Prosecution panel says OVP treated confidential funds like petty cash

MANILA, Philippines — The House prosecution panel in Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial said the testimony of Office of the Vice President (OVP) assistant chief of staff Lemuel Ortonio suggests that the office treated its confidential funds like petty cash.

The panel issued the statement after Ortonio testified before the Senate impeachment court during the 18th day of Vice President Sara Duterte’s trial on Tuesday, Aug. 25

According to Deputy Speaker Rep. Paolo Ortega V, Ortonio’s explanations appeared to show gaps in the OVP’s liquidation and fund management.

Article continues after this advertisement

This, he said, was a problem caused not by a lack of skill, but whether the funds were handled competently and properly.

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

“Kulang yata sa competence, hindi nagkukulang sa skill, magaling sila doon, magaling sila sa ginagawa nila,” Ortega said in a post-trial press conference.

(It seems they lack competence, not skill; they excel at that, they are good at what they do.)

“Pero ‘yung competence at ‘yung tamang paraan po ng pagbigay ng pera at paglabas ng pera, tingin ko nagkakaproblema doon,” he added.

(But regarding competence and the proper way of disbursing and releasing funds, I think there are issues there.)

Article continues after this advertisement

Ortega then pointed out that the OVP appeared to have handled confidential funds as if they were private cash.

“Parang petty cash nila yung pag-handle nila doon sa pera,” he said.

Article continues after this advertisement

(The way they handle that money is like petty cash to them.)

“Basta makagawa sila ng kahit ano na parang may sarili silang sinusunod na type of liquidation, parang may sariling pamamaraan kung paano i-utilize yung pera … kaya parang personal money, petty cash na nangyari diyan,” he added.

(They just do whatever they want, as if they’re following their own liquidation process or their own method of utilizing the funds, so it ends up being treated like personal money or petty cash.)

Meanwhile, private prosecutor Benjamin Tolosa said the supposed process was unusual because, in a normal reward transaction, an informant gives information and receives payment. The transaction should end there.

He questioned why an informant would still declare what he intended to buy with the money after being paid.

“So normal ba doon sa informant, kailangan pa niyang sabihin yung binigay mong pera ipambibili ko ng gamot?” Tolosa asked.

(So, is it normal for the informant to have to say, ‘I’m going to use the money you gave me to buy medicine?’)

Lead prosecutor Gerville Luistro, for her part, pointed out that Ortonio’s testimony contained what she viewed as a declaration against interest because it contradicted what the documents supposedly represented.

She explained that, based on Ortonio’s testimony, the money was given to recipients with an undertaking that they would buy medicine, but the acknowledgement receipts stated something different.

“But if you will review his testimony, pera ang ibinigay, at may undertaking ang recipient na ibibili ng gamot,” said Luistro.

(But if you will review his testimony, money was given, and the recipient had an undertaking to buy medicine.)

“What do we call that? We call that misrepresentation,” Luistro said.

With this, Luistro said the prosecution still does not know whether the cash was actually used to buy medicine.

“What is clear here may misrepresentation na malinaw na naganap,” Luistro said.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

“The paper says one thing. The testimony says another. The question now is simple: which is which?” she added. /gsg