[ANALYSIS] Duterte impeachment trial Day 19: Who holds the smoking gun?

The trial of Vice President Sara Duterte has taken a bitter, bolder twist on Day 19.

The prosecution and the senator-judges sounded so frustrated that the hostile witness would not serve them on a silver platter what they direly needed: a definitive smoking gun against the respondent.

Just hours after presiding officer Chiz Escudero read the riot act, the senator-judges subjected the witness, Lemuel Ortonio, Duterte’s assistant chief of staff, to intense questioning, with some of them coupled with unsavory remarks.

Visibly piqued, senator-judge Ping Lacson asked the presiding chair to order the production of “confidential documents” detailing the names of people who supposedly received huge sums of money as payments or rewards in all amounting to P125 million for their involvement in OVP’s confidential operations for the last quarter of December 2022, all meant to keep the vice president out of harm’s way in the performance of her duty. 

Based on the OVP liquidation reports submitted to the Commission on Audit, these people had used “aliases” or “fictitious” names. Though not a violation of COA rules, including the joint circular of 2015, the names raised doubts as to how the OVP used the millions of funds. 

Lacson said there ought to be a stop to the cross and direct examinations, all answered with the all-familiar evasive witness. 

“Totoo ba talaga itong mga aliases?” Lacson asked. “Nakatanggap ba talaga sila ng pera? Para matapos na aming panghuhula, para lang makapagdesisyon kami. Kasi naghuhula kami.”

Lacson asked Escudero to subpoena the confidential documents. 

“There is a presumption of regularity (in the use of the funds),” said Lacson, “but there is doubt. Paulit-ulit lang tayo.”

Lacson said the trial was running in circles, with the witness giving no additional information to flesh out Article 1 of the impeachment complaint, or the alleged misuse of some P125 million in confidential funds.

Senator-judge Erwin Tulfo followed up Lacson’s request by asking Escudero and the prosecution and defense panels to call to the witness stand Army Col. Raymund Dante Lachica, Duterte’s former security group chief, the man who supposedly received and distributed the huge sums to various individuals.

Ortonio and another hostile witness, Gina Acosta, the former special disbursing officer of the OVP, said only Lachica had a hand and knowledge of how the funds were distributed to the confidential people.

“I am appealing to the parties to present Lachica, the missing link,” said Tulfo. “It would be helpful for us to clarify: Ano ba? Saan mo ba dinala o ibinulsa ang pera? I am one day, umaasa na makikita ko si Lachica.”

Senator-judge Kiko Pangilinan likewise sought the opening of the documentary envelopes as evidence of payments.

Senator-judge Migz Zubiri asked Escudero to “make representation” with COA for it to make a final ruling on the OVP’s liquidation reports.

“The real arbiter here is COA,” said Zubiri. 

In all the requests, Escudero said the court would call Lachica and the documentary evidence “at the proper time.”

He said the court, as a passive court, could not compel Lachica without either party proposing it. He said COA, being a constitutional body, could not be pressured since the COA rulings on the OVP liquidation reports were not yet final and that the OVP had until October to settle their obligations. 

If either the prosecution and defense does not ask, Escudero said he would call Lachica and the COA officials and their reports in court after the presentation of the prosecution and the defense shall have been over.

Until yesterday, the prosecution, despite the probable value of Lachica’s testimony, remained reluctant to take the witness stand. In a statement released on social media, Lachica said he was willing to appear in court.

The questions and the commentaries raised by most of the senators were intense, with Lacson, Sotto, and Raffy Tulfo saying Ortonio didn’t sound intelligent for all his academic credentials.

“Unbelievable,” said the elder Tulfo. "You are not making sense. It really defies logic. Sayang po 'yung pagka-talino mo rito."

"Ngayon, pinakita mo na nagsasalita ka na para kang nagtatangatangahan," he added.

“Who really knew about who received the money? Acosta didn’t know. Ortonio didn’t know,” asked Senate President Sherwin Gatcalian.

“How do we know if the money really went to the right people? How was the money spent?” 

Unlike his colleagues, Gatchalian remained calm. 

But the frustrations of many senators gave away one obvious detail: They haven’t seen enough to pass judgment, so far, on Duterte’s guilt or innocence.

They were so frustrated that they forgot that Ortonio was a hostile witness. In the past two days, it has been a she-asked, he-said type of testimony.

So far, the prosecution didn’t seem to have a sleuth among its ranks to look for a material witness.

The impeachment trial of Joseph Estrada in 2000 nearly ended up in a similar scenario until prosecutor Joker Arroyo played a detective and master negotiator behind the scenes in convincing bank executive Clarissa Ocampo to take the witness stand to prove that the actor-turned politician owned the “Jose Velarde” account.

Along with private prosecutor Mario Bautista, Arroyo fell in line to see and assess the reluctant witness in a series of clandestine meetings.

Hours before the trial began, a television host told the spokesman of the prosecution, former Rep. Ace Barbers, that the public had yet to see a smoking gun. 

But the spokesman said it had shown enough to convict Duterte.

Still, the host said she and probably the public at large hardly had any eureka moment to say indeed that they had seen enough to pin down Duterte.

Though he seemed to have serious questions and intentions, senator-judge Robin Padilla sometimes provided some comic relief. He said even revolutionary heroes, including the slain ex-senator Benigno Aquino Jr., and communist leaders had used aliases once upon a time in their lives.

After he issued the riot act, Escudero said he would slap offenders with penalties, ranging from reprimand to a P30,000 fine.

But it was obvious that if they can’t crack a witness, some senator-judges are prone to visible frustration, exhibiting a low threshold for irritation during proceedings. 

In his time, former Sen. Rene Saguisag loved to tell his own experience as a human rights lawyer appearing in a military tribunal during martial law. Because he talked a lot, the military judge fined him P50 for every offense, he said. 

Each time, Saguisag would reply: “Your Honor, can I pay another P50? I have something more to say.”

How Escudero would enforce his order on Duterte and his own colleagues at the Senate and at the House of Representatives remains to be seen.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the opinions of PhilSTAR L!fe, its parent company and affiliates, or its staff.