Senator-Judge Panfilo “Ping” Lacson questioned the witnesses presented by both the prosecution and defense during the 10th day of Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial, saying none of the listed witnesses appeared to have the expertise needed to explain the handling and purpose of confidential funds.
Lacson raised the concern during the proceedings on Article I of the Articles of Impeachment, which involves allegations of the alleged misuse of ₱612.5 million in confidential funds from the Office of the Vice President (OVP) and the Department of Education (DepEd).
The senator said he was surprised that neither side presented a witness with direct experience in intelligence operations or the administration of confidential and intelligence funds.
“I’m only wondering why neither the prosecution nor the defense is presenting a competent witness in the handling of intelligence and confidential fund,” Lacson said.
Recalling his previous experience in intelligence and law enforcement, Lacson explained that confidential funds are intended for specific intelligence-gathering and security-related activities.
“Kasi po, in my previous life, sa intelligence, sa law enforcement, ang natatandaan ko, kasi limited yung purpose ng intelligence at saka confidential fund,” he said.
Lacson also pointed out what he described as the regular pattern of cash withdrawals related to the funds, noting that withdrawals appeared to occur every quarter except for one made in December.
“Nagtataka lang ako, nakita ko yung regularity ng withdrawals ng cash. Parang every quarter, except for December, December 20,” he said.
He added that a knowledgeable witness, such as a retired intelligence officer, could help the senator-judges better understand whether the timing and frequency of the withdrawals were consistent with the proper use of confidential funds.
“Sana kung para ma-educate kami, at saka magkaroon kami ng informed decision later on, sana na meron tayong competent witness sa paghahanda ng intelligence fund or confidential fund,” Lacson said.
House Prosecutor Rep. Joel Chua responded that the prosecution still has reserved witnesses who were not included in their pre-trial brief and would be presented at the proper time.
“Your Honor, we will be presenting our witness, pero hindi po siya yung te-testigo po pagdating po dyan. In time po, we will be presenting witness or witnesses that will explain yung manner po ng confidential,” Chua said.
When Lacson asked about the possibility of the Commission on Audit (COA) serving as a resource on the matter, Chua mentioned COA. However, Lacson argued that COA does not necessarily qualify as an expert witness on the operational handling of intelligence and confidential funds.
“COA is not a competent witness sa pag-handle ng intelligence and confidential funds. Somebody like a retired intelligence officer. Somebody like that na maalam mag handle,” Lacson said.
Chua reiterated that the prosecution had a reservation for additional witnesses who could address the matter.
“Your Honor, may pe-present po kami pero kung makikita po ninyo dun sa aming pre-trial brief, meron po dun reservation,” Chua said.
The discussion prompted Presiding Officer Sen. Francis “Chiz” Escudero to earlier joke that the witness information remained “confidential pa,” as both prosecution and defense withheld the names of potential witnesses who could discuss confidential fund procedures.
