Senator Raffy Tulfo questions why red flags in OVP confidential fund were unchecked

MANILA – Senator-judge Raffy Tulfo on Monday questioned why apparent red flags in the Office of the Vice President (OVP) confidential fund records did not prompt its former special disbursing officer (SDO) to withhold transactions or seek further verification.

During the 17th day of Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial, Tulfo pressed former OVP SDO Gina Acosta over acknowledgement receipts bearing unusual aliases and, in some instances, different names carrying the same signature.

Receipts presented during the hearing showed Antonio Pagong purportedly receiving PHP100,000 for the purchase of information; Timon Andrew Pusa receiving PHP100,000 for the rental of a transport vehicle; Don Piang receiving PHP250,000 for transport rental; Shane Ngitngit for PHP150,000; and Xuniso P. Belat for PHP100,000.

“Kasi sa isang normal na tao, kapag siya'y binigyan bilang isang SDO tulad sa inyo, ng listahang pangalan ng mga informants na Belat, Pagong, at Pusa, papalag ka. Ano ba 'to, Colonel? Mukhang hindi ata tama 'to, bastusan na 'to. Hindi po ba (Because for a normal person, if you were given, as an SDO like you, a list of informants named Belat, Pagong and Pusa, you would object. What is this, Colonel? This does not seem right. Isn't that so)?” Tulfo asked.

Acosta acknowledged that the names would cause surprise but said she relied on documents submitted by then-OVP security officer Col. Raymund Dante Lachica.

Tulfo then raised another record showing several informant names with what he described as the same signature, asking whether this should have prompted further scrutiny.

Acosta said she asked Lachica about the matter, but he told her the information was “sensitive and confidential.”

“Pina-reply ko po yun, si Col Lachica, Your Honor. At ang sagot naman niya sa akin, Ma'am Gina, those are sensitive information, Ma'am Gina. At saka, confidential in nature po yun (I asked Col. Lachica about that, Your Honor. And his answer to me was, ‘Ma’am Gina, those are sensitive information.’ And those were confidential in nature),” she said.

Tulfo asked whether Acosta simply accepted Lachica’s explanation despite the repeated signature appearing under different names.

Acosta said she relied on Lachica because he was the official tasked to implement confidential activities on the ground.

“Kasi siya po ang nag-implement sa mga confidential activities, Your Honor, on the grounds. Siya po ang inatasan na mag-implement. Siya po ang implementor po, Your Honor (Because he was the one who implemented the confidential activities, Your Honor, on the ground. He was tasked to implement them. He was the implementor, Your Honor),” she said.

Tulfo criticized what he described as Acosta’s “blind loyalty,” arguing that an accountable officer should have questioned irregular-looking records rather than merely defer to a superior’s explanation.

Earlier in the trial, Acosta also testified that she had encountered aliases such as Mary Grace Piattos, Chippy McDonald, Pusa and Pagong, and maintained that these referred to real people, but these were not their true names.

-Philippine News Agency