Sara Duterte Impeachment Trial on August 12, 2026: A Heated Cross-Examination Puts the COA Audit Under the Microscope

The fifteenth day of Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial, held on Wednesday, August 12, 2026, focused almost entirely on the cross-examination of Commission on Audit (COA) supervising auditor Xylene Mae Del Campo. The defense challenged the basis of COA’s disallowance findings, while the prosecution defended the audit and repeatedly objected to the way the witness was being questioned.

The hearing also became one of the trial’s most tense sessions so far, with repeated exchanges between private prosecutor Lorna Kapunan and defense counsel Kristine Ferrer. Presiding officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero eventually warned both sides to keep the courtroom from turning into a personal or generational dispute.

The defense challenges COA’s “proof of success” standard

One of the central issues was the standard used to evaluate reward payments made from confidential funds. Ferrer questioned whether Joint Circular No. 2015-01 required an arrest or apprehension before a payment could be treated as proof that an intelligence or surveillance operation succeeded.

Del Campo acknowledged that the circular refers to proof of successful information gathering or surveillance, but does not specifically require an arrest or provide a single template for proving success. When Escudero asked where the arrest-based standard came from, Del Campo said it was her professional interpretation of the rules, informed by documents she had seen in earlier audits.

The defense argued that crime prevention can be a legitimate purpose of confidential operations even when no arrest takes place. Del Campo agreed that prevention may be covered, but maintained that the OVP’s reports and certifications were not enough to establish the success of millions of pesos in reward payments. The audit issue involved about ₱132 million in OVP reward payments across 2022 and 2023. (Philstar recap)

The prosecution countered that some of the reports being relied on by the defense described the accomplishments of the Vice Presidential Security Group, whose personnel were already paid through other government funds. The defense, however, emphasized that Del Campo had not found that the security group received rewards or payments for information from the OVP or DepEd confidential funds.

The courtroom clash over “misleading questions”

The legal dispute became personal at several points. Kapunan objected that Ferrer was repeatedly interrupting Del Campo and forcing her to answer only yes or no. Ferrer insisted that cross-examination allowed that approach and argued that the defense should control its own questioning.

Kapunan accused the defense of asking misleading questions, while Ferrer pushed back. Escudero urged the lawyers not to let what he described as a “seeming generational divide” heighten tensions. Kapunan’s sarcastic remarks about giving the defense a “spanking” and a possible “eulogy” later became widely discussed online.

The dispute continued outside the courtroom when lead defense counsel Sheila Sison raised a social-media post by private prosecutor Amando Virgil Ligutan. Sison argued that the post misrepresented the exchange and could violate the rule against publicly commenting on the merits of the case. Escudero said the court was monitoring public statements from both panels and was preparing a formal warning.

The controversy also revived the disagreement from the previous hearing over the authenticity and use of OVP acknowledgment receipts. The defense used the same documents during cross-examination, prompting the prosecution to question why the defense objected to the prosecution’s presentation of records it later relied on.

Escudero questions the basis of the ₱375-million disallowance

Senator-judges also examined the documents behind COA’s March 31, 2026 notice disallowing ₱375 million in OVP confidential funds reportedly spent in 2023. The notice relied in part on House testimony that special disbursing officer Gina Acosta had handed confidential funds to then-Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group chief Col. Raymund Dante Lachica.

Escudero observed that the House transcript clearly referred to Acosta handing over ₱125 million for the fourth quarter of 2022, but was less clear about whether the same arrangement covered the first three quarters of 2023. When asked what she relied on in preparing the notice, Del Campo said she relied on what she heard during the House hearing rather than the transcript itself.

The exchange raised a broader question about the limits of a COA compliance audit. Del Campo acknowledged that the House transcripts were not among the liquidation documents submitted by the OVP or DepEd and that COA had not independently verified the statements made during those hearings. She said auditors relied on the joint circular’s provision allowing other supporting documents when necessary.

Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian took the opposite view, asking whether the same reasoning could support disallowing the full ₱612.5 million in confidential funds attributed to the OVP and DepEd. Del Campo agreed that it could.

No final ruling—but the dispute became clearer

No verdict or final impeachment ruling was issued on August 12. The day instead clarified the main battle lines: the prosecution argued that the confidential-fund records did not sufficiently prove successful operations, while the defense questioned whether COA had applied an overly strict standard and relied on evidence outside the agencies’ own liquidation documents.

Philstar reported that none of the disallowed money had been returned at that point. The OVP’s motion for reconsideration involving the 2022 disallowance remained pending, while the agency still had time to appeal the 2023 notice. No notice of finality had been issued for the funds covered by the dispute.

At the close of the session, the court announced that proceedings would resume on August 17, with House Legislative Information Bureau director Marivic Pareja expected to testify, followed by Gina Acosta, Fajardo, and OVP assistant chief of staff Lemuel Ortonio.

The key takeaway from Day 15 was that the trial was no longer focused only on the amount of money involved. It was increasingly about what counts as proof, which documents auditors may rely on, and whether the records presented in court can establish accountability under the government’s confidential-fund rules.