The Receipts Are Starting to Talk

BY ALDWIN FAJARDO-PONDER

For months, the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte was treated like another episode in the Philippines’ favorite political teleserye: Marcos versus Duterte, former allies turned enemies, accusations of persecution, loyalty tests, conspiracy theories, and enough political drama to keep Facebook comment sections employed full-time.

Then the Senate impeachment trial started doing something considerably less exciting.

It began looking at receipts.

And that may be where Sara Duterte’s real problem begins.

The prosecution has four articles of impeachment to prove, but after weeks of hearings, the allegation involving confidential funds increasingly looks like the case that could define the trial. Not because it has the most dramatic accusation—that distinction probably belongs to Duterte’s statements about having arranged for President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos and then-Speaker Martin Romualdez to be killed if she herself were assassinated—but because money has an annoying quality that political rhetoric does not.

It leaves a trail.

The prosecution is attempting to account for ₱612.5 million in confidential funds spent through the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education while Duterte headed both offices. By August 17, the impeachment court had identified 3,616 acknowledgment receipts appearing in the records of both prosecution and defense, including 2,666 involving the OVP and another 950 involving DepEd.

Thousands of receipts do not automatically prove wrongdoing. They do, however, make “this is merely political persecution” a less complete defense.

The question is no longer simply whether Duterte had authority to use confidential funds. Government agencies can legally have them. Nor is secrecy itself proof of corruption; confidential expenditures necessarily operate differently from purchasing office chairs or paying the electric bill.

The real question is whether the money was spent according to law, whether the supposed recipients and activities were genuine, whether the supporting documents can withstand scrutiny—and most importantly, whether any irregularities can be connected directly to Duterte.

That last part is crucial.

Impeachment should not become a national guessing game in which something looks suspicious and senators fill in the blanks themselves. The prosecution still carries the burden of building the bridge between questionable transactions and the impeachable conduct of the Vice President.

But lately, that bridge appears to be getting shorter.

Former OVP special disbursing officer Gina Acosta testified that Duterte instructed her to turn over ₱125 million in confidential funds to then-OVP security officer Col. Raymund Dante Lachica. Prosecutors have seized on that testimony because it potentially moves Duterte closer to the actual movement of the money rather than leaving her several bureaucratic layers removed from it.

Then came testimony from OVP Assistant Secretary Lemuel Ortonio. According to evidence presented this week, the OVP requested ₱250 million in confidential funds in August 2022 before it had completed the physical and financial plan explaining how those funds would be used.

Again, suspicious timing is not the same thing as guilt.

But impeachment trials are built exactly this way: one document, one witness and one uncomfortable question at a time.

Earlier testimony from Commission on Audit personnel had already raised problems involving the documentation supporting confidential expenditures. State auditor Roderick Wamil testified that submissions did not fully establish the identities of recipients, the specific confidential activities performed or sufficient supporting proof for several expenditures. Another COA auditor, Xylene May del Campo, testified about acknowledgment receipts supposedly issued on the same day to recipients scattered across provinces from Abra to Agusan del Sur, even though only one officer was authorized to disburse the funds.

That is the kind of evidence that requires an explanation.

And “confidential funds are confidential” can only carry a defense so far.

Still, anyone declaring the case finished should probably put the champagne back in the refrigerator.

The prosecution has weaknesses.

Its presentation has sometimes been painfully slow. There have been evidentiary fights, arguments over documents and witnesses whose testimony has required prosecutors to extract information almost one teaspoon at a time. Duterte herself has accused the prosecution of fishing for evidence, while prosecutors insist the evidence is already substantial and additional witnesses are still coming.

More importantly, the Senate has already demonstrated that it will not automatically accept everything generated by the House proceedings as established fact.

That is healthy.

An impeachment proceeding may be political, but a conviction cannot simply be the Senate saying, “Well, everybody already heard about it on the news.”

If prosecutors cannot authenticate evidence, establish relevance and connect conduct to Duterte herself, senator-judges should say so.

This is also why the threat allegation, despite being more sensational, may ultimately be less dangerous to Duterte than the financial articles.

The prosecution has already completed its presentation on the alleged threats and says testimony authenticated the video containing Duterte’s statements. The statements were undeniably extraordinary for a sitting vice president.

But the Senate will eventually have to decide something harder than whether the words were offensive, reckless or even frightening.

Were they an impeachable offense?

That invites interpretation.

Money is different.

If financial records eventually demonstrate that public funds moved in ways that cannot be credibly explained, the argument becomes considerably less philosophical.

This is why Article II—the unexplained-wealth allegation—may still become the sleeper issue of this trial.

The impeachment court has allowed prosecutors access to bank, tax and Anti-Money Laundering Council records involving Duterte, her husband and associated businesses. We have not yet reached the point where those records have produced the trial's defining moment. But unexplained-wealth cases have one great advantage for prosecutors: eventually, everybody has to deal with arithmetic.

You can argue about motive. You can argue about political persecution. You can argue about whether an angry statement was a threat or hyperbole. It is considerably harder to argue with ₱10 when the records show ₱100.

So, is the prosecution winning?

At this stage, I would say yes—but narrowly, and primarily on Article I.

Not because it has already proven that Sara Duterte committed an impeachable offense. It has not.

The prosecution is ahead because it has succeeded in moving the confidential-funds issue away from accusation and toward documentary questions the defense must eventually answer. There is now testimony about how money was requested, withdrawn, transferred and liquidated. There are thousands of acknowledgment receipts. There are COA findings. There are witnesses describing who handled the cash and who allegedly gave instructions.

Even independent observers looking at the latest hearings have reached essentially the same point: testimony from senior OVP personnel is increasingly narrowing the group of people who could explain where portions of the confidential funds ultimately went, with Duterte herself and former security chief Lachica occupying central positions in that chain.

But being ahead after eight weeks is not the same thing as winning a conviction.

The defense still has cross-examination. It still has its own evidence. It can attack the prosecution’s interpretation of audit findings, argue that administrative deficiencies are being inflated into impeachable offenses, and insist that the government must prove personal culpability rather than merely showing irregularities somewhere inside agencies Duterte headed.

And then there is the inconvenient fact everyone understands but rarely says without pretending to be shocked:

These judges are senators.

They belong to political parties. They have alliances. They have constituencies. Some will run again. Some have presidential ambitions. Some have relationships with the Marcoses, the Dutertes, or both.

Conviction requires two-thirds of the Senate.

That means the prosecution is arguing two cases simultaneously.

One is the case appearing in the transcripts.

The other is happening inside 24 political minds.

That is why this impeachment trial remains important far beyond Sara Duterte.

If she is convicted despite weak evidence because senators dislike her, impeachment becomes another political weapon.

If she is acquitted despite strong evidence because senators fear her political base, impeachment becomes theater.

Neither outcome serves the country.

The best thing the Senate can do now is something almost revolutionary in Philippine politics:

Ignore the surnames.

Forget Marcos. Forget Duterte. Forget 2028.

Follow the documents.

Follow the testimony.

Follow the money.

After all the speeches, alliances, press conferences and political drama have exhausted themselves, the most consequential witnesses in this impeachment trial may turn out to be the ones that never speak.

The receipts already have.