when it comes to the confidential funds of the OVP. Do you confirm that?

Yes, ma'am. That's my understanding, ma'am, that once we receive the AOMs, we are given the opportunity to send our comments.

Thank you. In fact, if you know There is a pending motion for reconsideration before the commission proper relative to the notice of this allowance covering the confidential funds for the fourth quarter of 2022. If you know. Objection, Your Honor.

Before you answer, Attorney May.

Your Honor, that's no longer covered by the direct examination. The rule for the cross-examination of hostile witnesses under Rule 132, Section 13 is different, Your Honor. What can be covered on cross-examination of a hostile witness are only those matters that were covered on direct examination. At no point was a mention of petition for review ever made during direct examination.

The court will give counsel sufficient leeway on cross. The court will also like to find out about this petition for review, which was discussed with the witness Gina Acosta. Witness, may I answer?

Sorry, again, ma'am, the question, ma'am.

Yes, I'll repeat my question. If you know there is a pending AR, on the note, there is a pending motion for reconsideration. of the notice of this allowance covering the confidential funds for the fourth quarter of 2022. Yes,

ma'am.

Misleading, Your

Honor.

Your Honor, move to strike, Your Honor, because I wasn't given enough opportunity, Your Honor. Would

the witness kindly wait just for a few seconds before answering? Yes, what is the ground of the objection, counsel? It's

misleading, Your Honor, because a petition for review. It

was not on.

I'd

rather repeat my question, Your Honor.

In fact,

if you know, there is a pending motion for reconsideration of the notice of this allowance covering the confidential funds for the fourth quarter of 2022 before the commission proper of COA. Your

Honor,

again,

this witness will be incompetent to testify on it, Your Honor. The participation of this witness in the filing of the petition for review has not yet been established. It wasn't even established yet, Your Honor, that this witness is even aware of the contents of the petition for review. Your Honor, the court will

review. If he knows, Mr. Ortonio, if you know.

I am aware, Your Honor, but as to the specifics on the reply or the contents of the MR, I'm not very much aware of the contents.

Thank you. As to the first to third quarters of 2023, a notice of disallowance was issued by the COA dated March 31, 2026, if you know.

Yes, that's correct, ma'am.

In fact, you are the person who received the notice on April 8, 2026 on behalf of the Vice President. Again, Your Honor, with all due respect, that's already going beyond

what was discussed on direct examination which is prescribed under Section 13, Rule 132, Your Honor. At no point did we discuss the notice of disallowance for the last three AOMs. The discussion During direct examination, we're limited to the notice of suspension up to only the notice of suspension.

the chair will note the um will con will convert the objection of council to a continuing objection with respect to um the line of questioning of um attorney christine on this witness but the court will allow it um but notes the continuing objection of council um with respect to these notices of this allowance um that were issued sir tonya

Please answer.

Yeah.

ma'am can you repeat the question ma'am

okay i will repeat uh

A notice of this allowance was issued by the COA on March, dated March 31, 2026, relative to the first to third quarters of 2023.

Yes, ma'am.

And you are the person who received the notice of this allowance on April 8, 2026, on behalf of the Vice President.

Yes, ma'am. I received the document on behalf of the vice president as the assistant chief of staff.

Thank you. Under the COA rules, if you know, since you are the one who also responded to the AOMs, under the COA rules of procedure, The OVP has six months from its receipt of the ND or the notice of this allowance to file a petition for review with the commission proper of the COA. Objection, Your

Honor. This witness will be incompetent. Unlike the joint circular, Your Honor, which he specifically mentioned in his replies, Your Honor. There was no mention whatsoever of the COA rules in any of his replies. If he

knows, Your Honor. Your Honor.

Attorney Christine, move on to, will we get your point? You can move on to your next item.

Okay, Your Honor.

I will continue. Now, your involvement when it comes to the OVP confidential funds were, kindly confirm each item. Number one, processing the request for the confidential funds for the fourth quarter of 2022.

Misleading, Your Honor. There was no statement to that effect during the direct examination.

Your Honor, she asked for the functions, Your Honor. She even presented the documents, Your Honor, pertaining to the confidential funds of 2022, Your Honor, which the witness also processed.

Again, that's misleading, Your Honor, because I never asked about the participation of this witness in that request. In fact, he himself explained, Your Honor, during direct examination that the request was purely the Vice President's. He had no participation whatsoever in the request. He is only aware, is only... aware that a request was made because of that letter that he was confronted with. That's why throughout the direct examination, his answers would be limited to what is contained in the documents. Well,

if he knows counsel, and again, this would be a ripe subject matter for your redirect, if he all of a sudden regains, if all of a sudden he remembers, it is a proper subject matter of redirect. Witness my answer. Your

Honor, yes, I will repeat my question. Your involvement when it comes to the OVP confidential funds were, number one, processing the request for the confidential funds for the fourth quarter of 2022 as evidenced by your letter dated September 9, 2022 to the DBM.

Ma'am, just a quick clarification. When you say processing, ma'am, in terms of

Handling the request.

Yes, ma'am. Through my office, ma'am, we transmitted the request to the DBM.

Okay. Signing of vouchers.

That's correct, ma'am. Signing of vouchers.

Signing of checks.

Yes.

Signing of responses to the AOMs and the notice of disallowance.

Yes, ma'am.

and acting as liaison when it comes to the submission of the liquidation documents to the ICVAO.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, thank you. You were not involved in the drafting of the quarterly liquidation reports of the confidential funds, correct?

No, ma'am.

That work belongs to Ms. Gina Acosta, right?

As of my understanding, ma'am, yes, ma'am.

You were not involved in the disbursement of confidential funds, is that right?

No, ma'am.

and also the recording of confidential expenses.

No, ma'am.

The recording of confidential expenses is being done by Ms. Gina Acosta.

As of my understanding, ma'am, yes, she is.

And you were not also involved in the confidential operations of the OVP?

No, ma'am.

And you have not met any of the confidential informants of the OVP?

No, ma'am.

Neither did Ms. Gina Acosta? Meet any of them, if you know.

That I would have no personal knowledge, ma'am.

Okay, thank you. As far as you know, the confidential informants only liaise with Colonel La Chica, if you know.

That is of my understanding, ma'am.

And the reason being is that the information as to the identity of the informants is classified and sensitive under the Joint Circular, specifically item 3.28.

Objection, Your Honor. This witness has already repeatedly testified that he had no participation in the disbursement of the confidential funds, Your Honor. And yet, defense counsel, with all due respect to her, keeps on propounding questions related to the disbursement.

And this answer, counsel, will always be in the negative. because he has been consistent in regard to not having any participation with the disbursement.

I think that has been established, Attorney Christine, that he has no participation in the disbursement.

Actually, Your Honor, my question was not about the disbursement, Your Honor. If I can repeat it, Your Honor. Can you repeat the question, Attorney Christine? Thank you.

You answered earlier that as far as you know, the confidential informants only liaise with Colonel La Chica. that was your answer earlier and the reason being okay if you know is that the I will repeat, Your Honor. The reason being is that the information as to the identity of the informants is sensitive. under the Joint Circular. Your Honor,

I raise the same objection, Your Honor. This witness already testified that he has no participation in the disbursement and implementation of the confidential funds. Now, Defense Counsel is asking the reason why the informants did not directly...

Your Honor, please.

Chair will make a ruling. Chair will sustain the objection, but not on that ground, but on the ground that is misleading because the witness did not say that it is of a sensitive nature, but that, if I remember correctly, it was confidential. That was the statement made by Attorney Lachica to him. Hindi niya sasabihin because it was confidential.

Yes, Your Honor. We will no longer push the question. Thank you.

Move on to your next point, Attorney Christine.

I'm already done, Your Honor. Thank you.

Are you ready for your redirect also? Your Honor,

may I just have 10 minutes, Your Honor, to organize my redirect, Your Honor, given the number of questions that were proposed on cross-examination.

With the permission of the senator-judges, so as to save on time while we're giving... Atty. May, some time. You will have a similar amount of time, Atty. Christine, if you so desire, for every cross. I will, in the meantime, allow senator-judges to interject in the interregnum to save on the court's time. I can see the hand of Senator Sotto. Anika, after Senator Sotto, can you list the rest? Chair recognizes Senator-Judge Sotto for his interjection. You may proceed, sir. You have two minutes. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

Actually, just one question to Mr. Ortonio.

And this is out of my curiosity. Earlier, you confirmed that all admin and finance matters dumadaan sa iyo. That's correct, Your Honor. Also, you said that you were the head of HR in Davao, the LGU. That's correct, Your Honor. Correct. In this regard, I'm sure you would know, what is the employment status of Colonel La Chica in the office of the Vice President?

Colonel La Chica po is the group commander of the VPSPG and he is not an employee of the OVP but he has an order coming from the AFP designating him as the group commander for the Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group.

Therefore, designation.

You're saying he's not employed. He does not have any employment status in the office of the Vice President. Yes, but Your Honor. That's all I wanted to know, Mr. President. Thank you.

Point well taken, Senator Judge Sotto. Next to interject is Senator Erwin Tulfo. You may proceed, sir. You have two minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. You know, testigo. Nabasa niyo po ba na mabuti at naintindihan ang nilalaman ng Joint Memorandum Circular, Sir?

Good morning, Sir. Yes, Your Honor, I was able to read it and based on my understanding, I was able to understand the contents of the JMC.

Noong kayo po ay pinadalahan na ng Notice of Disallowance ng COAN, nabasa niyo rin po ba? kung bakit kayo po pinadalhan ng notice of disallowance, kailangan niyo pong sagutin yung kanilang AOM.

Yes po, for the 2022. 2022.

So naintindihan po ninyo na sinasabi doon ng COA na while confidential funds allow for the payment of rewards to civil information, yung COA po has ruled that this cannot be structured as broad distribution of medicines. food, grocery packs, or household goods and that kung ito po ay reward, dapat po specific targeted financial payouts lamang po at hindi po pwedeng ibili ng mga gamot o ng mga upuan bilang reward. Naintindihan niyo po ba yun?

Sir, based on my understanding, sir, that is the initial observation coming from the COA and we were able to provide comment on that on our replies. Tama.

Pero alam niyo po ba ng Office of the Vice President is a civilian office. Ibig sabihin, hindi po sila military, therefore, hindi po sila maaaring mag-possess ng formal national security or law enforcement mandate. Sabi po ng COA guidelines, sir, again, specifically, The Operational Intelligence Gathering is the domain of military, police, and specialized enforcement bodies. Hindi po kasama ang PSPG po roon. Did you know that?

Sir, based on my understanding, sir, sa pagkakaintitig ko po sa JMC is that the confidential funds is allowed for civilian agencies, sir. and in coordination with the different law enforcing agencies. Yun po yung pagkakaintindi ko po.

Yun po ang pagkakaintindi ko ninyo. Pero iba po yung sinasabi po ng COA sa inyo kaya po kayo may notice of disallowance. Kaya po sinasabi ng COA at ini-issue po sa inyo formal notice of disallowance na 73.3 million ng OVP December 2022 confidential spending. Yung pang dahilan na major reason for this allowance was that 24.93 million pesos spent on medicines and 34.857 million spent on various goods were improperly categorized under the guise of intelligence rewards. Alam niyo po ba yun? Kaya pinadalhan po kayo ng COA, sir.

Sir, based on what I can recall po, sir, on the notice of this allowance that was sent to our office,

What they required, sir, was that the submission of an intelligence report to support the payment of those rewards. So yun po yung pagkakaintindi ko regarding sa letter.

So nakita po ninyo na may problem, sir. May problem. Kaya kayo pinagpapaliwanag.

There is an issue po, sir, that we needed to

comply. Okay. Panghuli na lamang, Mr. Presiding Officer, one last question. Sir, sino po mga nag-invento at saan galing yung mga alias po na yun? Is that Colonel La Chica o sa grupo ninyo, sila Chippy McDonald, sila Posa, Aso, etc., may sila Pagong? Who invented those?

Sir, I do not know, Sir. Number one, Sir, I cannot answer, Sir, if invented, Sir. But as to the AR, sir, I cannot provide information, sir, because I do not have any participation in the implementation of the confidential activities.

Thank you, Mr. Witness. Presiding Officer, thank you, sir.

Thank you very much, Senator-Judge Erwin Tulfo. Senator-Judge Pangilinan is recognized. You have two minutes, sir, and you

may proceed when you're ready.

Maraming salamat. Magandang umaga. Ginoong Ortonio. Good morning, sir. Yes. Pwede niyo bang ipaliwanag yung naging proseso? Dahil base sa testimonya ni Acosta, ni Ginang Acosta at sa inyo, yung testimonya niyo.

From December 2022 to September 2023, a total of 122 million pesos in cash was distributed to perhaps hundreds of informants after doing surveillance work was given rewards. and they purchased medicines.

Tama po?

Based on the information that was shared to me by the security officers. That's correct. Yun yung nangyari. Based on the information, sir.

Bakit gamot? Would you know?

Sir, I would not know, Sir, but although based on the information that was shared to me by the security officer, those were the, parang yun po yung representation or yun daw po yung inilapit ng mga informants or agents that they needed at the time.

Bilang reward.

Yes. Pero pera

ang binigay, sabi ninyo. Yes,

Sir.

Pero hindi nyo alam kung talagang gamot ang binili.

I would have no idea, sir, on the implementation, sir.

Dahil walang resibo.

Acknowledgement receipt meron. Acknowledgement receipt, sir.

You were head of the BA, diba? Bids and Awards. Bids and Awards Committee. So familiar ka, pagka regular purchases, dapat may bidding ang medicines. Correct, sir. Diba? Yes, sir. So, kung yun ang pinaliwanag sa'yo, sa loob ng siyem na buwan, hindi mo ba tinanong o hindi mo ba sinita? na dapat pagka-medicines, dapat bidding. Kasi ako ang head ng bids and awards. Alam ko yan eh.

Sir, I was only made aware of the concern regarding the medicines and food supply, sir, when the AOM, when we received the AOM, which was around October of 2023, sir. So that was parang almost nine months after the

2022 na implementation for the confidential funds.

Okay. So, hindi mo alam kung bakit gamot. Sinabi lang sa'yo. Pero bilang in-charge ng financial services, yun na

nga, hindi mo rin talaga alam kung yung 122 million ay gamot ay binili.

For that purpose, sir, I would have no personal knowledge, sir.

At sa usapin naman ng supplies, purchase of supplies, anong supplies yun?

Would you know?

I do not know of, I'm not familiar, Sir, kung ano po yung mga supplies na nirequest.

Hindi mo rin alam na yung 112 million pesos worth of

goods, anong goods yun?

Again, Sir, I would have no personal knowledge, Sir, on the specifics of the supplies, Sir.

You have two master's degrees. You're a graduate of Ateneo. Would you consider this usual?

As far as sa pagkakaraan... I mean,

now that you know. Diba sabi nga nila, hindsight, 2020. Vision is always 2020 in hindsight. So ganitong para sa surveillance, binigyan ng gamot na 122 million.

Yung mga informant, sila na lang daw ang bibili ng gamot.

Is this usual? In terms of using government funds? And you

being a BAC head?

Based on my understanding po sir, at saka sa pagkakaintindi ko po sir, it went through the parang the process that is allowable by law. So

it's usual?

For you? It's usual? That's just my question. Do you find this usual? And you say yes or no. So you find

Kung sa pagkakaintindi ko po sir and based po sa understanding ko po sa JMC sir, I would say so sir.

No further questions at this time, sir.

Thank you. With the permission of the next in line is Senator-Judge Tulfo, but with your permission, Honorable Tulfo.

Thereafter, Senator Villanueva, the Senate President, Senator Indivera, Senator Laxon. The ten minutes of Attorney May is up.

Attorney May, can you now proceed with your redirect? Again, without prejudice, to Attorney Christine, asking for a similar time for her recourse, should she require it?

Good morning. Good morning, Mr. Ortonio. Good

morning, ma'am.

Okay. Kanina, on cross-examination, sinabi mo na sa pagkakaalam mo, hindi required na i-attach ang PFP sa request for confidential funds. Tama ba?

Yes, po.

Okay. Now, may we confront you with section 3.24 of The Joint Circular 2015-01. Can

you kindly read it for the record? Can you

kindly read for the record what 3.24 of the Joint Circular states?

3.24 physical and financial plan refers to the plan approved by the head of office. in the case of NGAs and LGUs and by the Board of Directors, in the case of GOCCs, supporting the request for funds for CE and IE containing the estimated amount per project, activity, and program.

Nabasa niyo po ba yan bago kayo sumagot kanina?

Familiar po

kayo sa provision na yan?

I have to be honest, ma'am, na I cannot remember this one, ma'am.

Ngayon, Hindi rin ikaw ang nagpadala or nagprepare ng October 22, 2022 letter. Tama ba?

Sorry, ma'am.

Hindi rin ikaw ang nagpadala ng

August

22, 2022 letter. Tama ba? It

is through our usual na routing process, ma'am.

And also, sabi mo kahapon, it was the decision of the Vice President to request the confidential funds. Tama ba?

Yes, as the head of agency, ma'am, I would understand that she has the authority to request for the said funds, ma'am.

And siya rin yung nag-sign off dun sa August 22, 2022 letter, tama ba?

Yes, ma'am.

Siya

yung pumirma, tama ba?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, so hindi mo alam kung paano in-interpret ng vice-presidente yung provision na iyon binasa. Tama ba? You cannot say with certainty how the Vice President interpreted that provision.

Before you answer, before you answer, Mr. Ortonio, yes, Attorney Goodstein?

Witness is incompetent to read the state of mind of the Vice President, Your Honor. That's precisely the point, Your Honor.

That's precisely what I'm asking the witness to confirm that he cannot say with certainty the frame of mind of the Vice President if she was also thinking that the PFP is not required for the request.

Applying the rules equally, if he knows, witness may answer.

Thank you, Your Honor.

Again, ma'am, for the question ulit, ma'am.

So hindi mo rin masasabi, you cannot say with certainty na ganyan din ang interpretasyon ng vicepresidente doon sa provision na binasa mo nang ipinadala ang sula to the DPM dated August 22, 2022. Tama ba?

I cannot, ma'am.

But you are sure, you can confirm that the vicepresident is a lawyer. Tama ba?

Yes, ma'am. She is a lawyer.

Sinabi mo rin kanina na yung confidential funds, to your knowledge, hindi lang ito ginastos sa regular programs ng good governance. Tama ba?

Ma'am, what I meant, ma'am, is that... Sorry,

Mr. Tony, let me just clarify. Sinabi mo kanina na to your knowledge... yung confidential funds were not spent on the regular programs under the good governance program. Tama ba?

That's correct. Yan

din yung sinabi mo para sa socio-economic delivery programs. Ang sabi mo, yung confidential funds hindi ginamit sa regular programs ng socio-economic delivery programs ng OVP. Tama ba?

That's correct.

Pero you will confirm na yung sa PFP hindi naka-indicate The confidential funds will be used not for the regular programs of the good governance program of the OVP. Tama ba? Walang qualification dun sa PFP. Tama ba? Ang nakalagay lang dun, good governance program.

Yes, ma'am. Based on the document that I saw, ma'am, it only indicated the program titles. Okay.

Tama. So hindi naka-indicate dun na gagamitin ang confidential funds. para sa programa other than the regular programs under the good governance program. Tama ba?

Yes, ma'am.

Same is true for the 2023 PFP. Ang nakalagay lamang doon, socio-economic delivery. Walang qualification. Tama ba?

Based on the document that was presented, ma'am.

Hindi rin sinabi na the confidential funds for 2023

ay gagamitin for programs other than the regular programs of the socio-economic delivery programs of the OVP. Tama ba?

Sorry ma'am, can you repeat the question ma'am? Hindi

rin sinabi sa PFP for 2023, the confidential funds of the OVP will be used for programs other than the regular programs under the socio-economic delivery program of the OVP.

Based on the document, ma'am, it does not specifically indicate.

And you would confirm that the seeming confusion would have been avoided had the Office of the Vice President only indicated the specific programs under both the good governance programs and the socio-economic delivery programs in the PFP. Objection. Objection. Speculative, Your Honor. Your Honor, again. A question. The

witness is smart enough. Mr. Ortonio, you may answer if you know.

Can you repeat the question, ma'am?

The confusion would have been avoided, or would have been averted, may iwasan sana ito kung yung OVP nilagay doon sa dalawang PFP for 2022 and 2023 yung specific each and... every program that will be funded by the confidential funds for both years. Tama ba?

Objection, Your Honor.

What's the objection, Attorney Agustin?

The witness did not say there was a confusion, Your Honor. That was misleading. I didn't say, Your Honor, that this witness mentioned confusion. But her question says, so the confusion should have been avoided, Your Honor. The question is misleading. Because Your Honor,

there was an

inconsistency, Your Honor. She is interpreting and making conclusions out of the answer of the witness, Your Honor.

Attorney May, kindly reform. Yes, the witness did not say that he was confused. Reform, you can get to the same point. So,

Mr.

Ortoño, kung nilagay yung each and every program that will be funded. Stinate doon sa dalawang PFP yung particular programs na paggagamitan ng confidential funds. Wala sanang question kung saan ito ginamit. Tama ba?

Objection, Your Honor. Same objection, Your Honor. Actually misleading kasi wala sanang questions. He did not say that there were questions on the confidential funds. Then I will drop the sana, Your Honor.

Mr. Ortonio, if I may counsels, Mr. Ortonio, bakit hindi nilagay doon sa PIP yung particular ng good governance at socio-economic program na hindi ito bahagi doon sa original o regular na budget ng OVP?

Sa pagkakaalam mo. Thank you, Your Honor. On the question, sir, on kung bakit hindi nilagay, sir, I would have no personal knowledge, sir, on why since the document was prepared by our

special disbursing officer. Sa

paggawa ng sagot sa OEM, sa palagay mo ba kung nilagay niya yun, hindi na masasama sa OEM, sa AOM yun?

Based on my understanding, sir, it could have helped, sir, to clarify.

Okay. Your witness, counsel.

Okay. Mr. Ortonio, yesterday and today, paulit-ulit mong sinasabi. na wala kang participation sa disbursement and implementation of the confidential funds. Tama ba?

Yes, ma'am.

So, hindi mo rin alam kung talagang saan ginamit yung confidential funds, kung anong programa dinisberse ito. Tama ba?

Objection.

Objection, Your Honor.

What is the ground? Not covered by the

cross.

Let's give her sufficient leeway, counsel. This is one of the questions in the minds of the senator-judges. Just to clarify, you may answer it, Mr. Ortonio.

No, I would not have any personal knowledge. So

hindi mo rin alam, based on your personal knowledge, na yung confidential funds ay hindi ginastos sa regular programs under the good governance program, tama ba? Kasi wala kang sabi mo, wala kang participation, wala kang personal knowledge kung saan dinisperse yung confidential funds, tama ba?

Based on my understanding, ma'am.

Wala ka rin personal knowledge kung paano in-implement. ang confidential funds. Tama ba?

Yes, ma'am. So

hindi mo rin masasabi based on your personal knowledge na yung confidential funds ay ginastos sa mga programa other than the so-called regular programs of the good governance program.

Objection, Your Honor.

What is the ground, Christine?

Misleading, Your Honor. The witness did not say that the confidential funds were spent on the good governance programs of the OVP.

That was not the point, Atty. Christine. Witness may answer. If the presiding officer may... Mr. Ortonio, kung wala kang personal nakalaman kung paano ginastos yung confidential fund, eh di wala ka rin personal nakalaman kung ginastos sa regular na programa ng OVP yung confidential fund.

I do not have any personal knowledge, sir, on how the confidential funds was implemented.

At all. Kung sa napunta yun, wala kang alam.

No, sir. Kung

napunta man sa tama o mali, madumi o malinis, wala kang alam.

I would have no personal knowledge, sir. Okay.

Sir

here, tinanong ka din, bakit biglang, bakit nag-change yung program, the PPAs, for the 2023 PFP? When I say PPAs, I'm referring to the projects, plans, and activities. Tinanong ka kanina kung bakit... Yung programs, plans, and activities under the 2023 PPA naging socio-economic delivery program na dati under the 2022 PFP, ito ay good governance program. Tama ba?

Yes, ma'am. The way I understand the question, ma'am.

Wait lang. Ito yung tanong Mr. Ortonio. Ang sabi mo kanina, nag-change ng... PPA sa 2023 PFP para makover ang mas marami pang programa. Tama ba?

Ma'am, I'll clarify, ma'am. Wait, Mr.

Ortonio, please just answer my question with a yes or no.

I answered, ma'am. Your

Honor.

Let the witness answer, Attorney May. Thank

you.

I answered the question earlier, ma'am, in the context of why there was a change in from good governance to socio-economic delivery in the context of what is reflected in the GAAA. So that's how I answered it, ma'am.

Pero

you will confirm na wala ka rin participation dun sa pag-identify, sa pag-prepare ng PFP. Meron ka bang participation?

For the PFP, ma'am, no.

Kanina, tinanong ka rin tungkol sa petition for review na finial ng OVP sa COA. Tama ba?

Yes, ma'am.

And you will confirm that this petition for review was denied by the COA? Tama ba?

Yes, ma'am. And subject for motion for reconsideration. Ibig

sabihin, nang dininay ito ng COA, yung COA, it stood pat with its earlier decision, with its earlier findings. Tama ba? Your

Honor, if

he knows, counsel,

Yes ma'am but then again subject for the filing of motion for reconsideration.

Gawa nito ay si Ginang Acosta, diba? Yes, ma

'am.

Alam mo yun? Correct.

You will confirm na ikaw, ang Chief of Staff, at ang Vice President, ang three top officers ng OVP, tama ba?

As Assistant Chief of Staff, ma'am.

Kaya kayong tatlo, kayo yung top three officers ng OVP. Assistant Chief of Staff, Chief of Staff, and the Vice President herself, tama ba?

Yes, ma'am.

Sinabi mo na wala kang alam tungkol din sa mga bagay na iyon. At sinabi rin, sinasabi rin ng Chief of Staff na wala rin siyang alam tungkol sa mga bagay na ito. So tama bang sabihin na among the three of you, si Vice President lang ang nakakaalam?

Let her finish the question. Witness will not answer the question until the objection is ruled upon by the Chair. Finish your question, Atty. May.

Don, Your Honor.

Atty. Christine, what's your objection?

Misleading, Your Honor, and vague. First of all, the Chief of Staff has not yet testified with regard to the confidential funds.

Well, Atty. Christine, the Court took judicial notice of the proceedings in the House of Representatives where the Chief of Staff, Atty. Lopez, testified and I went through the TSN and such statements were made. along those lines by the Chief of Staff of the Vice President. Witness may answer.

Ma'am, can I be clarified with a question? Can you repeat the question, please? Okay.

Kanina, sinabi mo na ang top three officers ng OVP ay ikaw as Assistant Chief of Staff, Chief of Staff, at ang Vice President herself. Tama ba?

Yes, ma'am.

Ngayon, sinabi mo na wala kang alam tungkol sa drafting ng liquidation reports. Tama ba? Wala ka rin alam sa disbursement ng confidential funds. Wala ka rin alam tungkol sa recording relative to the confidential funds. Tama ba?

Yes, ma'am.

Ito rin yung naging posisyon ng chief of staff. Wala rin siyang alam tungkol sa mga bagay na to. Ngayon, tama bang sabihin na dahil kayong tatlo ang top three na officers or officials

ng Office of the Vice President, si Vice President lamang ang may alam tungkol dito sa mga bagay na to. Objection.

Speculative, Your Honor.

If he knows, Your Honor, again, Your Honor, we don't want to belabor this point, Your Honor, but defense counsel keeps

bringing

us back to this point, Your Honor. The question does not become speculative simply because it's couched in a what-if question, Your Honor. And besides, Your Honor, this honorable court has already ruled and has already directed The witness to answer, Your Honor.

The counsel would want the witness to speculate on the state of mind of the vice president.

No, Your Honor.

Let me

answer it in two

points, Your

Honor.

Please, counsel, briefly.

Yes. It's not speculative, Your Honor, because there was already an admission that they are the top three officials of the OVP. Now, the answer would be based on that admission, so it's not speculative. The question would only be speculative. It's completely conjectural, Your Honor. And second, Your Honor, the only reason I repeated the answer because the witness himself requested me to repeat. But prior to me repeating the question, the honorable presiding officer has already made a ruling. Your Honor, we will be squandering away time if every time I would repeat the question, the defense counsel would all of a sudden invoke another ground. for objection.

Your Honor, please. We're about to break for lunch, so let's end it on a good note. Finally, Attorney Christine. I will

revise my objection, Your Honor. Incompetent.

Allow me, counsels.

Based on your testimony, Ortonio, you have no knowledge of spending, liquidating, and disbursing confidential funds. Correct?

Yes, that's correct, Your Honor.

Gina Acosta also said she has no knowledge. Tama, alam mo ba yan? Nawala rin siyang alam sa paggastos ng confidential fund at kung paano ito naligudate. Would you know that?

Based on what I have read... Na testimonyo niya? Yes, sir.

Base sa pagkakaalam mo, alam ba ng vice president kung paano ito ginastos?

The way I understand it, sir, as the head of agency... I would understand that she knows the implementation, sir.

Yes. So si Cornel Lachica alam din siyempre?

Yes, sir. As the security officer. So

sa loob ng opisina

ng OVP, si VP Sara as head of agency lang ang nakakaalam, ikaw bilang assistant chief of staff, yung chief of staff mismo, walang alam, at si Cornel Lachica na ayon sa katanungan ni Senator-Judge Sotto kanina lang na hindi naman bahagi ng opisina ng OVP.

Yes,

Your Honor.

Okay. That would be all for Redirect, Your Honor.

Do you have a short recross, Attorney Christine, or a long one? Do we pause for lunch or do you want to finish your cross before lunch? We don't have to call lunch at 12 o'clock. We can do it past 12.

After lunch, Your Honor. You

prefer after lunch? Thank you.

Yes, Your Honor.

Then, since it's only 11.57, we have time for one more, Senator-Judge, if you want to avail of it. Yes, I see Senator-Judge Tulfo, the next one to interject raising his hand. The sequence would be Senator-Judge Rafi Tulfo, Senator-Judge Villanueva, the Senate President, Senator-Judge Ontiveros, Senator-Judge Lacson, Senator-Judge Padilla, and I just saw Senator Bam, Senator-Judge Bam. So we have time for one or two more senator-judges before breaking for lunch. Senator-Judge Raffi, you are recognized, sir. You may proceed. You have two minutes, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

Kayo po ay nag-reply sa AOM from COA for the check number 244027 dated December 2022.

Ano po yung proseso? na ginagawa niyo once kayo po ay nakatanggap ng AOM or disallowance.

Good morning, Your Honor. When we receive AOMs within the office, once we receive it, we inform the, of course, the chief of staff and, of course, also the head of agency of the AOM. We send them a copy for their information.

Do you investigate?

Once meron na pong instruction kung sino po yung magkakondak ng review, then that's the time po that we conduct a necessary review. Do you ask questions? Yes, sir, to the concerned na mga divisions. What

questions do you ask, for example?

Usually, sir, we ask point-per-point on what is indicated in the AOM so that we can also address the concerns point-by-point.

Very good. Now, isa sa mga AOM ay observation ng COA. Kulang sa mga dokumento. Halimbawa, itong sinabi rito 170,000 at marami ito by the millions. 170,000 for the payment of reward, open and close medicines.

Did you not ask? Ano ba talaga to? Anong klaseng medisina binili? Kasi ang pagkakalam ko, meron kayong pera from confidential funds, binigyan nyo doon sa informant para siya bumili ng medisina.

Yes, sir.

Did you ask?

kung anong medisina para sa medisina bibili ng informant, yung pera?

When the time na nag-consult po ako with the security officers, I did not ask anymore on the specifics but I asked on paano po yung naging process nila in terms of noong pag-release ng funds for the informants or for the agents.

Sir, you are a very highly educated person from prestigious schools. Come on, it doesn't make sense. It defies logic. Tatunoy mo dapat, to protect Sara, kasi very close ka kay Sara, teka muna anong klaseng mga medisina ang binili, nasaan yung reseta. Kasi mali mo baka namin hindi binili ng medisina, baka binili ng drugs, whatever, baka may nagbulsan ng pera. Dapat, yun kasing kailangan ng ano eh, kuha diba? Resibo.

At the time po, sir, when I consulted with the security officer, sir. I was not able to ask anymore. Why not?

It's part of your job. In fact, pumirma kay. Doon sa pag-reply mo sa AOM.

I asked, sir, for

your process.

So pumirma ka nakapikit?

Yes, sir.

No, sir, hindi naman po na nakapikit, sir, because nagtanong naman po ako sa security officer namin sir on how it was released or implemented on the ground. So kung ano po yung nabigay na information sir, yun po yung nailagay ko sa pag-draft po ng reply to the AOM.

Hindi mo rin tinanong bakit pare-pareho yung signature sa different names. Ayon sa NBI forensic. Tapos pare-pareho yung handwriting sa different names. Parang isang tao lang nag-fill up. Meron pa nga walang signature at nag-receive ng by the hundreds of thousands each. Did you ask? Bakit mo tinanong? Bakit pusa? Bakit ito si Pagong? Pinagtatawa na tayo ng tao, etc. Why? Did you not ask?

Sir, at that time, sir, hindi ko po nakita yung mga acknowledgement receipts, sir. I was only made aware of the acknowledgement receipt, sir, when it was already shown during the H.O.R. ng mga hearing, sir.

Hindi kasi pag nagtanong ng attachment, sabi mo you ask questions point by point, you investigate, then kinuha mo sana yung mga dokumento and then pinakita sa'yo and then nagtanong ka point by point like you said. And then you're a very educated person, you should have asked a lot of questions to satisfy dun sa request ng COA.

Sir, I didn't

ask.

Sir, at that time, sir, I did not see the acknowledgement receipts.

Come on, sir. Like I said, napakatalino mong tao sa credentials mo. datin professor, Ateneo, UP, di ba? And then, sorry sir, parang nagmaang-maangang ka.

Again, is it blind loyalty? Thank you po. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, sir.

Are you going for lunch or the Brostrom attorney, Senator-Judge Jewell?

They're okay. I thought you were headed towards lunch already. Senator-Judge Villanueva, as the last senator-judge to interject before we break for lunch. You have two minutes, sir. You may proceed.

Thank you.

Mr. Witness, you received a COA for approving the disbursement voucher, right? The 125 million. And your explanation is delegated to you for more than 1 million. Is that correct?

Yes, sir. There is an office order, sir.

Ano yung extent of your authority? Ministerial approval or may responsibility din kayo na determine if this is lawful, properly supported, and authorized expenditure bago kayo pumirma?

There is also a level of checking, sir, if documentary attachments have been complied, sir, prior to the affixing my signature, sir. Like? Kung sa mga disbursement vouchers, Sir, dapat merong mga supporting documents on the reasons for the request. Like?

One of which, Sir, say for example, there is an activity design, Sir, which indicates kung ano yung mga activities to be done and the expenses for those activities.

At the

time, sir, I did not know, sir, kung ano yung arrangement nila ni Ms. Gina Acosta, sir. I just accompanied her to the bank, sir, per her request.

So, you have no knowledge? I

have no knowledge, sir.

You're the disbursement officer. You don't have any knowledge. So, wala ding written authority, no? Anyway, dun po sa testimony ni Ms. Acosta, sabi po niya, si Colonel La Chica was not banded, yet the confidential funds were released to him because he was supposedly na siya yung mag-implement ng activities on the ground. As sa... assistant chief of staff, as disbursement voucher signatory, officially approving the DVs. Are you aware of this arrangement?

I had no personal knowledge, sir, on that arrangement, sir.

Because if that's the case, you're saying it's like a ministerial duty for you. Although earlier you said it's not. Why would you allow that? Then next question, Asek. kayo po mismo yung umipirma dun sa November 30, 2023 OVP response to COA stating that all transactions involving the 125 million pesos were valid, proper, and regular and explaining that the 40 million medical and food aid was given to persons conducting nationwide surveillance operations bago po ninyo ginawa may factual Representation po ba kayo sa COAN? Ano po yung inyong ginawa, yung personal po ninyo na vinerify bago ninyo po ito ginawa?

Sorry, sir. The question again, sir. Just to be clarified lang, sir.

Ulitin ko po yung question. Noong nag-respond po kayo dun sa COA that all transactions involving the 125 million were valid, proper, and regular, in-explain nyo din po yung 40 million medical and food aid was given to persons conducting nationwide surveillance operations. Bago po ninyo ito ginawa, yung factual representation po na iyon sa Commission on Audit, Ano po yung inyong personal na ginawa to verify all of this?

I consulted po yung our security officer on how the implementation was done on the field, sir. And what was relayed to me, sir, yun po yung nilagay ko sa draft for the reply. Ano po yung

hiningi nyo?

Information, sir, on how it was implemented, sir. So I asked kung, if I can remember it right, sir, because it was quite a long time ago, sir. I asked kung paano yung manner of release of the funds on the ground, sir, and especially yung sa medical and food aid, sir. And what was relayed to me, sir, was that The funds were released to the informants or the agents through cash and then based on their representation that they would need these funds for the purchase of medicines and supplies.

Binanggit niyo po dun sa AOM na lumabas na notice of suspension, wala pong nakalagay na misuse of funds, right? So ano po yung ginawa po ninyo after po lumabas ito? Despite the fact na wala ho kasi yung nakalagay na misuse of funds, pero nakalagay po doon yung locking of documentary records to support yung ginawa po ninyo, ano po yung inyong ginawa para makorect? For example, from AOM to before ma-issue yung notice of suspension, before ma-issue yung notice of disallowance, ano po yung inyong ginawa to suffice yung hinahanap po ng Commission on Audit?

Based doon po sa mga points that were raised in the AOM. We provided answers for those. Before

you answer, presiding officer, you agree na yung binanggit niyo po, no? There's no such word misuse of funds doon sa mga AOM, NS?

Yes, sir.

ND?

Yes, sir.

Okay, sige po.

So we provided the documents that were required of us, sir, in support on the issues or concerns raised by the Commission on Audit.

And apparently, hindi po sila pumayag at hindi sila nag-agree because kulang pa rin po yung documents.

Based po sa NS, sir, ND, sir,

Meron pa pong mga hinihingi ang COA, sir. And that's why, as a response to the ND, sir, we also supply those information.

Salamat po. Gusto ko lang sabihin that indeed yung confidentiality may limit what can be disclosed to the public, but it cannot erase yung accountability within the government. Salamat po, Mr. Riquelme.

Thank you, Senator-Judge Villanueva. We shall declare and call a recess so that everybody can have lunch. Mr. Ortonio, your excuse from the witness stand. Kindly have lunch and we expect you back. We expect everyone back at 1 p.m. Your Honor, please. Yes, Senator, the Honorable Luistro.

Your Honor, may we just know if Colonel Boran Singh is already in the premises because we understand that the prosecution will be presenting him immediately after the recross of Mr. Ortoño. He

is not yet in the building and we will address that when we reconvene. There's nothing we can do about it anyway at this point in time. We will inform you

of

the circumstances before we resume at 1pm.

We are on recess until 1pm.

Kindly have a hearty lunch.

Let's resume.

Kindly situate Mr. Ortonio to the witness stand. Clerk of Court, Trusa.

You are under the same oath, Mr. Ortonio. Do you understand that, sir?

Yes, sir.

Thank you. Attorney Christine, your witness for your recross.

Yes, Your Honor.

Good afternoon, Mr. Ortonio.

Good afternoon, Mama Ingjapon.

Earlier, you were asked, to confirm that the PFPs for the fourth quarter of 2022 and the first to third quarters of 2023 did not reflect that the confidential funds were used for the safe implementation of the OVP's good governance program for 2022 and social economic delivery for 2023. Can you recall that?

Yes, ma'am.

Misleading, Your Honor. Move to strike, Your Honor.

Why is it misleading, attorney?

Because, Your Honor, during the redirect examination, I never mentioned safe implementation.

Reform counsel, I don't recall the word safe as well.

But it was somewhere along those lines, I believe.

Yes, Your Honor. But actually, that was what registered to me. But, can I continue, Your Honor?

You may continue, Attorney Christine.

But, Your Honor, we move to strike the answer of the witness.

So, stricken off, reform your question, Attorney Christine. Thank

you, Your Honor.

I'm showing you the PFPs for 2022 and 2023.

Your Honor, they are exhibits

D

-1-23 OVP for the PFP for the year 2022 and D-1-49-OVP for the year 2023. Do you have copies of those PFPs? Let's go to the 2022 PFP. Now, I'm directing you to the second column of the PFP. It says there, safe implementation. Let's go to the 2022 PFP. It says there's safe implementation of the OVP initiatives and confidence building. Do you see that?

Yes, ma'am. Based on the documents presented.

And that is under the table, under the heading expected outcome?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay. Now let's go to the year 2023, CY 2023 PFP. Now I'm directing you also to the second column.

It says there's safe implementation of OVP initiatives and confidence building. Do you confirm that?

Yes, ma'am.

And that is under the heading expected outcome?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay. You were also asked about the supposed submission of the PFP together with your letter or the Vice President's letter to the DBM dated August 22, 2022. Earlier, you were asked. And in fact, you were asked also to refer to section or item 3.24 of the Joint Circular.

Do you recall that? Now, do you also recall that in a letter dated September 15, 2022, the DBM requested that you submit the PFP in relation to your request for additional funding?

Yes, ma'am. That's correct, ma'am.

In fact, In compliance with such letter of the DBM, you submitted a copy of the PFP through your letter dated September 19, 2022.

Yes, ma'am. We transmitted that report, ma'am.

And as earlier mentioned, during your cross-examination, your submissions to the DBM Okay, I will rephrase, Your Honor. As earlier mentioned, the DBM recommended the approval of your request for confidential funds to the Office of the President.

That's correct, ma'am.

In fact, the Office of the President approved the issuance of confidential funds to the OVP.

Let her finish the question, counsel. Are you done, Attorney Christine? What is the objection, counsel?

That was not covered by the Redirect anymore, Your Honor.

In the discretion of the Court, we will grant latitude, counsel. Overall, the witness may answer.

Thank you, Your Honor. Earlier also, you were asked whether you knew if confidential funds were used in the regular activities of the OVP. Do you confirm that?

Yes, I was asked earlier.

That was misleading, Your Honor.

The

question earlier, first, Your Honor, we move to strike because the question is misleading. What I asked was whether or not this witness has personal knowledge, not just any kind of knowledge, Your Honor, personal knowledge.

Okay, I will rephrase my question using the wordings of the counsel. You confirmed earlier that you were asked whether or not you have personal knowledge as to whether the confidential funds were used in the regular activities of the OVP.

Yes, ma'am.

As the one who drafted the AOMs and the response to the AOMs and the response to the notice of suspension. Was there any findings in the AOMs? Was there any findings in the AOMs which relative to the supposed use of the confidential funds in the regular activities of the OVP?

Misleading, Your Honor. If you can recall. Misleading, Your Honor, because this witness could not have drafted the AOMs. The AOMs came from the Commission on Audit.

She corrected herself, counsel, the response to the AOM. Yes, Your Honor. So I will

repeat my question, Your Honor, for clarity. Now, as the one who drafted the responses to the AOMs, as well as the notice of suspension,

If you can recall, was there any findings of the COA relative to the supposed use of the confidential funds in the regular activities of the OVP? Not

covered by the Redirect, Your Honor. I never touched upon the AOMs during the redirect examination.

Same ruling, counsel. You may register in the court notes a continuing objection along these lines of questioning by the counsel. Witness may answer.

Based on the documents that we have received from COA, there was no any indication or any comment that the confidential funds were used for regular programs.

Nothing further, Your Honor. Thank you.

Thank you, counsel. We now proceed to the interjections of senator-judges before we proceed to administrative matters facing the court today. We recognize our distinguished Senate President. Next in line, um, Senate President, um, Senate President, Sen. Sherwin Gatchalian. You may proceed, sir. You have two minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. Uh, Mr. Ortoño, um, nakita ko sa mga records na anim na beses ko yung pumerma ng reply, uh, to COA. Itong anim na letters na ito, uh, ito ba ay nabasa, nakita? ipinakita kay Vice President Sara?

All the replies, sir, that were drafted were also sent to our Vice President for her information, for her reference and review.

So alam niya itong mga replies to kuha? Yes,

sir. Okay.

And narinig ko rin sa inyong... testimony na kinausap niyo si Acosta at si Colonel Lachica. Yes,

sir.

At base sa mga information nila, yun ang inilagay mo sa letter replies niyo tukowa. Tama?

Yes, sir. That's correct, Your Honor.

Pakinarate nga sa amin. Ilang beses niyo pala na-meet si Colonel Lachica?

Sir, um... Sa mga replies po, sir, I cannot exactly remember how many times, sir, but I can say more than once or twice, sir, I was able to meet Colonel Lachica to ensure na I get the information from him, sir, and that I'll be able to draft properly the replies to the AOMs. So

mga once or twice?

Around once or twice, sir. The exact

Pagkikwento nga sa amin kung ano exactly yung kanyang sinabi sa inyo para madraft niyo itong reply?

I'll try to recall sir some of the issues that were raised on the AOM. So say for example sir on the AOM comment regarding the use of the confidential funds for medical and food supply sir. So tinanong ko po siya kung Paano po in-implement on ground yung pagbigay ng medical and food supplies to the informants and the agents? So from there po sir, na-mention niya sir na the funds were released to the informants and agents based on the representation that those funds will be used for the purchase of medical and food supplies.

Kunento madya sa iyo na siya mismo ang nagbigay sa mga informants?

Sir, wala na, hindi ko na po ma-recall, sir, if he mentioned specifically if siya po yung ang nag-distribute personally, sir, doon sa, on the ground, sir, or implemented the release on ground.

Pero ang kwento niya sa iyo,

Cash ang ibinigay sa in-formance, hindi medical supplies or other supplies.

That's correct po, Your Honor.

Kwento niya ba sa iyo na meron ba siyang kasamang iba sa pagbibigay nitong cash? Kasi libo-libo yung acknowledgement receipts eh.

Hindi niya po nakwento specifically sir, although if I can recall sir, based on my recollection, meron po siyang na-mention na meron po siyang mga, hindi ko alam kung ano yung term niya sir, but Meron siyang mga people who go directly on the ground, sir.

Pero kinonfirm niya na kinuha, kinonfirm niya sa iyo na kinuha niya yung 500 million pesos.

500 million, sir?

Yes, in four

different

tranches. For

the different funds, sir. Ito sa my assumption, sir, na siya po yung napagbigyan ng funds, sir.

In four different tranches?

Four different tranches, sir.

Nasabi niyo ba sa kanya na, tinanong niyo ba sa kanya na yung mga ibang acknowledgement receipts ay questionable yung mga apelido?

documentary evidence of payment, Sir. So I was not able to see it, Sir. So, noong binigay po sa akin ni Ms. Gina Acosta yung mga DEP, Sir, it was already in a sealed box, Sir, and then we submitted that together with our reply to COA.

Paano niya raw dinistribute yung mga pera? Kasi 500 million ito, thousands and thousands of acknowledgement receipts. Paano niya ikunin ito sa inyo na dinistribute niya itong mga pera? Sino itong mga informants niya? Kasi kayo gumawa ng AOM, nung reply to the AOM. So, I would assume na tinanong niyo yung methodology ng pagdidistribute niya.

Sir, based on my recollection lang sir, he mentioned na, yun nga sir, meron siyang mga people sir who

Yung

pagpili ng informants, natanong niyo ba kung paano? At yung relevance ng informants dito sa inyong confidential operation?

check on him on that matter, sir.

Pero yung DEP, yung Documentary Evidence of Payment, subject yan ng AOM, tama?

For submission, sir, we were required to submit the Documentary Evidence of Payment,

sir. But did you, tinanong niyo ba sa kanya kung paano niya nakukuha itong DEPs?

Sir, I did not ask anymore, sir. I just requested for the copies for the DEPs, sir, so that I can already submit it, sir, doon sa COA as an attachment to the AOM reply.

Paano kung yung DEP, Speke, paano kung yung kanyang narration sa iyo ay hindi totoo? Paano kung ganun ang situation?

Sir, at the time, sir, because he was designated as our security officer, sir, I... Designated

by...

By the head of office, sir, Sara Z. Duterte, sir. So, I... It is of my... Sa tingin ko po, sir, na maayos naman po yung pagkakatrabaho ni Colonel Lachica doon sa pag-dispense niya ng duty as the security officer.

Last question, Mr. Presiding Officer. Bakit parang nagkukuha ko buong-buong yung tiwala ninyo sa kanya at kinuha nyo lahat ng information at yun ang ginamit nyo sa inyong reply to the COA? Bakit buong yung, nakita ko bakit buong yung tiwala, hindi kayo nag-prove? na mga additional questions considering na kayo ang nag-justify nito sa COA at kayo pumerma dito sa COA. So bakit parang kung ano sinabi niya, yun na lang ang linagay niyo sa inyong reply?

Well, first, sir, is because he's the security officer, sir. So, I believe, sir, na siya yung the best person that... can provide the information. And then, second, sir, as the security officer, sir, he was designated by our head of agency, which I believe also gave the trust and confidence to him to implement the activity. So, kung ano po yung na-mention ni Colonel Atchika sa akin during the time when I checked or asked for questions, yun po yung pinagbasihan ko for the drafting of the reply.

Thank you very much, Mr. Presiding Officer. Thank you,

Mr. Senate President. Senator-Judge Ontiveros is recognized for her interjections. You have two minutes, ma'am. You may proceed when you're ready.

Salamat po, Mr. Presiding Officer.

Mr. Ortonio, tama po ba na lahat ng ginagawa ng OVP tungkol sa confidential funds? So, requests, amounts, justifications?

use at pagsagot sa mga puna ng COA. Tama po ba na lahat ng ito ay dinesisyonan at inaprubahan ni VP Duterte?

Based on the mga replies, ma'am, yes, I was able to provide a copy to the head of agency, ma'am. Again, being the head of agency, ma'am, I provided her with the information. At

base doon, dinesisyonan at inaprubahan niya ang lahat ng ito?

Yes, and from that time, ma'am, we signed off on the document for submission to the Commission on Audit.

With the last touch or final sign-off being that of VP Duterte.

Yes, ma'am. Being the head of agency, ma'am, we sought her approval on it, ma'am. At

sangayon po ba kayo na bilang yung ganong head of agency na si VP Duterte ang responsable at pinaka-responsable sa lahat ng iyan?

Well, being the head of agency, ma'am, I believe that kailangan niyang malaman lahat ng mga nangyayari and I know, ma'am, na si Ma'am Inday really wants to know details, no, especially on implementation of the different activities that we do in the office. So, it is really... Meron talagang involvement in terms of ensuring that things are properly implemented within the office. And

based on that knowing, batay sa kaalamang iyon, siya ang pinaka-responsable sa kabuang iyan.

Based on that, ma'am, being the head of agency, ma'am, I would say so, ma'am.

Alright. Ganong katagal niyo na po kilala si VP Duterte?

Siguro ma'am, more than 10 years ma'am. I started working together with her ma'am in 2008.

At saan po at, oh so almost 20 years pala. So at saan po at paano niyo siya nakilala?

Nakilala ko po siya, ma'am, bilang vice mayor sa Davao City, ma'am. And then, at the time, ma'am, when they were looking for several staff members for the office of the vice mayor, I submitted an application, ma'am.

At magkakilala rin po ba kayo ni Ms. Gina Acosta kahit bago po kayo nakipagtrabaho sa isa't isa sa OVP?

I knew of Ms. Gina Acosta, ma'am, during my employment, ma'am, with Sangguniang Panlungsod during the time ni Ma'am Inday as the Vice President, ma'am, and Vice Mayor, as the Vice Mayor.

So prior sa OVP, magkakilala at magkatrabaho na po kayo?

Kilala

ko po

si Ms. Gina, nakikita ko po siya sa Sangguniang Panlungsod.

What about po si Col. La Chica? Magkakilala na rin po ba kayo at magkatrabaho bago kayo magkatrabaho sa OVP?

I first knew of Col. La Chica ma'am when I was already with the Office of the Vice President, ma'am.

So, would you say po na nasa circle of trust kayo ni VP Duterte? Kayo ni na Ms. Gina Acosta, Colonel La Chica, at kayo nga po?

Well, ma'am, I can only answer for myself, ma'am. In terms of working relationship, ma'am, I would say that I have the trust and confidence of the VP in terms of doing duties that are assigned to me.

Pero sasabihin niyo ba na walang trust at confidence si VP Duterte kay Ms. Gina Acosta?

I cannot categorically say, ma'am, but I would say, ma'am, na could be, baka meron po, considering that there are also duties and functions that are being entrusted to them.

In fact, kung mas candid pa po tayo, madali naman siguro kahit from an observation, hindi lang observation dahil malapit yung katrabaho na may trust and confidence. What about po si Colonel La Chica? Sasabihin niyo ba na walang trust and confidence si VP Duterte sa kanya?

Considering, ma'am, that he is the group commander of the Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group, ma'am, I would say, ma'am, I would say that She may have the trust and confidence.

Again, kung mas kaya nating maging candid, of course, lalo na kung security officer ng isang public official, of course, may trust and confidence. Otherwise, hindi ipagkakaloob ang kaligtasan sa kamay niya.

Lastly po, napaksa for now. Paano pong, and winding up Mr. Presiding Officer, paano pong sinama kayo ni Ms. Gina Acosta dun sa pag-encash nung mga cheque? Halimbawa, kung kailangan po ni Ms. Acosta ang tagabuhat ng bag nung cash, bakit po kayo in particular ang sinama niya?

Ang answer, ma'am, kung bakit ako po ang naisama ni Ms. Gina Acosta. Hindi lang

naisama, pero sabi niyo, hiniling niya sa inyo na kayo yung sumama.

Yes, ma

'am. So, bakit po?

When she requested me, ma'am, to accompany her, ma'am, sinamahan ko naman po siya, ma'am, because at the time na itanong niya na magpapasama siya, I was available naman, ma'am. And because of the request, ma'am,

I accompanied her going to the bank.

So simpleng nagkataon, walang reason kung bakit kayo yung isinama niya. You were the warm body who happened to be available.

Again, ma'am, I cannot say kung ano yung pinaka-reason behind po ni Ms. Gina, but when she requested me that I accompany her, ma'am, I said yes, ma'am.

Winding up on this topic, Mr. Presiding Officer, sinamahan niyo rin po ba si Ms. Gina Acosta noong iabot kay Colonel La Chica yung pera?

No, ma'am. I actually did not, I was not aware, ma'am, of the arrangement, ma'am, with Colonel La Chica, ma'am.

At huli po on this topic, Mr. Presiding Officer. Kindly wind up. Winding up, Mr. Presiding Officer. Nabanggit niyo po na alam ninyo yung Joint Circular on Confidential and Intelligence Funds. Hindi niyo po ba naisip na violation ang pagbibigay ni Ms. Acosta kay Col. La Chica ng bulto-bultong cold cash?

Ma'am, based on, because again, ma'am, I was not aware of the arrangement, ma'am, but when I was doing the replies, ma'am, to the AOM, and of course, I also checked on the JC, ma'am, the pagpili po ng mga, ng person to implement the different activities of the confidential activities, and to designate a security officer is indicated also in the JMC and is within the authority of the head of agency. So, yun po yung pagkakaintindi ko at the time. So, with that, ma'am, I saw it that it was the manner of how the funds were handled, ma'am, was Following ay parang a regular process, ma'am, based on the JMC, based on my understanding.

But then again, Mr. Ortoño, in closing, yung close reading ng JMC na sabi niyo nga, familiar kayo, would show na hiwalay pa sa usapin ng implementation, yung paghahawak ng pondo ay dun lamang sa isang katulad ni Ms. Gina Acosta at hindi pwedeng ipagkatiwala bilang accountable officer siya, hindi pwedeng ipasakamay sa iba.

Ang understanding ko po, ma'am, yes, the disbursement is with the special disbursing officer but the implementation, ma'am, was done through the security officer.

Of course. Hindi po ako po tinatanong yung implementation. Tinatanong ko po yung violation ng JMC na alam ninyo noong tinurn over ni Ms. Gina Acosta ang bulta-bultong cash kay Col. La Chica. Something that I simply think should not and could not have escaped your eyes, Mr. Ortonio.

Yes, ma'am. Again, ma'am, based on the, for the 2022, ma'am, I could not recall that that was a concern, ma'am, in the AOMs, ma'am. Although for the 2023, ma'am, notice for this allowance, ma'am, it is subject for reply also on our end, ma'am, and we are currently drafting also a reply for that one. And

of course, given the strict internal controls na siguro kayo yung pinaka may oversight sa opisina, even prior further communications from COA, after yung unang pagpansin nila sa last quarter 2022, eh di dapat nag-exert kayo ng higit na pagbantay the next three quarters of 2023.

Currently

wind up, Senator-Judge Ariza. Yes, winding up now, Mr.

President. Your Honor, we were able to receive the audit observation memo for 2022 in October 4 of... 2023. So, we got the observations, ma'am. We already got the AOM, ma'am, and yung three-quarters for 2023 was already implemented.

Again po, Mr. Ortonio, even prior any further communications from COA, dahil familiar kayo sa JMC, sabi nyo nga, dapat alam nyo na po yun. Nag-ansalamat, Mr. Ortonio. Maraming salamat po, Mr. Presiding Officer.

Senator-Judge Lacson, You may proceed with your interjections when you're ready, sir. You have two minutes. Thank you, Mr.

Presiding Officer. Good afternoon, Mr. Ortonio.

Good afternoon, Your Honor.

Even setting aside your educational background and your work experience, it is not difficult to conclude na matalino kayong tao, your intelligent person, and unintelligent witness as well. So, kayo po yung Assistant Chief of Staff ng OBP.

Yes, Your Honor.

Kayo rin yung concurrently administrative and financial officer.

As the assistant chief of staff, sir, I oversee the administrative and financial officer. So,

effectively, kayo yung admin and financial officer?

Yes, sir. I oversee the admin and finance, sir.

Kanina kasi, upon questioning ni Atty. Christine, She kept referring to the regular programs under the office of the Vice President. Natatanda niyo yan? So it aroused my curiosity. Pinapool out ko sa staff yung General Appropriations Act ng 2022 as well as 2023. So we found out, papabasa ko sa inyo para hindi mat-chart sa oras ko.

For 2022, Under the Good Governance Program, merong 621.6 million pesos.