Sara Duterte Impeachment Trial

Sara Duterte Impeachment Trial — August 25, 2026

Edd August 25, 2026

Sara Duterte Impeachment Trial on August 25, 2026: Ortonio Declared Hostile Witness as ₱250-Million Request Came Before the Plan

The Senate impeachment court continued Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial on Tuesday, August 25, 2026. Day 18 focused on Lemuel Ortonio, the Office of the Vice President (OVP) assistant secretary and assistant chief of staff, whose testimony examined the request, release, and documentation of the OVP’s confidential funds.

The hearing formed part of the evidence for Article I, which alleges the misuse and irregular liquidation of ₱612.5 million in confidential funds—₱500 million released to the OVP and ₱112.5 million released to the Department of Education while Duterte was education secretary. These remained allegations under examination; the Senate had not issued a verdict.

Ortonio was declared a hostile witness

The court allowed the prosecution to treat Ortonio as a hostile witness. Presiding Officer Sen. Francis “Chiz” Escudero cited Ortonio’s employment relationship with Duterte: he reported directly to her, served at her pleasure, and held a coterminous position.

The designation allowed prosecutors to ask leading questions. It did not mean that the court had found Ortonio dishonest, nor did it establish that Duterte was guilty. It was a procedural ruling about how the witness could be questioned. Ortonio became the second prosecution witness to receive this designation after former OVP special disbursing officer Gina Acosta.

The ₱250-million request came before the spending plan

Ortonio confirmed that Duterte signed a letter requesting ₱250 million in confidential funds from the Department of Budget and Management on August 22, 2022. The request did not include a Physical and Financial Plan, or PFP.

The DBM later asked the OVP for the supporting plan on September 15. The OVP prepared and approved the PFP on September 16 and sent it to the DBM on September 19.

That sequence became one of the prosecution’s main points for the day. The relevant rules require confidential-fund allocations to be supported by a PFP identifying the amount and proposed activities. However, the fact that the request preceded the plan was a chronology established through testimony—not, by itself, a final finding that Duterte violated the rules. The Senate impeachment court must still decide what legal significance the timeline has.

₱125 million was reported spent in 11 days

Ortonio also confirmed that the first ₱125 million released to the OVP in December 2022 was reported as fully disbursed between December 21 and December 31—an 11-day period.

The prosecution questioned the speed of the reported spending, particularly because the release was made near the end of the year. But an earlier auditor, Roderick Wamil, acknowledged during defense questioning that no government rule specifically prohibited the OVP from spending the amount within 11 days. The short period could be scrutinized, but it was not automatically proof of an unlawful expenditure.

Ortonio placed himself in the cash-withdrawal chain

Ortonio testified that he was the only person who accompanied Acosta during all four encashments of confidential-fund checks at the LandBank Shaw Boulevard branch. The four ₱125-million tranches made up the ₱500 million in OVP confidential funds at issue in Article I.

Acosta had previously testified that the cash was turned over to Col. Raymund Dante Lachica, then an OVP security officer, upon Duterte’s instruction. Ortonio’s testimony placed him alongside Acosta during the withdrawals, but it did not by itself establish what happened to the money after it left the bank.

The unexplained ₱150,000 difference

Another important point involved a ₱150,000 discrepancy. Auditors had identified documents showing ₱125.15 million in confidential-fund expenses for 2022, even though the OVP had received ₱125 million.

Ortonio told the court that Acosta approached him about an urgent request from Lachica. He said he personally provided ₱150,000 from his own money, was never reimbursed, and did not see the amount reflected in OVP records. When asked about supporting documentation, he did not identify an OVP document proving that the personal advance had been made.

His testimony offered an explanation for the difference, but the court was left without a corresponding official record for the alleged personal payment. That gap became another question for the senator-judges to evaluate.

The court struck loaded descriptions from the record

During questioning, private prosecutor Mae Divinagracia asked whether Duterte was the “architect and mastermind” of the confidential-fund operation. The defense objected, and Escudero sustained the objection, ordering the wording removed from the record.

The court also rejected another question that characterized the changing explanations as a “scam.” Escudero reminded the prosecution that even an impeachment trial must follow evidentiary rules and that loaded labels cannot replace factual questions.

After the objectionable wording was removed, Escudero asked a more direct question. Ortonio confirmed that Duterte personally authorized matters involving the OVP’s confidential funds from the initial request through implementation and liquidation. That testimony is evidence for the court to assess; it was not a verdict on the impeachment charge.

What Day 18 added to the case

Day 18 gave the Senate impeachment court a clearer timeline and connected Ortonio to several stages of the confidential-fund process:

August 22, 2022: Duterte signed the ₱250-million request.
September 15, 2022: DBM requested the supporting PFP.
September 16, 2022: The OVP prepared and approved the plan.
September 19, 2022: The PFP was transmitted to DBM.
December 21–31, 2022: The OVP reported spending the first ₱125 million.
December 2022: Ortonio said he accompanied Acosta during four cash encashments.

The testimony raised questions about the timing of the request, the completeness of the planning documents, the speed of the reported spending, the movement of the cash, and the undocumented ₱150,000 explanation. None of those issues, standing alone, established Duterte’s guilt or innocence.

No conviction, acquittal, dismissal, or other final ruling was issued on August 25. The case remained in the witness and evidence presentation stage, with the prosecution’s allegations still subject to defense challenges and the senator-judges’ evaluation.