Retired Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang gave that answer during a pointed cross-examination on Day 24 of Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial on September 14. The defense had asked whether she had been promised a government position or anything else in exchange for appearing as a prosecution witness.

But the bigger story of Day 24 was not the exchange between the witness and Duterte’s lawyers.

The Senate impeachment court had moved to Article II, which accuses Duterte of accumulating wealth disproportionate to her lawful income, making untruthful disclosures in her Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth, or SALNs, and maintaining prohibited business interests while serving as vice president. These remain allegations that the prosecution must prove.

Instead of beginning with bank officials or stacks of financial records, prosecutors called Cabotaje-Tang to explain the laws that will be used to assess the evidence.

That made Day 24 less about finding a smoking gun and more about defining the rules before the money trail is put before the court.

Five things to know from Day 24

1. Article II has moved the trial from confidential funds to personal finances. Prosecutors are preparing more than 1,800 bank, tax and other financial records. They intend to compare those records with Duterte’s SALNs, tax information and data cited from an Anti-Money Laundering Council report. The court has also asked Duterte to respond to 104 requests for admission involving the authenticity of bank documents and ownership of accounts.
2. The defense tried to stop Cabotaje-Tang from testifying. Defense lawyer Mark Vinluan argued that she was a “surprise witness” who had not been specifically identified in the pretrial order. Presiding Officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero rejected the objection, saying the order allowed additional witnesses. Cabotaje-Tang then testified about unexplained wealth, SALNs and public officials’ business interests.
3. Unexplained wealth is not established simply because a large amount appears in a bank record. RA 1379 says property manifestly out of proportion to a public official’s salary and other lawful income is presumed prima facie to have been unlawfully acquired, subject to the official’s opportunity to explain its legitimate source. Section 8 of RA 3019 provides that a finding of such disproportionate wealth may be a ground for dismissal or removal, and permits consideration of assets in the names of a spouse or dependents when their legitimate acquisition cannot be satisfactorily shown.
4. The SALN issue became more specific. RA 6713 requires officials to disclose assets including cash on hand or in banks, as well as business interests and financial connections. Duterte’s lawyer Michael Poa has said cash from 2019 onward was included under the category “others.” Current CSC guidance says income still held by the official at the SALN reckoning date should form part of cash on hand or cash in bank. Cabotaje-Tang also told the court that money merely passing through an account and no longer held by the official at year-end would not have to appear in that year’s SALN, although such transactions could still be examined by the AMLC.
5. P6.77 billion is a transaction figure, not a verdict. Prosecutors have cited an AMLC report covering 663 transactions involving Duterte and her husband, Manases Carpio, with an aggregate value of about P6.77 billion. About P3.77 billion was linked to Duterte and P2.99 billion to Carpio, according to the prosecution’s account of the records. Those totals measure money moving through accounts. The prosecution still has to connect the transactions to assets or wealth attributable to Duterte and show that these cannot be reconciled with lawful income and disclosures. The defense, in turn, can challenge ownership, context and the source of the funds.

What the law actually says about business interests

Article VII, Section 13 of the Constitution says the President and Vice President may not “directly or indirectly” participate in any business during their tenure. It also tells them to strictly avoid conflicts of interest. Cabotaje-Tang testified that these restrictions should be read strictly because of the powers of the country’s two highest executive officials.

There is another rule worth separating from that constitutional prohibition. Under RA 6713, when a conflict of interest arises, a public official must resign from a position in a private business within 30 days of assumption of office and divest shareholdings or interests within 60 days.

The distinction matters because the trial still has to determine what Duterte’s disclosed business interests were, whether she was participating in those businesses while vice president, and what the law required her to do about them. Cabotaje-Tang’s interpretation is testimony before the impeachment court. It is not itself a finding that Duterte violated the Constitution.

The P6.77-billion question

This is the number most likely to travel fastest on social media, and it is also the one that needs the most context.

“P6.77 billion in transactions” does not mean Duterte had P6.77 billion sitting in a bank account. It does not mean her net worth was P6.77 billion. And the total alone does not establish unexplained wealth.

The question is what the transactions represent.

Prosecutors say the records must be matched against Duterte’s SALNs, declared income, tax records and other financial documents. That comparison is what could show whether money belonged to Duterte, came from lawful sources, moved temporarily through an account, represented legitimate business activity, or requires another explanation.

That distinction became clearer when Cabotaje-Tang was given a hypothetical involving millions entering an official’s account and being withdrawn before the end of the year. She said money no longer held at the SALN reckoning date would not have to appear in that SALN. But the transaction itself could still fall within AMLC scrutiny.

So P6.77 billion makes for an eye-catching headline. It is the records behind that number that matter.

What netizens were talking about

The public comments I could verify were mostly from Reddit threads that followed news reports and the Day 24 proceedings. They should be read as examples of online reaction, not as a survey of Filipino opinion.

A recurring reaction focused on the defense’s questions about Cabotaje-Tang’s supposed political leanings. Vinluan asked whether she was “anti-Duterte” and whether she was a “Kakampink.” Reddit commenters questioned why the cross-examination was spending time on political labels instead of the legal principles and forthcoming financial records.

Cabotaje-Tang’s “My testimony is not for sale” response also spread quickly. In one r/newsPH discussion, commenters treated the exchange as a criticism of the defense strategy of attacking the witness’s motives. That thread leaned heavily against the defense, so it should not be taken as representative of wider sentiment.

Another discussion moved beyond Duterte’s case and asked whether rules on public officials’ wealth and financial interests matter if they are poorly enforced. One comment put it simply: “Dapat. Pero ndi sinusunod .” Others made the same point in different words, that strict rules mean little without enforcement.

This is also why social-media reactions need context. Day 24 produced several lines made for clips and screenshots, but Article II will not be decided by the sharpest courtroom comeback or the most shared P6.77-billion graphic.

The records come next

Day 24 did not establish that Sara Duterte illegally acquired P6.77 billion. It established the legal questions that prosecutors want the Senate impeachment court to apply once the bank, tax, corporate and SALN records are presented.

There is already a specific next checkpoint. Philippine National Bank and UnionBank were given until September 17 to complete their submission of subpoenaed records, with Escudero saying the deadline would no longer be extended.

The defense also has a non-extendible 15-day period, counted from September 8, to answer the prosecution’s 104 requests for admission concerning bank records and account ownership.

For those of us following the trial, the useful work is more specific than choosing which viral quote to share. When the financial records are presented, compare them with the SALNs, lawful income and the explanations given in court.

On September 17 and in the hearings that follow, let the records lead the conversation, not the P6.77-billion headline.

Instead, the Senate impeachment court set aside September 9 and 10 for prosecutors and the defense to work through more than 1,800 bank, insurance and other financial records ahead of the next phase of Vice President Sara Duterte’s trial.

The documents were produced under subpoenas and are being marked in preparation for Article II, which deals with the allegation of unexplained wealth. The trial is scheduled to resume on September 14.

It may look like two quiet days after weeks of witness testimony. But what happens to these documents matters. The marking process identifies and organizes evidence for later presentation. Questions about authenticity, ownership and what the records actually prove are still to be fought over in court.

Five things to know

1. More than 1,800 financial records are being prepared for Article II

The records include bank and insurance documents obtained through subpoenas. Article II accuses Duterte of betrayal of public trust for allegedly accumulating wealth disproportionate to her lawful income and failing to fully and truthfully disclose assets and liabilities in her Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs). The prosecution says it will begin presenting this case on September 14.

The volume alone does not prove the charge. That will depend on what the documents contain, whether they are authenticated and how the prosecution connects them to Duterte’s declared assets and lawful income.

2. The prosecution stopped calling Article I witnesses, but Article I is not technically closed

On September 8, private prosecutor Lorna Kapunan announced that the prosecution would no longer call its remaining 15 witnesses on Article I, which covers the alleged misuse and irregular liquidation of P612.5 million in confidential funds. Prosecutors had presented 10 witnesses and stipulated to the testimony of two others, or 12 of the 27 originally listed.

That does not mean the impeachment court has formally shut the door on Article I. Presiding Officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero directed the prosecution not to formally rest Article I yet. The court may later decide whether it needs additional witnesses after both sides finish presenting their evidence.

That distinction matters. The prosecution has stopped presenting its planned witnesses for now, but senator-judges have not given up their power to seek more testimony.

3. The P6.77-billion figure needs context

The House prosecution says an Anti-Money Laundering Council report covers 663 covered and suspicious transactions involving Duterte and her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio, with an aggregate value of about P6.77 billion from 2006 to 2025. About P3.77 billion was linked to Duterte and P2.99 billion to Carpio. AMLC Executive Director Ronel Buenaventura earlier confirmed the transaction data before the House justice committee.

But P6.77 billion in transactions is not the same as P6.77 billion in net worth or cash sitting in an account. It is the total value of reported transactions over many years. Even a transaction classified as suspicious does not by itself establish unlawful activity, a point Duterte’s defense has raised.

Duterte and Carpio reported a net worth of about P88.5 million in their 2024 SALN. Their SALNs from 2019 to 2024 did not separately list cash on hand or bank deposits, according to records submitted by the Ombudsman. Defense lawyer Michael Poa later said the cash was included under “others” in the personal-property section.

This is why Article II cannot be reduced to a comparison between P88.5 million and P6.77 billion. Prosecutors still have to establish what the transactions represent and how they relate to the allegations in the impeachment article.

There is one new development. House prosecutor Joel Chua said on September 9 that prosecutors had initially cross-checked 15 bank accounts and that all 15 matched details in AMLC records. That is the prosecution’s account of its review. The records have yet to be tested through the Article II presentation and defense questioning.

4. The prosecution wants Duterte to admit or deny ownership of the bank accounts

Before the September 8 hearing, prosecutors served Duterte’s lawyers with 104 requests for admission. They want her to confirm whether subpoenaed bank records are genuine and whether the accounts identified in those records belong to her individually or jointly with other people.

Why does this matter? If the defense agrees that particular records and accounts are authentic, prosecutors would not have to spend as much court time calling bank officials simply to establish those facts. The House says as many as 15 bank representatives could otherwise be needed.

But there is still a legal question. Duterte’s lawyers questioned whether Rule 26 of the Rules of Court, which governs requests for admission in civil cases, applies to an impeachment trial. The impeachment court gave the defense 15 days to respond. It has not yet settled the broader question of how Rule 26 applies here.

5. Two constitutional disputes remain unresolved

The first is whether Duterte herself can be compelled to testify.

Kapunan said prosecutors intend to present Duterte as a witness after they have presented evidence on all four impeachment articles. But the prosecution has not yet filed a formal motion asking the court to subpoena her. The defense argues that compelling Duterte to take the stand would violate the constitutional right against self-incrimination. Escudero has not ruled on the issue.

The second dispute may eventually affect the verdict itself.

Article XI, Section 3(6) of the Constitution says: “No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.” With 24 Senate seats, the impeachment court had earlier set the conviction threshold at 16 votes.

Senator-judge Erwin Tulfo asked the court to reconsider who should count when four senators are currently unable to attend the trial. Senators Loren Legarda, Ronald dela Rosa, Rodante Marcoleta and Jinggoy Estrada have all been absent for different reasons. Tulfo questioned whether their inability to participate should effectively work against conviction. Senator-judge Pia Cayetano challenged his interpretation, while Robin Padilla argued that the constitutional wording should stand.

The court has not lowered the threshold to 14. Escudero scheduled September 16 for the views of invited amici curiae, or friends of the court. The prosecution and defense are scheduled to make oral arguments on September 23, after which the Senate is expected to vote on the threshold question.

What netizens are talking about

Since there was no hearing on September 9, much of the online discussion carried over from the previous day’s developments.

In the r/Philippines impeachment megathread, users were already arguing about the same question now before the senator-judges: should senators who have not been attending the proceedings count in deciding the final outcome? One commenter questioned giving voting power to senators who had not been listening to or participating in the trial. Another pushed back by pointing to the Constitution’s reference to all Senate members.

Other commenters were simply disappointed by the break. One wrote, “sad early dismissal today at walang pasok bukas.” Another described the impeachment coverage as background noise while working. These comments say something about how closely some Filipinos are following the hearings, but they are individual Reddit reactions, not a measure of national public opinion.

The announcement that former senator Antonio Trillanes IV is expected to testify under Article II also drew attention. A highly engaged r/newsPH thread had one commenter calling him a “New character sa impeachment series…” Other users anticipated how his testimony would play out before the senator-judges. The House prosecution says Trillanes is expected to testify about financial information that prosecutors say has previously been checked against AMLC records.

The voting-threshold debate also shows why claims circulating online need to be checked against the actual court record. VERA Files previously debunked a fake post claiming that Senator Tito Sotto had said 14 votes were enough to convict Duterte. He did not say that. The impeachment court has not adopted a 14-vote threshold.

Three dates to watch

September 14 is when Article II is scheduled to begin and the financial documents move from exhibit preparation into testimony and argument.

September 16 is when the impeachment court plans to hear constitutional experts on who should count when determining the votes required for conviction.

September 23 is when prosecution and defense are scheduled to argue the threshold question, followed by a Senate vote on the issue.

Those dates give citizens something more useful than speculation between hearings. We can check which financial records are actually presented, what the witnesses say about them, what the defense contests and what rule the Senate finally adopts.

The boxes of documents may be less dramatic than a witness on the stand. By September 23, however, we should know much more about both the money being questioned and the rules that will decide Duterte’s political fate. Watch the record, not the rumor cycle between hearings.

On September 8, House prosecutors dropped their 15 remaining witnesses for Article I, the charge involving the alleged misuse of P612.5 million in confidential funds of the Office of the Vice President and Department of Education.

Then prosecutor Lorna Kapunan told the court whom they ultimately wanted on the witness stand: Duterte herself.

That did not mean a subpoena had been issued. It had not. And by the end of the session, the court was also facing another unresolved question: if four senator-judges cannot participate, does conviction still require 16 votes?

Here are five things to remember from Day 23.

1. Prosecutors dropped their last 15 Article I witnesses

The prosecution had listed 27 witnesses for Article I. Ten testified before the court, while the testimony of two others was covered by stipulations. Kapunan said the prosecution was prepared to rely on those 12 witnesses and about 4,750 documents already presented rather than call the remaining 15.

That meant Police Major Jovelyn Magay, who had been expected to discuss handwriting on acknowledgment receipts, was no longer presented that day.

There is an important qualification here. Article I was not formally closed. Presiding Officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero told both sides not to rest their cases on the article yet because the impeachment court could still decide to call former Duterte security officers Col. Raymund Lachica and Col. Dennis Nolasco on its own.

So the prosecution has ended its planned Article I witness presentation. The court has not necessarily heard its last witness on confidential funds.

2. Prosecutors want Duterte to testify, but there is no subpoena yet

Kapunan used a chess analogy to explain the prosecution’s decision.

“All of these pawns and castles and horses and bishops point to only one person, and that accountable person is the Vice President.”

The prosecution said it intends to call Duterte after presenting evidence on the four impeachment articles. It considers her testimony material to the allegations.

The defense immediately objected.

Lead defense counsel Sheila Sison invoked Article III, Section 17 of the Constitution: “No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.” That constitutional protection is real. What has not been settled is exactly how it applies when prosecutors seek to compel the respondent in an impeachment proceeding to testify.

Escudero did not issue a subpoena. He required prosecutors to make a formal request first and give the defense an opportunity to respond. The court may hear arguments before deciding the question.

That distinction matters. Saying “we will present the Vice President” in court is a prosecution position. It is not yet an order requiring Duterte to appear.

3. Article II begins with 104 questions about financial records

The trial is now moving toward Article II, which covers the prosecution’s unexplained-wealth allegations.

House prosecutor Chel Diokno served Duterte’s defense with 104 requests for admission concerning bank records obtained through subpoenas. Prosecutors want Duterte to confirm whether the records are genuine and whether accounts identified in them belong to her individually or jointly with others.

Defense lawyer Michael Poa asked for 15 days to respond. Escudero granted the request, rather than the seven days proposed by prosecutors. The period does not stop the trial. Article II testimony is scheduled to begin on September 14. Prosecutors are also preparing more than 1,800 financial documents obtained through subpoenas.

There is another legal issue that should not be skipped. Escudero noted that Rule 26 on requests for admission is a civil-procedure rule and cited a Supreme Court ruling saying it does not apply to criminal proceedings. Diokno argued that impeachment is not a criminal trial. The impeachment court still has to determine how Rule 26 applies to this proceeding.

In other words, the 104 requests are requests, not 104 admissions by Duterte.

4. The court will revisit the 16-vote question

Senator-judge Erwin Tulfo then raised a problem that could affect the outcome of the entire trial.

The Constitution says that no official may be convicted in an impeachment trial without “the concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.” With 24 senators, Escudero ruled at the start of the trial that this means 16 votes.

But four senator-judges are currently unable to attend: Loren Legarda is abroad on medical leave, Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa has remained absent amid an International Criminal Court arrest warrant, while Jinggoy Estrada and Rodante Marcoleta are detained in separate plunder cases.

Tulfo asked a narrower question: who should be counted as “all the Members” when some senators are beyond the chamber’s ability to compel attendance?

The court will hear legal experts as amici curiae on September 16. The prosecution and defense will argue their positions on September 23, after which the senator-judges are scheduled to vote on the issue.

One point needs care. The 1949 Supreme Court case Avelino v. Cuenco has entered this debate because it allowed a Senate quorum to be calculated after excluding a senator who was abroad and beyond the chamber’s jurisdiction. But Avelino dealt with quorum, not the constitutional vote required to convict somebody in an impeachment trial.

It may inform the arguments. It does not automatically mean the impeachment threshold becomes 14 votes.

5. The trial now has to compete with the P7.2-trillion budget

The impeachment court also adopted a new calendar as the Senate prepares to work on the proposed 2027 national budget.

Trial sessions are scheduled from 10 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. on several September dates, followed by the regular Senate plenary session. Whole-day trials are planned for parts of October. Proceedings will then stop from October 16 through November 18 to make way for budget hearings and plenary debates.

The Department of Budget and Management has set the proposed FY 2027 national budget at P7.2 trillion, equivalent to 21.7 percent of projected GDP.

The schedule matters because senators are doing two jobs at once: sitting as judges in an impeachment trial while scrutinizing how trillions of pesos in public money will be spent next year.

What netizens were saying

Online comments are useful for seeing how people are processing the trial, but they are not public-opinion surveys. A few traceable reactions from Reddit show disagreement even among people closely following the proceedings.

After Kapunan announced the plan to call Duterte, one commenter asked whether anyone believed Duterte would actually end up taking the witness stand. Another saw the move as the prosecution narrowing responsibility directly toward her.

The voting-threshold debate drew sharper disagreement. Some commenters argued that the constitutional two-thirds requirement should reflect senators actually capable of voting. Others warned that changing the denominator could create a precedent that a future Senate majority might abuse. One commenter supporting impeachment still preferred keeping the present threshold rather than creating that risk.

The Day 23 megathread also showed how closely some people are following the legal exchanges themselves. Users anticipated the Kapunan-Vinluan confrontation, while another commenter said the prosecution evidence was becoming familiar and that they were more interested in seeing what new information the defense eventually presents.

That mix of impatience, legal argument and partisan suspicion is worth watching. But it should not be mistaken for a representative measure of Filipino opinion.

Three dates worth watching

Day 23 did not settle whether Duterte can be compelled to testify. It did not settle whether the conviction threshold stays at 16. And it did not turn the prosecution’s 104 requests into admissions.

Instead, it put those questions on a timetable.

Article II begins on September 14. Legal experts are scheduled to address the voting issue on September 16. The prosecution and defense argue the threshold question on September 23, when the senator-judges are also expected to vote.

For citizens following the trial, this is where careful reading matters. A prosecution manifestation is not a subpoena. A request for admission is not an admission. And a 1949 quorum ruling is not automatically an impeachment rule.

When September 23 comes, read what the impeachment court actually decides before accepting whichever political camp declares victory first.

PSA Assistant National Statistician Marizza Grande gave that testimony on September 7, Day 22 of Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial. Grande was called as a prosecution witness as the Senate impeachment court continued hearing Article I, which accuses Duterte of misuse, misappropriation and irregular liquidation of ?612.5 million in confidential funds. The amount covers ?500 million released to the Office of the Vice President in 2022 and 2023 and ?112.5 million released to the Department of Education in 2023. These remain allegations against Duterte.

What Grande brought to court was a government database check against the names appearing in confidential-fund records. The results were striking. They also need to be described precisely.

A name missing from the PSA database is a finding about the record searched. It is not, by itself, proof that a fictitious person received public money.

Here are five things worth keeping from Day 22.

1. PSA found no civil registry record for 1,685 names

The House’s official account of Grande’s testimony says the PSA checked 2,669 names from the OVP and DepEd confidential-fund payee lists.

For the OVP, 1,287 of 1,992 names yielded no birth, marriage or death record. For DepEd, 398 of 677 names yielded none of the three. Combined, that is 1,685 of 2,669 names, about 63 percent.

Grande said the PSA searched each name against birth, marriage and death records and classified the results as “single match,” “multiple matches” or “no record.” The official House account says she stood by the accuracy of the PSA verification and tabulation presented to the impeachment court.

That distinction matters. The verified fact is that the PSA found no record for 1,685 names. It did not testify that 1,685 fictitious people had been conclusively identified.

2. Some names had single matches with records of minors or people who had died

The PSA also rechecked names for which it found only one person with the same name in its civil registry records.

Grande testified that 37 such names corresponded to people with death certificates, 32 from the OVP list and five from DepEd. Another 25 single-match names corresponded to birth records of minors, 20 from the OVP list and five from DepEd.

One was Marlin Sunga. The only PSA record found under that name was for a person who died at two months old on November 2, 1965.

Beatrice Cuenca had a single birth-record match dated January 7, 2022. Mikay de los Reyes had one dated January 13, 2020. Grande also cited single matches for Fortunato Salig, Emilio Sagan and Rodolfo P. Traya, whose death certificates were dated 2011, 2015 and 2021, respectively.

But “single match” has a specific meaning. Prosecution legal spokesperson Jay Tolosa explained that it meant PSA had found only one person in its records bearing the same name as the one appearing on an acknowledgment receipt.

So the accurate statement is that receipt names matched PSA records belonging to minors or deceased persons. The PSA search did not establish that those minors or deceased persons were the people behind the confidential-fund transactions.

3. Mary Grace Piattos remains a “no record” name

Grande said she personally reverified several names in the PSA database.

Among the names for which she found no birth, marriage or death record were Arthur Baon, Beverly Claire Pampano, Matthew N. Keso, Maxine Callos and Charles Sampalok Jr. Mary Grace Piattos also had no record in any of those three categories.

That is as far as the PSA finding goes.

The prosecution argues that the results support its allegation of irregular liquidation. That is the prosecution’s position, not a finding of guilt by the impeachment court.

4. The defense said the names were aliases

Later in the hearing, Senator-judge Risa Hontiveros asked Duterte’s lawyers whether the names on the acknowledgment receipts were real names or aliases.

Defense lawyer Justin Gular replied: “these are in fact aliases.”

Both GMA News and the Philippine Daily Inquirer reported the statement from the hearing. Gular also said the defense would address the matter when it presents its evidence.

That changes the dispute around the PSA results. If a name on a receipt is an alias, a search for that alias in the civil registry may not identify the person behind it.

But the statement itself does not establish who used each alias or what transaction each alias represented. Gular told the court that the defense would deal with the issue during its own presentation of evidence.

Those questions therefore remained unresolved on Day 22.

5. The lawyers also fought over data privacy

During cross-examination, Gular questioned whether the people listed in the confidential-fund records had consented to the PSA search. Grande said the PSA did not consider individual consent necessary for the House investigation. GMA’s same-day report records the exchange between the defense and prosecution over the Data Privacy Act.

The law itself shows why consent is not the only issue.

Section 13 of Republic Act No. 10173 generally prohibits processing sensitive personal information but provides exceptions. Section 13(f) covers information necessary for protecting lawful rights and interests in court proceedings, establishing or defending legal claims, or information provided to a government or public authority.

The National Privacy Commission’s implementing rules state that this exception also covers information provided to a government or public authority pursuant to a constitutional or statutory mandate.

Day 22 therefore produced a legal argument over the PSA search. I found no official Day 22 record establishing that the impeachment court had ruled the PSA evidence unlawful or excluded it.

Two prosecution witnesses were dropped

There was another procedural development worth noting.

The House prosecution confirmed that it would no longer present Col. Raymund Dante Lachica and Col. Dennis Nolasco as its witnesses. Lead prosecutor Gerville Luistro told the court that the prosecution believed the evidence it had already presented was sufficient for its confidential-fund allegations. That is the prosecution’s assessment, not a ruling by the Senate impeachment court.

The prosecution also announced that it would next advance Article II, which concerns the alleged unexplained wealth of Duterte, ahead of Article III on alleged bribery. Luistro said Article III was not being waived, only presented later.

What netizens were saying

I am limiting the social-media section to comments that can be read directly on their original public posts. These reactions are examples, not a survey of Philippine opinion.

The Marlin Sunga testimony quickly became a focus of discussion on Reddit. In an r/Philippines thread about the two-month-old single match, one user wrote:

“Just this alone. How would you explain this and expect na makakalusot ka sa pinag gagawa mo.”

Another replied:

“”Confidential nga eh” – DDS probably”

Those are direct comments from the thread, not paraphrases.

The alias issue also drew questions in the Day 22 r/Philippines discussion. One commenter asked:

“Question: ano pa ang magiging silbi ng PSA kung ang argument ng defense ay mga alias lang ang ginamit sa receipts?”

Other commenters were already debating what the defense’s alias statement might mean for the PSA evidence.

These posts show some of the arguments circulating online, but they should not be turned into a sentiment score. Reddit users are self-selected, and publicly searchable Facebook, X and TikTok data do not provide a sound basis for claiming how Filipinos as a whole reacted.

What Day 22 changed

Day 22 put numbers behind a question that had followed the confidential-fund controversy for months: who were the names on the acknowledgment receipts?

The verified record now says that 1,685 of 2,669 names checked by the PSA had no birth, marriage or death record. Twenty-five names had single matches with birth records of minors. Thirty-seven had single matches with death records. Mary Grace Piattos had no record in any of the three categories. (Congress.gov.ph)

The record also contains an answer from the defense: the names were aliases.

Neither fact settles Article I.

The PSA results establish what its database did and did not contain. The defense’s statement establishes its position on the names. The Senate impeachment court still has to weigh those facts with the rest of the evidence before it.

For citizens following the trial, Day 22 gives us a more specific question to watch. If the defense relies on aliases to explain the PSA results, will the evidence it presents connect those aliases to actual recipients and lawful confidential-fund transactions?

That is the missing link to follow as the trial moves forward.

That made his testimony unusual. Poa is now part of Duterte’s defense team, but the House prosecution called him to testify about the ?112.5 million in confidential funds spent by DepEd in 2023, when Duterte was education secretary. The Senate impeachment court declared him a hostile witness, allowing private prosecutor Benjamin “Jay” Tolosa Jr. to ask leading questions.

Article I covers the alleged misuse, misappropriation and irregular liquidation of ?612.5 million in confidential funds: ?500 million at the Office of the Vice President and ?112.5 million at DepEd. The House prosecution says it plans to finish presenting evidence on Article I by September 9.

Here are five points from Day 21 worth watching.

1. Poa confirmed no DepEd confidential funds went to the Army youth summits

The clearest admission came when Tolosa asked whether DepEd confidential funds had been given to the Armed Forces of the Philippines for its 2023 Youth Leadership Summits.

“Yes sir, I confirm that,” Poa answered when the question was limited specifically to confidential funds.

That matched the testimony of Army Col. Manaros Boransing II on Day 20. Boransing said his 1st Infantry Division financed its own youth activities and received no money from DepEd, the OVP or the Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group. He also said the certifications his unit issued merely confirmed that the activities took place and that government agencies participated. They did not certify confidential fund spending.

This matters because those military certifications became part of DepEd’s response to COA concerning ?15.54 million reported as rewards connected with confidential operations. Poa said he obtained the documents after asking then-Undersecretary Nolasco Mempin for reports that could support DepEd’s answer to the audit observation.

The certification proves that an Army activity happened. What remains disputed is whether it proves what DepEd said its confidential money paid for.

2. The official who answered COA did not know how the funds were spent

Poa’s lack of operational knowledge became the prosecution’s main line of questioning.

He served as DepEd undersecretary, chief of staff, spokesperson and officer-in-charge for finance. Yet he testified that his involvement with the confidential funds began only after COA issued an Audit Observation Memorandum, or AOM.

Poa said he informed Duterte about the AOM and asked permission to coordinate with then-special disbursing officer Edward Fajarda. He later briefed Duterte on his answers and gave her a soft copy before DepEd submitted its response to COA.

But Poa said he did not know at the time that DepEd security officer Col. Dennis Nolasco had allegedly been given the confidential funds for disbursement. He learned about Nolasco’s role only during the 2024 House hearings. Poa also said he never spoke with Nolasco while preparing the COA response.

Poa acknowledged that he remembered Fajarda’s earlier House testimony to the effect that Duterte had given authority for Nolasco to handle the money, although Poa cautioned that he could not recall Fajarda’s exact wording.

That leaves a fairly simple factual gap. DepEd had an official answering COA’s questions, but that official said he did not know one of the people who allegedly handled the money.

3. Poa could not connect the military papers to specific informant payments

Poa confirmed that the AFP certifications did not identify the confidential informants supposedly paid by DepEd. They also did not identify the specific information purchased from those informants.

He told the court that using the certifications as proof of a successful result was his interpretation. He did not claim personal knowledge that the information allegedly purchased with confidential funds actually produced the military activities mentioned in the certifications.

Poa also defended a broader reading of the confidential fund rules. He said not every piece of information purchased from an informant must immediately result in a successful operation, and acknowledged that this was his own understanding of the rules.

So there are two separate issues here. The defense disputes the idea that every informant payment needs an immediate operational result. The prosecution is asking a narrower evidentiary question: what document connects the ?15.54 million in claimed rewards to the activities cited in DepEd’s explanation?

Day 21 did not settle that question.

4. Poa said the unusual names surfaced only later

Senator-judge Erwin Tulfo also asked Poa about unusual names found in acknowledgment receipts, including “Mary Grace Piattos.”

Poa said he became aware of those names during the congressional investigation, when the receipts were displayed publicly. He told the court that he did not see the acknowledgment receipts while he was still at DepEd.

There is also an audit finding that should not be left out of the picture.

COA supervising auditor Xylene Mae del Campo previously testified that DepEd’s ?75 million in confidential fund spending for the first and second quarters of 2023 received a credit notice after auditors evaluated the liquidation documents. She said this meant the documents had been found in order at that stage of audit. She also explained that a settled account may still be reopened within three years in cases involving fraud, collusion or newly discovered material evidence.

That distinction matters. A credit notice is part of the defense’s answer to accusations that the spending was unsupported. But it does not prevent the impeachment court from examining new testimony about what the underlying documents actually proved.

5. The trial may get shorter, but the new calendar is not final

Away from Poa’s testimony, the prosecution disclosed that it is considering dropping Article III, the bribery charge involving alleged cash payments to DepEd officials.

Considering is the operative word.

Rep. Joel Chua said no final decision had been made. The prosecution is studying whether to move from Article I directly to Article II on alleged unexplained wealth.

The official House record confirms the four articles: Article I covers confidential funds, Article II unexplained wealth, Article III alleged bribery, and Article IV the alleged threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos and former Speaker Martin Romualdez. The prosecution has already completed its presentation on Article IV.

Presiding officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero also proposed full-day trial sessions on October 1-2, October 5-9 and October 12-15, followed by a pause for budget work. Under the proposal, the court would meet again on November 9 and 16 before returning to a more regular trial schedule beginning November 23. Escudero stressed that the schedule was still subject to final agreement by the senator-judges.

And yes, the lawyers fought

Some of Day 21’s most shareable moments had little to do with accounting.

Tolosa described Poa during his offer of testimony as an “abogadong walang alam,” referring to Poa’s repeated statements that he had no knowledge of the actual confidential fund operations. Lead defense counsel Sheila Sison objected. Tolosa apologized, and Escudero ordered the phrase stricken from the record as discourteous.

As Tolosa, Sison and Poa repeatedly argued over questions and answers, Escudero appealed for patience: “Mahirap na nga po na may dalawang abogadong nagkakaroon ng tagisan ng talino, gawin pa nating tatlo.”

The exchanges made good video clips. The money trail remains the more important part of the record.

What netizens were saying

A small sample of Reddit comments showed that reactions were far from uniform. These posts are individual opinions, not a scientific measure of public sentiment.

One commenter gave Poa credit for engaging with the questions:

“Infairness to Poa todo sagot siya sa mga tanong ni Tolosa
Pero kapikon itong si Sison ha”

Another focused on the gap in Poa’s knowledge:

“Ang tanong dyan is Was Atty Poa was left in the dark when this whole shinenigans happened.”

Tolosa’s aggressive questioning divided viewers. One commenter felt Escudero appeared irritated by his manner. Another defended it:

“Tama lang ung approach ni Tolosa.. Poa is an atty and a hostile witness, alangan namang i-baby ng prosecution yan.”

The same discussion also included people simply trying to understand why a Duterte defense lawyer could be called by the prosecution and what a hostile witness means.

That may be one useful measure of Day 21. Beyond partisan reactions, viewers were trying to follow an unusual situation: a defense lawyer explaining government actions he helped defend administratively, while saying he did not know how those actions were carried out.

What Day 21 actually established

Poa did not testify that the ?112.5 million was stolen. Nor did his testimony by itself prove that the entire DepEd confidential fund was unlawfully spent.

What he did establish was narrower.

He prepared DepEd’s answer to COA despite having no firsthand knowledge of the operations. He did not know at the time that Nolasco allegedly handled the funds. He confirmed that no DepEd confidential money went to the AFP youth summits. And the military certifications used in DepEd’s explanation did not identify the informants, the information purchased or the payments made.

The defense, meanwhile, can point to COA’s earlier issuance of a credit notice covering ?75 million in DepEd spending. That evidence also belongs in the record.

Day 21 therefore narrowed the question rather than answering it.

Poa could explain how DepEd answered COA. He could not explain the actual movement of the confidential money.

The next witnesses and documents should matter more than the courtroom barbs. If the chief of staff who signed DepEd’s COA reply did not know Nolasco was handling the funds, who can now show the impeachment court the missing money trail?

He was talking about a certification his unit had issued for Youth Leadership Summits in 2023. Panopio said the document certified that the activities took place. It did not certify anything about money or funds. He later learned that the Department of Education had used the certification as part of its documents for liquidating confidential funds.

That distinction became the center of Day 20 of Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial on September 1.

The Senate impeachment court remained on Article I, which covers allegations involving P612.5 million in confidential funds: P500 million released to the Office of the Vice President from the fourth quarter of 2022 through the third quarter of 2023, and P112.5 million released to DepEd during the first three quarters of 2023 when Duterte was education secretary.

Day 20 focused on P15.54 million of the DepEd funds. DepEd reported the money as rewards paid to informants. Military certifications covering youth leadership and information activities were among the documents submitted to support the agency’s accounting for those confidential operations. The two Army officers who testified said their certifications did not prove that those reward payments were made.

Here are five highlights.

1. The Army said it received no DepEd confidential funds

Retired Army Col. Manaros Boransing II testified that the 1st Infantry Division received no funds from DepEd or the OVP for the eight Youth Leadership Summits and 53 information, education and communication activities covered by his certification.

Boransing explained that different government agencies paid for their own participation. The Army used its own budget for its personnel and coordination, while local governments paid for students and out-of-school youth attending the programs. Other agencies covered their own participants.

His understanding of the certification was also straightforward. “We assumed that it will be used for their attendance, as we issued with the other agencies involved,” Boransing said.

Panopio gave a similar answer about the certification issued by his unit. He said they were surprised to learn it had been used in connection with DepEd’s confidential-fund liquidation.

This does not by itself prove that the P15.54 million was misused. What the testimony establishes is narrower: the certificates showed that Army activities happened. They did not show that the military received DepEd’s confidential funds or that particular informants received rewards.

2. The P15.54 million was not the cost of the summits

This point needs care because two different amounts came up during the hearing.

Under questioning from Sen. Bam Aquino, Boransing discussed what the Army normally spent on Youth Leadership Summits. Philstar reported that individual activities generally cost the military around P30,000 to P50,000, and a rough computation placed the Army’s spending for eight 2023 summits below P500,000, with local governments and participating agencies paying other costs.

The P15.54 million, however, was not presented by DepEd as the cost of staging those summits. According to the records discussed in court, it covered numerous alleged reward payments to informants, with amounts of around P100,000 to P200,000 per payment. DepEd used the Army certifications as evidence that the information-gathering or surveillance activities had succeeded.

That makes the comparison useful, but not because P15.54 million can simply be placed beside a P500,000 seminar budget.

The question is whether the certificates actually support the separate claim that P15.54 million was paid to informants. Boransing and Panopio could not verify that. Their documents did not name informants, state reward amounts or trace payments.

3. What confidential information did DepEd provide?

Another part of the hearing examined what DepEd actually contributed to the Army programs.

Boransing said DepEd provided what he described as open-source information. This included school schedules, possible student participants with leadership potential and possible venues. He told Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian that his division received no confidential or surveillance information from DepEd.

Panopio gave a somewhat different answer. He said teachers on the ground could provide information about problems in communities. When pressed for an example of information that might be confidential, he mentioned personal circumstances such as teenage pregnancy. But he explicitly presented this as speculation, not as confirmation that DepEd had actually supplied such information in the transactions being examined.

That distinction matters. Day 20 established what Boransing said his unit actually received. Panopio’s example should not be reported as proof that confidential student information was turned over to the military.

4. The defense skipped cross-examination, but the burden stayed with the prosecution

The defense chose not to cross-examine Boransing and Panopio.

Deputy defense spokesperson Justin Nicol Gular later explained that lawyers sometimes dispense with cross-examination when they do not see an issue in a witness’s testimony. The defense had agreed that the military officers issued the certifications and that their units did not receive the confidential funds in question.

Skipping cross-examination does not settle what the testimony means.

Later in the proceedings, Presiding Officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero made a separate point about who must prove the case. He said the “burden of evidence may shift,” but the burden of proof does not. It remains with the prosecution.

That means the prosecution still has to connect the documents and transactions it has presented to the impeachment charges against Duterte. The military witnesses could explain their own certifications. They could not testify about who received DepEd’s alleged informant payments or how DepEd handled the money internally.

5. Michael Poa is now the witness to watch

The next witness may be more directly connected to how those certifications ended up in DepEd’s audit documents.

Michael Poa, who was Duterte’s chief of staff and spokesperson at DepEd and later became spokesperson for her impeachment defense team, temporarily stepped aside from that role before his scheduled testimony. Gular said the defense had stopped communicating with Poa and that he was no longer staying in its holding room.

The House prosecution had earlier asked that Poa be called to testify about the DepEd confidential funds. Escudero said a subpoena was unnecessary because Poa was present and willing to testify. He is expected to take the witness stand on September 2.

That testimony could help answer a question the Army officers could not: why were certifications confirming ordinary military activities sought, and how were they connected to DepEd’s accounting for P15.54 million in informant rewards?

The AI earpiece image was fake

Day 20 also opened with a warning about misinformation surrounding the trial.

Escudero said viral images that appeared to show prosecution witness Lemuel Ortonio wearing an earpiece during his earlier testimony were AI-generated. What viewers were seeing was an ear piercing on the front-fold helix of Ortonio’s ear, not an electronic device.

The impeachment court then tightened enforcement of its rules against communication-capable devices for witnesses, including earpieces, cellphones, smartwatches and smart glasses.

The episode is also a reminder for those following the trial online: a viral image is not evidence simply because it looks convincing.

What netizens were saying

Online reaction was more interested in the gap between what the Army certifications said and what people assumed they proved.

In the Day 20 r/Philippines megathread, one commenter wrote: “So certificate of participation lang tapos yun ang ginamit to justify confidential fund disbursements lmao.” Another reacted to Aquino’s questioning: “Good question Sen. Bam.” A separate commenter saw a tactical reason for the defense’s decision not to cross-examine: “Wala naman sila mapapala sa cross, actually. Nagstipulate na sila dun sa mga certifications eh. Baka mas lumala lang if magtanong pa sila.”

Another thread focused on Boransing’s statement that his division received no confidential funds, with commenters asking where the money covered by DepEd’s liquidation documents went.

These Reddit comments are snapshots from one online community, not a scientific measure of public opinion. The thread itself leaned heavily critical of Duterte, so it should not be treated as representative of Filipino voters.

There was also criticism of the prosecution’s presentation. PhilSTAR Life columnist Gerry Lirio described parts of Day 20 as “lumalaylay” and questioned why Aquino, rather than the prosecution lawyers themselves, had to bring out the comparison between the Army’s modest program expenses and the much larger amount associated with DepEd’s informant rewards. That is commentary, not a factual finding of the court, but it reflects another strand of reaction to the day’s proceedings.

What Day 20 actually established

The Army officers did not tell the impeachment court where the P15.54 million went. They could not.

What they did establish was the limit of their own documents.

Their certifications confirmed that youth summits and information campaigns happened. Their units did not receive the DepEd confidential funds being examined. And the certificates themselves did not identify informants, show reward payments or certify how DepEd spent P15.54 million.

That leaves a specific gap in the record.

On Day 21, watch for one thing: can Michael Poa explain how a certificate saying an Army activity happened became part of DepEd’s accounting for P15.54 million in informant rewards?

That was Office of the Vice President Assistant Chief of Staff Lemuel Ortonio answering Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian on Day 19 of Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial.

Ortonio said documentary evidence of payments had been handed to him by former special disbursing officer Gina Acosta in a sealed box. He submitted the documents to the Commission on Audit (COA) as part of the OVP’s response to an Audit Observation Memorandum, but did not open the package or examine the acknowledgment receipts himself.

That left senator-judges with a basic question: If an OVP official helping answer COA’s audit findings did not examine the supporting documents, who did?

Day 19 also dealt with what lawyers and senator-judges may say outside the courtroom, the P122 million reportedly given to informants to buy medicines, the use of aliases in confidential operations, and the witnesses who may fill some of the gaps in the coming hearings.

Here are five highlights.

1. The impeachment court will enforce Rule 18

Presiding Officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero ordered stricter enforcement of Rule 18 of the Senate impeachment rules, which bars the person impeached, senator-judges, prosecutors, lawyers and witnesses from publicly commenting on the merits of the pending case. Statements cited from before the ruling would not be penalized. Escudero also reminded Duterte’s defense team that the restriction applies to the Vice President.

Under the rule announced by Escudero, a first offense will bring a reprimand and stern admonition in open court. Subsequent offenses will carry a P30,000 fine.

The ruling followed a dispute over prosecution lawyer Amando Virgil Ligutan’s Facebook post about whether misleading questions are allowed during cross-examination. Ligutan told the court that his “teacher’s instinct” prompted him to post. Escudero told him that while being a teacher remains part of who he is, he has to “unbundle and decouple” that role while acting as counsel in the impeachment case.

2. Ortonio submitted records he had not examined

The more consequential exchange came when senator-judges questioned Ortonio about the OVP’s response to COA.

Ortonio said Duterte instructed him to prepare the response to the Audit Observation Memorandum in consultation with then security chief Col. Raymund Lachica. But when Acosta gave him the documentary evidence of payments, the records were already sealed. He said he submitted them without looking at the acknowledgment receipts.

Gatchalian asked what would happen if the documents were fake or if Lachica’s account was not true. Ortonio said he trusted Lachica because Duterte had given the security officer her trust and confidence to carry out confidential activities. Senator Francis Pangilinan then pressed Ortonio on how he could know what he was submitting if he had not opened the package.

This does not by itself prove that the receipts were false. What it establishes is that Ortonio, despite helping prepare the OVP’s audit response, testified that he did not personally verify the supporting records.

3. Ortonio said Duterte and Lachica knew how the funds were spent

Asked who knew how the confidential funds were actually spent, Ortonio pointed to Duterte and Lachica.

When asked whether Duterte knew, Ortonio said: “The way I understand it, as the head of the agency, I would understand that she knows the implementation.”

Escudero later clarified whether Ortonio was saying that Duterte and Lachica knew how the confidential funds were spent and liquidated even though Ortonio and OVP Chief of Staff Zuleika Lopez did not. Ortonio answered yes.

That testimony needs to be stated carefully. Ortonio did not present personal knowledge of each transaction. In fact, he also told the impeachment court that he had no personal knowledge of how the confidential funds were disbursed or used.

The prosecution and defense will still have to establish what Duterte and Lachica actually knew, approved or directed through testimony and documentary evidence.

4. Senator-judges questioned the P122 million for medicines

Senator-judge Raffy Tulfo questioned Ortonio about P122 million in confidential funds reportedly used to buy medicines as rewards for informants.

Ortonio said he did not ask Lachica how the medicines were purchased and trusted what the security officer told him. When Tulfo asked whether it was Ortonio’s responsibility to know, the witness said he was not sure. Tulfo responded: “It defies logic talaga, really, Sir. You’re not really making sense at all.”

The exchange matters because it separates two questions that can easily get mixed together. One is whether confidential informants may receive money in connection with confidential operations. The other is whether these particular expenditures, supporting records and methods of liquidation complied with government rules.

Day 19 did not settle that legal question. It showed how little Ortonio said he personally knew about what happened after the money reached Lachica and the informants.

5. From Katipunan aliases to “Mary Grace Piattos”

The unusual names appearing on OVP acknowledgment receipts returned to the discussion when senator-judge Robinhood Padilla defended the use of aliases in confidential activities. He cited aliases used by Philippine heroes and revolutionaries and later referred to Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino Jr.’s use of “Marcial Bonifacio.”

Senator-judge Bam Aquino responded that his uncle did use the name Marcial Bonifacio when returning to the Philippines, but added that Ninoy Aquino did not have confidential funds or appear on confidential-fund acknowledgment receipts.

There is an important distinction here. The impeachment court has heard allegations and questions about names such as “Mary Grace Piattos,” but Day 19 did not establish through Philippine Statistics Authority testimony that all disputed identities were fictitious.

That verification is still ahead. The prosecution plans to present PSA Assistant National Statistician Marizza Grande to testify on whether the identities appearing in OVP confidential-fund liquidation documents are reflected in government records.

Netizen reactions: divided even among impeachment watchers

Online reaction should not be confused with public opinion. A Reddit impeachment megathread is a self-selected group of people following the proceedings, but it does give us a glimpse of what engaged viewers were arguing about during Day 19.

Ligutan’s Facebook explanation divided commenters. One Reddit user who said they generally sided with the prosecution still criticized his “I’m a teacher” explanation and welcomed Escudero’s reminder about court rules. Another commenter took the opposite view, saying Ligutan’s post had helped non-lawyers understand the rule on misleading questions.

Others thought the defense had given Ligutan’s post more attention by raising it in court. One commenter described the episode as an example of the Streisand effect, where an attempt to challenge or suppress attention can end up drawing more attention to the original issue.

Lachica was another point of debate. Some commenters wondered why the prosecution appeared reluctant to present him, while others saw the decision as trial strategy. One commenter said his testimony could “make or break their case.” These are opinions from individual users, not evidence about what Lachica would actually say.

The same caution applies to memes about Piattos, Ninoy Aquino and Katipunan aliases. They may make the courtroom exchanges easier to share, but they do not answer the evidentiary question the impeachment court still has to resolve.

The next test is the record

Day 19 exposed a gap in the OVP’s handling of its audit response: an assistant chief of staff who helped prepare the reply to COA testified that he sent supporting documents without examining the acknowledgment receipts inside. At the same time, the court has not yet heard the PSA witness who is supposed to check whether the disputed recipient identities appear in government records.

The next hearings give citizens specific claims to watch.

Michael Poa, a member of Duterte’s defense team and a former Department of Education undersecretary, is expected to testify about the DepEd’s P112.5 million confidential funds. Grande is expected to address the identities in the OVP liquidation documents. Colonels Manaros Boransing II and Magtangol Panopio have also been scheduled to testify.

And then there is Lachica. Senator-judge Erwin Tulfo called him the “missing link” because several witnesses have repeatedly referred to him. Escudero said that if neither the prosecution nor the defense presents Lachica, the impeachment court itself has the discretion to call him.

So before sharing the next viral claim that an alias has already been proven fake, that an expenditure has already been proven legal, or that the case has already been won or lost, check what the witnesses actually said under oath.

The record should come before the meme.

That became one of the clearest questions on Day 18 of Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial.

Office of the Vice President Assistant Secretary and Assistant Chief of Staff Lemuel Ortonio confirmed that Duterte signed a letter asking the Department of Budget and Management for P250 million in confidential funds on August 22, 2022. The DBM later asked for a supporting Physical and Financial Plan (PFP) on September 15. The plan was prepared and approved on September 16 and transmitted to the DBM on September 19.

Article I of the impeachment case covers the alleged misuse and irregular liquidation of P612.5 million in confidential funds: P500 million released to the OVP from December 2022 through 2023 and P112.5 million released to the Department of Education while Duterte was education secretary. These remain allegations being tested before the Senate impeachment court.

Five things to remember from Day 18

1. Ortonio was declared a hostile witness

The Senate impeachment court allowed the prosecution to treat Ortonio as a hostile witness after he confirmed that he reports directly to Duterte, serves at her pleasure and holds a co-terminus position. If Duterte is removed from office, his appointment ends as well.

Presiding Officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero ruled that this employment relationship was enough to establish an adverse interest. The designation allows prosecutors to ask leading questions, although Escudero reminded them that misleading questions are still prohibited.

2. The P250-million request came before the spending plan

Ortonio confirmed the sequence: Duterte signed the request for P250 million on August 22, 2022. The request had no PFP attached. DBM sought the supporting plan on September 15, and the OVP prepared and approved it the following day.

This is where the distinction between the timeline and its legal meaning matters.

Joint Circular No. 2015-01 requires confidential fund allocations to be supported by a PFP stating the proposed amount for each program and activity as the basis for disbursement. Earlier in the trial, former COA auditor Roderick Wamil testified that the OVP’s PFP did not comply with Item 4.2 because it failed to specify the confidential activities for which the money would be used.

But the fact that the request came before the PFP should not by itself be described as a final finding that Duterte violated the joint circular. The chronology is established. Whether it proves an impeachable violation is for the Senate impeachment court to decide.

3. The OVP reported spending P125 million in 11 days

Ortonio confirmed that the P125 million released to the OVP in December 2022 was reported as fully disbursed from December 21 to December 31.

The prosecution has argued that the timing suggests an effort to use the entire allocation before the year ended.

There is an important qualification. During his earlier testimony, Wamil acknowledged under defense questioning that no government rule specifically prohibited the OVP from spending the P125 million within 11 days. The speed of the spending can be questioned, but the 11-day period alone does not establish that the expenditure was unlawful.

4. Ortonio said he accompanied Acosta during all four encashments

The handling of the cash also came closer to Ortonio himself.

Asked whether he was the only person who accompanied former OVP special disbursing officer Gina Acosta during all four encashments of confidential-fund checks at LandBank’s Shaw Boulevard branch, Ortonio answered yes.

The four P125-million tranches made up the P500 million in OVP confidential funds being examined under Article I. Acosta had previously testified that the money was turned over to then OVP security officer Col. Raymund Dante Lachica upon Duterte’s instruction.

Ortonio’s testimony therefore places him in the chain through which the cash was withdrawn. It does not, on its own, establish what happened to the money after the withdrawals.

5. Ortonio said he personally put up P150,000

One of the stranger details of Day 18 concerned a P150,000 discrepancy.

Auditors had flagged documents showing P125.15 million in confidential expenses for 2022 even though the OVP had received only P125 million.

Ortonio told the court that Acosta approached him about an urgent request from Lachica and that he provided P150,000 from his own money. He said he was never reimbursed. He also said the P150,000 was not reflected in OVP records. When asked about documentary evidence of the payment, he did not identify a document proving that he had advanced the money.

That leaves the court with his testimony explaining the P150,000 difference, but without a corresponding OVP record for the personal payment he described.

When courtroom language went too far

Day 18 also produced a reminder that an impeachment trial still has rules.

Private prosecutor Mae Divinagracia asked Ortonio whether Duterte was the “architect and mastermind” of the confidential-fund operation. Defense counsel Kristine Ferrer objected, and Escudero sustained the objection and ordered the wording struck from the record.

Divinagracia later asked whether the changing explanations meant officials were lying or whether the arrangement was a “scam.” That objection was also sustained. Escudero told prosecutors that the repeated use of such language was becoming a habit, and Divinagracia apologized.

Yet after removing those labels, Escudero asked Ortonio a more direct factual question. Ortonio confirmed that Duterte personally authorized matters concerning the OVP’s confidential funds from the initial request through implementation and liquidation.

That distinction matters. “Mastermind” and “scam” were characterizations the court would not allow. Ortonio’s testimony about Duterte’s authorization is evidence the senator-judges can assess.

What netizens picked up from Day 18

Online comments are not a public-opinion survey, so they should not be presented as proof of what Filipinos as a whole believe. But the Day 18 discussions offer a snapshot of what some viewers were watching closely.

The second hostile witness drew immediate attention. In the r/Philippines Day 18 megathread, commenters quickly focused on Ortonio’s hostile-witness designation and on whether his answers would support or contradict what Acosta had already told the court. The discussion had the feel of viewers comparing testimony from one witness to the next.

The P150,000 personal advance triggered disbelief. A separate Reddit thread sharing Ortonio’s testimony drew comments questioning why an OVP official would personally advance such a large amount for confidential operations and then remain unreimbursed. The underlying P150,000 claim came from Ortonio himself; the skepticism belongs to the commenters.

The absence of confidential funds under the previous OVP also became a talking point. Threads discussing testimony that the OVP had no confidential-fund appropriation under former Vice President Leni Robredo prompted comparisons between the two administrations. Wamil had earlier testified that neither Robredo nor former Vice President Jejomar Binay had confidential-fund appropriations during the period he audited.

The verified social-media samples I found leaned skeptical of the OVP’s explanations. That should not be converted into a claim about national sentiment. A few Reddit threads cannot tell us where the broader public stands.

What Day 18 actually established

Day 18 gave the court a clearer chronology and put Ortonio directly into several parts of the confidential-fund process.

The request for P250 million came before the PFP. The first P125 million was reported spent over 11 days. Ortonio accompanied Acosta during all four encashments. He also said he personally supplied the unexplained P150,000 difference and confirmed that Duterte authorized confidential-fund matters from the request through liquidation.

None of those facts, standing alone, is a verdict.

The prosecution still has to connect the records and testimony to the impeachable offense it alleges. The defense can challenge that connection, the witnesses and the meaning prosecutors assign to the documents. Day 18 itself showed why that distinction matters when the court struck loaded words but allowed the underlying testimony to remain.

Before sharing the next viral clip from the trial, keep the Day 18 timeline beside it: August 22, the P250-million request; September 16, the PFP; December 21 to 31, the reported P125-million disbursement; and the four encashments Ortonio said he attended.

When a post jumps from those facts straight to guilt or innocence, ask what document or testimony fills the gap.

If it skips that question, it is skipping the part of Day 18 that matters most

Those names were enough to send social media into meme mode on Day 17 of Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial. They appeared on acknowledgment receipts presented by the prosecution as supporting documents for confidential-fund expenses. But the more serious part of Gina Acosta’s testimony was what she said about the money itself: she did not personally see the people named on those receipts receive it.

Acosta, the former special disbursing officer of the Office of the Vice President (OVP), returned to the witness stand on August 24 after two trial sessions were disrupted by bad weather. She had been declared a hostile witness the previous week. Article I concerns the alleged misuse of P612.5 million in confidential funds, P500 million released to the OVP and P112.5 million to the Department of Education while Duterte was education secretary.

Here are five developments from Day 17 worth separating from the noise.

Five highlights from Day 17

1. Acosta confirmed that P500 million was released to Col. Raymund Dante Lachica, who was not fidelity-bonded.

   Acosta testified that she released four P125-million tranches to Lachica from December 2022 through the third quarter of 2023. She acknowledged that Lachica was not a bonded officer, while she remained the accountable officer responsible for the funds and their liquidation. She said Vice President Duterte had designated Lachica to implement the confidential activities.

   The distinction matters because Joint Circular No. 2015-01 requires cash advances for confidential and intelligence funds to be drawn by a duly designated and bonded special disbursing officer or head of agency. The same circular says confidential funds cannot be transferred from one accountable officer to another.

2. Acosta said she did not witness the payments recorded under the unusual names.

   Prosecutors showed receipts bearing names such as Antonio Pagong, Timon Andrew Pusa, Don Piang, May Pamana, Shane Ngitngit and Xuniso P. Belat. The documents presented in court listed amounts ranging from P100,000 to P250,000 for expenses such as the purchase of information and vehicle rental.

   Acosta repeatedly said she was not present when Lachica supposedly paid these recipients. She said she relied on Lachica and on the documents he later provided to her.

   There is an important fact-check here. Strange names are not, by themselves, proof that the people are fictitious. What Day 17 established is that the names appear on the documents presented in court and that Acosta could not personally verify the actual handover of money to them.

3. Official receipts and sales invoices remained a problem.

   During questioning, Acosta confirmed that transactions involving nearly P500 million were supported by acknowledgment receipts rather than official receipts or sales invoices. She also said the same practice had been followed when she handled confidential funds in Davao City.

   A separate exchange focused on P75 million reportedly spent on supplies, medical assistance and food aid in December 2022. Acosta said there were no official receipts for those purchases and that she received acknowledgment receipts from Lachica.

4. Sen. Erwin Tulfo questioned P122 million in medicine purchases listed as rewards for informants.

   Documents discussed during the hearing covered P122 million worth of medicines in three tranches and P112 million worth of supplies, also in three tranches. Tulfo asked how medicines could be classified as rewards for informants.

   When asked whether she could personally confirm that P122 million had actually been spent on medicines, Acosta said she could not. She again said she based her liquidation on documents from Lachica because he had implemented the activities on the ground.

5. The court refused to let a prosecution accusation become part of the record.

   During the questioning, the prosecution characterized the confidential-fund arrangement as a possible “scam.” The defense objected. Escudero sustained the objection and ordered the remark stricken from the record.

   That ruling is worth remembering when clips from the hearing circulate online. A lawyer’s accusation is not the same thing as evidence accepted by the impeachment court.

Davao City entered the discussion again

The prosecution also questioned Acosta about her earlier work handling confidential funds while Duterte was mayor of Davao City.

The impeachment court had already allowed this line of questioning for the limited purpose of examining a possible pattern or practice. Escudero made clear that acts from Duterte’s time as mayor were not themselves additional impeachment charges. COA figures cited in previous reporting show Davao City’s confidential expenses reaching P460 million a year from 2019 through 2022.

On Day 17, Acosta also confirmed that acknowledgment receipts rather than official receipts or sales invoices had been used in the Davao confidential-fund liquidation she handled.

The defense has pushed back against the prosecution’s use of the Davao transactions, arguing that Duterte’s conduct as mayor is outside the impeachment charges. The court has allowed the questioning only for the limited purpose it specified.

What netizens were talking about

The unusual names quickly became the easiest part of the hearing to turn into jokes.

In one heavily discussed Reddit thread, a commenter wrote, “Buti pa si May Pamana may nakuhang Confidential Fund.” Others compared the names with fictional characters and questioned why so many unusual names appeared in government liquidation documents.

Another discussion focused less on the jokes and more on Acosta’s testimony. “All roads lead to Lachica lol,” one commenter wrote after Acosta repeatedly identified the former security chief as the person who implemented the confidential activities. Other users questioned why Acosta appeared unable to remember some matters or answer some prosecution questions but appeared quicker to respond during cross-examination.

There was some pushback, too. One Reddit user questioned whether informants could realistically be identified publicly, asking: “how can we track NPAs? Kung ung mga asset bibigyan nila ng totoong pangalan sa public??”

These comments are snapshots from particular Reddit threads, not a measure of Filipino public opinion. What they do show is where some of the online discussion went on Day 17: the unusual names, Acosta’s credibility and the growing attention on Lachica.

Where the money trail goes next

Day 17 narrowed one part of the story.

Acosta says she remained the accountable officer. She also says she released four P125-million tranches, totaling P500 million, to Lachica even though he was not fidelity-bonded. When asked about the recipients and purchases later used to account for the money, she repeatedly pointed back to Lachica and the documents he gave her.

The House prosecution has said it is considering whether to call Lachica himself and has moved to bring in senior Armed Forces officials as witnesses on intelligence procedures.

For those of us following the trial online, that gives us something more useful to watch than the next “Pagong” or “Pusa” meme.

When another clip goes viral, check what it actually contains. Is it a lawyer making an allegation? A witness confirming something from personal knowledge? Or a document whose contents still have to be verified?

Day 17 put P500 million at the center of that distinction. Acosta says where she handed the cash. The unanswered part is what happened after it left her hands.

Acosta also testified that the arrangement went beyond that first 125 million. She said she released a total of 500 million in OVP confidential funds to Lachica in 2022 and 2023 on orders from Duterte.

That put a basic question at the center of Day 16: after the special disbursing officer withdrew the cash, who was actually handling it?

Article I accuses Duterte of systematic misappropriation and irregular liquidation involving 500 million in OVP confidential funds and 112.5 million released to the Department of Education while she was education secretary. These remain allegations that the prosecution has to prove before the Senate impeachment court.

Five things to know from Day 16

1. Gina Acosta became the prosecution’s first hostile witness

The impeachment court declared Acosta a hostile witness after Presiding Officer Francis Escudero considered her employment relationship with Duterte and her position in an Ombudsman counter-affidavit that Duterte had not misused confidential funds.

The ruling allowed prosecutor Amando Ligutan to ask Acosta leading questions. Escudero reminded him that misleading questions were still prohibited.

Calling someone a hostile witness does not mean the court has decided that the witness is lying. It changes how the party that called the witness may question that person.

2. Acosta said Duterte ordered the money released to Lachica

This was the day’s central testimony.

Acosta said she released 500 million in OVP confidential funds in 2022 and 2023 to Lachica, who headed the Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group, on Duterte’s orders.

The first 125 million was received by the OVP on December 21, 2022. Acosta had also told a House inquiry in 2024 that she would not have given that money to Lachica without Duterte’s approval.

Acosta’s testimony establishes what she says Duterte instructed her to do. It does not, by itself, settle whether Duterte committed an impeachable offense. The Senate still has to weigh the testimony with the documents, the applicable rules and the defense’s evidence.

3. The handoff ran into a problem with the confidential-fund rules

Joint Circular No. 2015-01 governs the release, use, reporting and audit of confidential and intelligence funds. It says confidential-fund cash advances are to be drawn by a duly designated and bonded special disbursing officer or the head of the agency. It also says a cash advance cannot be transferred from one accountable officer to another.

GMA News reported that Acosta’s delegation of the funds to Lachica was contrary to Section 6.6.1 of that circular.

This distinction matters. The issue is no longer simply whether the OVP withdrew the money. The trial is examining whether the way the cash was handled after withdrawal followed the controls required for confidential funds.

4. The 125 million left the bank in four large bags

Acosta gave the court a physical picture of the December 2022 withdrawal.

She testified that the 125 million was placed in four large black traveling bags. Two LandBank security guards carried or dragged two bags each from the bank and brought them to an OVP vehicle, with Acosta following them.

The prosecution later showed an AI-generated image to illustrate what 125 million in cash inside bags might look like. The defense objected to its accuracy. The court allowed it after the prosecution made clear that the image was only a simulation and was not being presented as the actual bags or actual cash involved.

The image may have made the amount easier to picture, but the evidence remains the testimony and documents, not the AI illustration.

5. Acosta said the 2022 plan had no specific targets because it was still a plan

Ligutan questioned Acosta about the OVP’s Physical and Financial Plan for the 125 million released in 2022.

Acosta confirmed there were no specific numbers, locations or costs for the surveillance operations and no specific targets for the listed activities. Her explanation was straightforward: “Wala po, Your Honor. Kasi plano pa lang po.”

She also said the Physical and Financial Plan used generic descriptions, while the accomplishment report recorded actual activities. GMA reported that the accomplishment report included tree planting, Libreng Sakay, financial assistance and medical assistance, although those specific items did not appear in the Physical and Financial Plan.

The joint circular requires confidential-fund allocations to be supported by a Physical and Financial Plan approved by the agency head, with proposed amounts for programs, activities and projects that will become the basis for disbursements.

Then came the argument over Bisaya

Part of Day 16 shifted away from the money when Senator-Judge Erwin Tulfo questioned why Acosta was repeatedly answering in Bisaya.

Tulfo pointed to transcripts of the 2024 House hearings where Acosta had answered questions in Filipino. He asked the court to require her to speak in Filipino during the impeachment proceedings.

It became one of the most discussed moments online, although the language dispute does not answer the more important question about how the confidential funds were handled.

What netizens were saying

The posts below are individual reactions and should not be treated as a scientific measure of public opinion.

One X user focused on where the cash went after the handoff to Lachica, asking: “kanino naman ito napunta next?”

Another reacted to Acosta’s manner of answering, writing: “Gina Acosta is living up to her hostile witness status.”

Others pushed back against treating Acosta’s testimony as proof of the entire impeachment charge. One X user argued that her statement that Duterte ordered the release “by itself does not automatically prove grounds for impeachment.”

The split is worth noting. Critics focused on the 500 million handoff and the rules governing who may handle confidential-fund cash. Skeptics of the prosecution focused on what still needs to be proven beyond the fact that Duterte allegedly gave the instruction.

So where did the money go?

The four bags made for a striking image, but Day 16 was really about who handled the cash after it left the bank.

Acosta testified that she turned the money over to Lachica on Duterte’s instructions. That puts the next question squarely before the impeachment court: What happened to the 500 million after Lachica received it, and do the records account for how it was spent?

That is what the prosecution still has to establish.