“Hindi Ka In-Indian, Ghinost Ka”: Chiz Escudero Calls Out Defense Over 800+ OVP Receipts

MANILA — Senate President and presiding officer Chiz Escudero injected a distinctly Filipino twist into a procedural dispute during the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, telling the Defense that the Prosecution was not “indianed”—but simply “ghinost.”

The exchange stemmed from a scheduled meeting between the Prosecution and Defense regarding the possible stipulation of more than 800 acknowledgment receipts from the Office of the Vice President.

According to Escudero, the two parties were supposed to meet last Thursday or Friday to discuss and potentially stipulate on the documents.

But the meeting apparently did not proceed as expected.

“Hindi Ka In-Indian, Ghinost Ka”

Escudero challenged the characterization that the Defense had been “indianing” the Prosecution.

Instead, he offered a more modern—and much more familiar—description.

“Hindi ka in-Indian, ghinost ka.”

When Defense lawyer Kapunan apparently pushed back, Escudero doubled down:

“It's ghosting now.”

The exchange quickly became one of the more memorable moments of the proceedings, combining a serious procedural disagreement with a phrase Filipinos commonly use when someone suddenly stops responding or disappears from a conversation.

What Was the Meeting About?

Behind the humorous exchange was a significant evidentiary issue.

The parties were scheduled to discuss more than 800 acknowledgment receipts reportedly originating from the Office of the Vice President.

Stipulations are important in a trial because they allow parties to agree on certain facts or documents without requiring every individual piece of evidence to be formally established through lengthy testimony.

With hundreds of receipts involved, reaching agreements on authenticity, relevance or other factual matters could potentially save substantial time during the proceedings.

But before those stipulations could be finalized, the parties needed to meet and negotiate the terms.

Defense and Prosecution Clash Over What Happened

The dispute over the meeting reflects the increasingly contentious procedural exchanges between the two sides.

The Prosecution has sought to move its evidence forward, while the Defense has challenged various aspects of the impeachment proceedings and evidence being presented against Vice President Duterte.

In this particular instance, the disagreement centered not necessarily on the receipts themselves, but on what happened between the two parties before their scheduled meeting.

And Escudero made his characterization clear:

It wasn't “Indianing.” It was “ghosting.”

Why the 800+ Receipts Matter

While the humorous exchange grabbed attention, the underlying documents could still become relevant to the trial.

Acknowledgment receipts can establish that funds, payments or transactions were received and documented.

However, the existence of receipts alone does not automatically establish wrongdoing.

Their significance depends on what the documents show, how they relate to the allegations and whether the parties ultimately agree on their authenticity and other relevant facts.

That is precisely why stipulations can become useful in a proceeding involving a large volume of documentary evidence.

A Trial Full of Political Drama—and Memorable Lines

The impeachment trial has already produced intense exchanges between prosecutors, defense lawyers and members of the Senate sitting as impeachment judges.

But Escudero's “ghinost” remark immediately stood out because it transformed what could have been a technical procedural dispute into a phrase that practically every Filipino understands.

In ordinary conversation:

Indianing suggests deliberately avoiding or failing to show up.

Ghosting suggests suddenly disappearing or ceasing communication.

Escudero's point was that, in his view, the situation was better described by the latter.

The Evidence Still Moves Forward

Regardless of the terminology, the larger issue remains the handling of the hundreds of OVP acknowledgment receipts.

The Senate, acting as the impeachment court, will ultimately have to determine how the evidence is handled and what weight it deserves.

For now, however, one thing is certain:

The impeachment trial just got another unforgettable Filipino vocabulary lesson.

“Hindi ka in-Indian.”

“Ghinost ka.” 😭

KEY TAKEAWAY

Presiding officer Chiz Escudero said the Defense did not “indian” the Prosecution over a scheduled meeting concerning more than 800 OVP acknowledgment receipts. Instead, he said the Prosecution was “ghinost,” turning a procedural dispute into one of the trial's more memorable exchanges.

Former Marine Claims Deliveries Were Made to Residence Linked to Former Senator Trillanes

BBM Watch|Senate Circus|Global News

March 16, 2026•2 min read

Interview Segment Mentions Alleged Deliveries

Another portion of the interview involving individuals identifying themselves as former members of the Philippine Marine Corps has surfaced online.

In this segment, one of the former Marines claimed that he personally participated in deliveries to the residence of former Senator Antonio Trillanes IV.

According to his statement during the interview, the deliveries were made in envelopes and paper bags.

“Nag-deliver po ako sa residence ni former Senator Trillanes… dalawang envelope.”

He said he did not personally count the contents of the envelopes because that responsibility allegedly belonged to individuals he referred to as account executives (AEs).

“Driver bodyguard lang kami sir… yung mga AE ang nagbibilang ng pera.”

Claim About Who Received the Delivery

The former Marine stated that when they arrived at the residence, the envelopes were reportedly brought inside the house by a person he identified as Mark Teksai, whom he described as an associate or assistant connected to their employer.

According to him, he had visited the location twice.

He added that he recognized the residence partly because one of the bodyguards there was someone he said he knew personally.

Additional Claim of Larger Deliveries

During the interview, the former Marine also claimed that another delivery allegedly involved multiple suitcases.

He stated that in one instance, six suitcases were reportedly brought during a visit to the same residence.

“Yung pangalawa po anim na maleta.”

He said another associate was present during that delivery.

Mention of Media Personality

The discussion also briefly mentioned a media personality identified as Joey de Guzman, whom the former Marine said he once drove as part of his duties.

He indicated that he worked as a driver for this individual at one point, though the interview did not provide further details regarding any alleged transactions.

Statements About Personal Frustration

Toward the latter part of the discussion, the former Marine expressed frustration with what he described as public denials regarding the allegations.

He said that watching such denials on television made him feel upset because he believed the statements he was making were true.

He also spoke about his past involvement in the Magdalo movement, explaining that he had supported its anti-corruption stance at the time.

According to him, the experience had personal consequences for his career in the military.

Allegations Remain Unverified

As with other segments of the interview series, the claims remain unverified allegations.

No documents, photographs, or independent evidence were presented during the interview to confirm the statements.

The individuals mentioned in the interview have not publicly responded to these specific claims at the time of writing.

Authorities have also not issued official statements regarding the matter.

The interview continues to circulate online and has sparked discussions among viewers about the broader issues raised in the testimony.

📖 Bible Reflection (Politikanta Minute Style)

📖 Luke 12:2

“There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known.”

Truth has a way of emerging in time.