Theater ramps up after 2-day break

Rep. Leila de Lima argued in her opening speech that the case centered on P612.5 million in confidential funds entrusted to Duterte under the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education, saying the Constitution required accountability even in the use of confidential funds.

“That the budget is intended for confidential operations does not mean the conduct of officials involved in the handling of the people’s money is exempted from the demands of transparency, scrutiny and accountability,” De Lima said.

She told the impeachment court that its task is to determine if Duterte committed a culpable violation of the Constitution, graft and corruption, and betrayal of public trust.

“The evidence will show that she did,” De Lima said.

Defense counsel Michael Poa objected, arguing that the prosecution was making conclusions before presenting any evidence.

“Your honors, they can do that through the offer of their evidence,” Poa said. “To allow a continuation of such, it really goes into the matter of fair play.”

Presiding Officer Sen. Francis “Chiz” Escudero sustained the objection in part.

“I was listening intently in the beginning. It was okay,” Escudero said. “But later on, you did make conclusions of law already, which the Chair orders to be stricken from the record.”

Escudero instructed De Lima to avoid “conclusions of fact and law” and instead proceed to presenting witnesses.

Poa argued that striking the remarks from the record would not erase their impact because the senator-judges had already heard them.

House panel members said they felt that the interruptions to De Lima’s opening statement constituted a wasted opportunity for the public to understand the premise of Article I.

Lead prosecutor Rep. Gerville Luistro stated that making conclusions of law was something that prosecutors could not help but do given their position in the trial.

Luistro explained that De Lima completely understood Escudero’s position on the matter, particularly as it was the precedent that had been set in earlier hearings.

“She’s very much okay. As a matter of fact, I even told her that the few questions she raised before she was interrupted were very powerful. I think she anticipated that even during the start because she was forewarned at the outset about not making conclusions of fact and conclusions of law,” she said.

House prosecutors Rep. Lorenz Defensor and Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong expressed similar sentiments backing De Lima, noting that explaining technical matters such as confidential funds was necessary for a better interpretation.

Former LandBank execs testify

The prosecution then presented Violeta Constantino, former manager of LandBank’s Shaw Boulevard branch, who testified on the withdrawal of P125 million in confidential funds of the Office of the Vice President (OVP) four times between December 2022 and September 2023.

Constantino described the withdrawal of P125 million on each of the four separate occasions by Vice President Duterte’s office as “unusual,” though she said it was not considered a suspicious transaction.

Constantino was the department manager of LandBank Shaw Boulevard Branch from May 2017 until she retired in January 2024.

She was responsible for processing the encashment of the four checks for OVP Special Disbursing Officer Gina Acosta amounting to P125 million each, or a total of P500 million.

“This was unusual. At the bank, we wondered where they would use this cash. But of course, we didn’t ask,” Constantino said when asked by Senator-judge Erwin Tulfo on whether such a withdrawal by a government agency was normal.

She admitted that in her 32 years at LandBank, it was the “first time” she saw such a large withdrawal by a government agency.

Acosta was reportedly accompanied by then OVP director of Administrative and Financial Services Lemuel Ortonio when she cashed the checks on 20 December 2022, 6 February 2023, 25 April 2023, and 14 July 2023.

Constantino said the original copies of the checks have been shredded in accordance with the bank’s one-year retention policy.

The cash was taken from the bank’s backroom in 25 packs containing P1 million each and was placed in four “large, long” gym bags.

Despite the sheer size of the amount involved, Constantino said the transaction was not deemed suspicious as it complied with the two-day notice, which is mandatory for large transactions.

“We didn’t have any doubts because we knew the transaction was legitimate,” she said in response to Senator-judge Bam Aquino’s query about whether she found the withdrawal suspicious.

Constantino said that no bank or security personnel escorted Acosta and Ortonio out of the bank, as it was against bank policy.

Among the alleged recipients of the secret funds was the infamous “Mary Grace Piattos,” who had no civil registry records, such as birth, marriage, and death certificates, as reported by the Philippine Statistics Authority.

Aside from Piattos, lawmakers also flagged the spurious names of other recipients, namely, “Jay Kamote,” “Miggy Mango,” “Dodong Gang,” “Xiaome Ocho,” “Mico Harina,” “Ralph Josh Bacon,” and “Sala Casim,” among others.

Also called as a witness was Nenita Camposano, former manager of LandBank’s DepEd branch, whose testimony covered three withdrawals of P32.5 million each made in 2023 by former DepEd special disbursing officer Edward Fajarda.

Camposano, who was the branch manager from May 2022 to September 2024, said the encashments were “unusual” since the agency’s transactions typically ranged around P10 million.

She said the DepEd officials would call them a day before the withdrawals so the cash could be prepared.

Once the cash was delivered from the bank’s cash center, Camposano said Fajarda would be called to receive the amount.

VP lawyers reject new trial track

The defense team has forced the impeachment trial to go back to its original track after rejecting a proposal to present evidence article by article, prompting the prosecutors to proceed with the first charge involving the alleged misuse of P612 million in confidential funds.

In a response filed before the Senate court on 28 July, Duterte’s lawyers opposed a proposal that would allow both the prosecution and defense to present evidence on each impeachment article before proceeding to the next charge.

The defense said the proposed arrangement would undermine “fair play and due process,” depart from the trial procedures agreed upon during pre-trial proceedings, and effectively shift the burden of proving the allegations from the prosecution to the respondent.

“Requiring the respondent to present evidence per article before the prosecution has fully presented its case-in-chief for all articles undermines Duterte’s right to know the accusations against her and the evidence supporting them,” the defense said in its filing.

The proposal was raised by Escudero on 21 July, when he asked both sides if they would agree to modify the current sequence of the proceedings.

Under the current trial flow, the House prosecution panel is expected to complete its presentation of evidence for all impeachment articles before Duterte’s defense begins presenting its case.

The defense maintained that the pre-trial order should remain in effect, warning that changing the sequence midway through the proceedings would undermine agreements reached by both parties.

“The pre-trial order provides that the prosecution must first complete the presentation of its evidence in all articles before the respondent is called to answer,” the lawyers said. -30-