August 26, 2026

The Chair governed the opening procedure, evidence handling, objections, witness examination, and administrative directions.

Lemuel G. Ortoño, Assistant Secretary and Assistant Chief of Staff of the Office of the Vice President, testified that the 2023 confidential funds were not used for the socio-economic program itself but for the safe implementation of OVP programs. He said the 2023 program title was changed from Good Governance to Socio-Economic Program Delivery to cover the office's projects.

Ortoño said the motion for reconsideration remained pending and the COA matter was not yet final. He said he drafted the OVP audit response after coordinating with OVP officials and receiving their replies.

Sison asked the Chair to include in its coming ruling a public interview that repeated the prior discussion of the word ‘scam.’ Ligutan then said his August 12 Facebook post—stating that misleading questions are not allowed even on cross-examination—was a general teaching point rather than a comment on the merits. The Chair said overlapping voices meant the transcript could not settle whether the courtroom dispute concerned leading or misleading questions, then issued the Rule 18 ruling.

The court then allowed defense counsel to use leading questions on cross-examination of Ortoño and heard the cross-examination, prosecution response, and senator-judge questions.

Before adjournment, the court set witness arrangements for September 1 and 2, granted an additional-exhibit marking conference, granted a supplemental bank-record subpoena, and addressed prospective implementation of the Rule 18 ruling.

The prosecution asked the court to direct defense counsel to use non-leading questions because Ortoño had been declared hostile and his interests were aligned with the respondent. The Chair ruled that leading questions are permitted on cross-examination.

The prosecution asked the court to issue subpoenas for Colonel Boransing and Colonel Panopio for September 1 and, if needed, for Atty. Michael Wesley Poa and Philippine Statistics Authority official Marisa B. Grande for September 2; it withdrew Major General Bahao as a proposed witness.

Ligutan said his Facebook post on misleading questions and cross-examination was a general teaching point, not a comment on the parties merits arguments.

Sison asked that the Chair’s coming ruling address a public interview that repeated the prior discussion of the word ‘scam,’ saying the point should be included for guidance.

During cross-examination, defense counsel Kristine R. Ferrer elicited Ortoño's testimony that confidential funds were not used for the OVP's regular socio-economic programs themselves but for their safe implementation.

Sison reserved the respondent's right to comment and make appropriate objections to the bank-record subpoena at the proper time; the Chair said the defense could also seek further remedies outside the court.

Sen. Vicente C. Sotto III noted that Lemuel Ortonio had said administrative and finance matters passed through him and that he had led human resources for Davao City. Sotto then asked Colonel La Chica's employment status at the Office of the Vice President. Ortonio said La Chica was the Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group commander under an Armed Forces designation, not an OVP employee. Sotto confirmed that the designation did not give La Chica employment status in the OVP.

Sen. Erwin Tulfo tested whether Limuel Ortonio had understood the governing Joint Memorandum Circular and the 2022 Commission on Audit notice of disallowance. Tulfo said COA had concluded that intelligence rewards could not be structured as broad distributions of medicines, food, grocery packs or household goods rather than specific targeted payments, and questioned whether a civilian office could undertake operational intelligence gathering. Ortonio said he had read the circular and notice, described COA's position as an initial observation to which the Office of the Vice President had responded, and said he understood civilian agencies could use confidential funds while coordinating with law-enforcement bodies. Tulfo cited the 73.3-million-peso December 2022 disallowance, including expenditures for medicines and goods that COA said were improperly classified as rewards. Ortonio said he recalled COA requiring intelligence reports to support the rewards and agreed the office had an issue it needed to address. Asked who devised aliases including Chippy McDonald, Pusa and Pagong, Ortonio said he did not know and could not provide acknowledgement-receipt information because he had not participated in implementing the confidential activities.

Sen. Francis "Kiko" Pangilinan asked how 122 million pesos in cash, distributed from December 2022 through September 2023, could have been used as rewards for informants after surveillance and for medicines. Mr. Ortonio said security officers had told him the medicines were what informants or agents needed, but acknowledged that cash—not medicine—was released and that he did not know whether medicines had actually been bought; the records were acknowledgement receipts. Pangilinan asked why, as head of the Bids and Awards Committee, he had not raised regular-procurement and bidding requirements for medicine purchases. Ortonio said he first learned of the medicine and food-supply concern when the audit observation memorandum arrived around October 2023. Pangilinan also asked what goods made up the reported 112 million pesos in supplies; Ortonio said he had no personal knowledge. Asked whether this use of government funds was usual, particularly for a BAC head, Ortonio said he understood it to be allowable under the Joint Memorandum Circular and therefore usual. When Pangilinan resumed, he noted that the third-quarter 2023 accomplishment report no longer listed 40 million pesos for medicines, although earlier quarters did. He asked whether the entry disappeared after Ortonio received the audit observation memorandum on October 4 and the October 9 report was prepared; Ortonio said he could not say whether the report had changed because he had not prepared it. Pangilinan then challenged Ortonio's response to the audit memorandum, asking why he had not opened the sealed envelope of acknowledgement receipts to determine whether they were acceptable documentary evidence of payment before submitting them to the Commission on Audit. Ortonio said he submitted what the special disbursing officer had given him, did not open the envelope as liaison officer, and did not seek clearance to do so. Pangilinan said that meant the claimed point-by-point response had not actually examined the evidence and returned to the claimed 122-million-peso medicine rewards as an explanation he found difficult to credit.

Sen. Raffy Tulfo pressed Lemuel Ortoño on how the Office of the Vice President handled Commission on Audit Audit Observation Memoranda. Ortoño said the office sent each memorandum to the chief of staff and head of agency, and that a review began only after instructions identified who would conduct it; he said the concerned divisions were then asked to address COA's points. Tulfo focused on an observation that a 170,000-peso reward had been described as medicines, asking whether Ortoño had checked what medicine was supposedly purchased, any prescription or receipt, and the release records. Ortoño said he had asked security officers about the process for releasing funds to informants or agents, but not the medication specifics. He also said he had not seen the acknowledgement receipts when preparing the AOM reply and therefore had not asked about repeated handwriting, missing signatures or aliases on records for payments running into hundreds of thousands of pesos. The exchange tested whether the OVP's response had meaningfully examined the documents that COA found deficient. When Tulfo resumed, he asked whether the informants were seriously ill and why they had received hundreds of thousands of pesos for medicine. Ortoño said he had no personal knowledge, had not asked Lachica, and trusted the security officer; when Tulfo said an AOM signatory had a responsibility to know, Ortoño said he was unsure that he held that responsibility. Tulfo said the Department of Health could provide medicines without using confidential funds and asked why that option was not pursued. Ortoño said he could not explain the implementation because he was not the main implementer. After Tulfo criticized those answers as illogical, Ortoño said he had acted within the limits of his assigned duties and that the confidential-fund matter remained under a pending motion for reconsideration. Tulfo said the public was more offended by the apparent misuse of public money and said he would resign rather than sign documents he could not explain.

Sen. Joel Villanueva asked Limuel Ortonio what responsibility accompanied his delegated authority to approve a 125-million-peso disbursement voucher, including whether he had to determine that the expenditure was lawful, supported and authorized before signing. Ortonio said he checked documentary attachments such as the activity design and projected expenses. Villanueva noted that Ortonio had no personal knowledge of the release of confidential funds to unbonded Col. Lachica despite signing the vouchers; Ortonio said he did not know that arrangement. Villanueva then asked what Ortonio personally verified before signing the Office of the Vice President's November 30, 2023 response to the Commission on Audit characterizing the transactions as valid, proper and regular and explaining the 40-million-peso medical and food aid. Ortonio said he consulted the security officer about field implementation and repeated the explanation relayed to him: cash was given to informants or agents for medicines and supplies. Villanueva also asked what the office did after COA's audit observation memorandum identified missing supporting records, despite the absence of a stated misuse-of-funds finding. Ortonio said the office provided answers and documents, then supplied further information requested in the notice of disallowance. Villanueva said confidentiality could limit public disclosure but could not erase accountability within government.

Sen. Risa Hontiveros asked whether Vice President Sara Duterte had decided and approved every confidential-fund request, amount, justification, use and response to the Commission on Audit. Lemuel Ortoño said the documents went to the head of agency and were submitted to COA with her final sign-off; as head, she bore ultimate responsibility. Hontiveros also probed the relationships around the fund. Ortoño said he had worked with Duterte since 2008, knew Gina Acosta before joining the Office of the Vice President and knew Colonel La Chica only after arriving there; he said Duterte may have entrusted duties to Acosta and La Chica. Ortoño said Acosta asked him to accompany her to the bank because he was available; he did accompany her there but did not accompany her for, or know about, her later cash handover to La Chica. Asked whether that handover violated the Joint Memorandum Circular, he said the special disbursing officer handled disbursement while a security officer could implement activities; he did not recall the 2022 audit observation raising the issue, and said the 2023 notice remained under reply. Hontiveros distinguished implementation from the accountable officer's custody of funds and asked why oversight had not changed after the first observations. Ortoño said the 2022 memorandum arrived on October 4, 2023, after the first three quarters of that year had already been implemented. The exchange tied approval, cash handling and internal controls to the Vice President's responsibility as agency head.

Sen. Panfilo "Ping" Lacson examined the Office of the Vice President's regular-program and confidential-fund plans after confirming that Lemuel Ortoño oversaw administration and finance. Lacson compared the 2022 General Appropriations Act's 621.6-million-peso Good Governance Program with its 125-million-peso fourth-quarter confidential-fund plan, then the 2023 2.21-billion-peso social-economic program-delivery appropriation and 500-million-peso annual confidential-fund plan. He asked Ortoño to explain why the physical targets for surveillance and security-related activities were repeated across the two budget years. Ortoño said they described activities to be performed but could not otherwise characterize the comparison. Lacson said the unchanged program labels and targets looked copy-pasted rather than tailored to the purported regular programs, calling the result "stupid." The exchange challenged whether the OVP's stated regular programs and confidential-fund planning described distinct work.

Sen. Robinhood "Robin" Padilla asked Lemuel Ortoño whether aliases were appropriate in confidential-fund work. Ortoño declined to answer categorically, saying sensitive activities could require protecting people or groups and that the Joint Memorandum Circular did not specify how names should appear in documentary evidence of payments. Padilla then turned to National Heroes Day and the aliases used by Philippine revolutionaries, including Dimasalang, to argue that aliases could protect people in confidential activity. A prosecution lawyer said the historical circumstances differed and noted that the anti-alias law permits aliases only when the real name is also disclosed. Padilla compared those historical examples with New People's Army aliases and argued that both involved clear security dangers; the lawyer distinguished internal armed conflict from war. When prosecution counsel said whether aliases were legally allowed or necessary was not the issue it had raised, Padilla rejected that characterization and cited Benigno "Ninoy" Aquino Jr. as another figure who had used an alias. The exchange set Padilla's historical and security rationale for aliases against the legal disclosure rule and prosecution's narrower position.

Sen. Paolo Benigno "Bam" Aquino first distinguished Ninoy Aquino's use of Marcial Bonifacio to return from Boston from the confidential-fund acknowledgement receipts under discussion. He asked the prosecution whether it was alleging that the disputed names were real people rather than aliases; counsel said aliases were not its point and had not been raised in the defense pleadings. Aquino noted that Gina Acosta had testified that the names were aliases, while Ortoño had not identified them that way. He then asked Ortoño how he and the OVP leadership reacted to possible misuse of confidential funds and the unusual names. Ortoño said he initially had questions but presumed regularity; after receiving the audit observation memorandum for the Vice President, he gave copies to the chief of staff and Vice President and was told to prepare a response with the special disbursing and security officers. He said he was concerned when the names emerged in Congress, but that concern diminished because the acknowledgement receipts were not raised in the audit observations. Aquino asked whether the office opened an internal investigation. Ortoño said he did not personally do so and did not know whether the head of agency had ordered one. Aquino stressed that public money warranted prompt inquiry, and Ortoño said proper use of funds mattered to him and to the Vice President. Asked whether anyone had called Colonel La Chica to explain the names, acknowledgement receipts and cash payments, Ortoño said he sought to speak with La Chica only to prepare the audit response, not about those specific records because he did not know them at the time. The exchange examined whether the OVP had meaningfully investigated apparent red flags in the confidential-fund records.

Sen. Imee Marcos questioned why the Office of the Vice President's stated purpose for confidential funds changed across its documents: the 2022 physical and financial plan named Good Governance, the August 22, 2022 request to the Department of Budget and Management added official engagements and functional representation, and the October 17, 2023 certification referred instead to no untoward incident in OVP programs. Lemuel Ortoño said he had not helped draft the physical and financial plan, that the DBM made no comment on the request, and that the security officer handled the certification. He said the differing wording had not been raised in the audit observation memorandum and therefore was not examined in preparing the reply. Marcos then asked whether security officers reported to him in his supervisory role. Ortoño said Colonel La Chica reported directly to the Vice President, not to him or Atty. Lopez; he supervised administrative, financial and strategy functions only in relation to regular funding. He said he consequently had no personal knowledge of how La Chica spent the confidential funds. The exchange focused on who could account for the changing justifications and underlying expenditures.

Sen. Camille Villar asked Lemuel Ortoño to confirm that, as the Office of the Vice President's assistant chief of staff, he prepared its response to the Commission on Audit's Audit Observation Memorandum. Ortoño said he informed the chief of staff and Vice President upon receiving the memorandum, was instructed to coordinate with the special disbursing and security officers, drafted the response from their replies, and submitted it to the head of agency for final approval. Villar asked whether he believed he had adequately performed that role and supplied the required material. Ortoño said he did, pointing to answers and supporting documents for the concerns raised and to issues he said had been removed by the time the office received the notice of disallowance. Villar then asked whether the memorandum itself accused the office of misuse or misappropriation of funds, and whether its findings were final. Ortoño answered that it did not and that the matter remained subject to comments and a motion for reconsideration. The exchange established the OVP's stated audit-response chain and the status Ortoño assigned to the audit findings.

Sen. Juan Miguel "Migz" Zubiri urged the Commission on Audit to issue a final determination on the pending confidential-fund matters during the impeachment trial so senator-judges could be guided. He said a COA finding that no wrongdoing occurred could end the article, while findings of glaring violations could clarify whether there had been misuse of funds; he described COA as the government body's arbiter on that question. Zubiri acknowledged the commission's independence and the parties' due-process rights, framing the request as an appeal rather than compulsion. He said the court was weighing serious accusations and that a final COA observation or finding would help him make a decision, suggesting the court seek an expected timetable when COA appeared for budget-season questioning.

On prospective enforcement of Rule 18, the Presiding Officer said: "From this point forward, however, Rule 18 shall be strictly enforced and be given full force and effect."

On the status of the audit matter, Ortoño said: "I would say that it's not yet final. Hindi po siya final."

The respondent reserved comments and objections to the supplemental bank-record subpoena, and the Chair said further remedies remained available outside the court.

The court scheduled Colonel Boransing and Colonel Panopio for September 1, with additional witness arrangements for September 2, and adjourned until 10:00 a.m. on September 1.