The defense team in Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial clarified that confidential funds cannot be used to reimburse personal advances, following testimony from Office of the Vice President Assistant Chief of Staff Lemuel Ortonio that he had personally advanced ₱150,000 and had not yet been reimbursed.

Defense spokesperson Michael Poa said Tuesday, August 25, that the Commission on Audit (COA) joint memorandum circular governing confidential funds prohibits their use for reimbursements.

According to Poa, agencies could be held liable if confidential funds were used to reimburse expenses that had initially been paid personally.

The ₱150,000 Question

During direct examination, OVP Assistant Chief of Staff Lemuel Ortonio revealed that he had personally paid ₱150,000 in advance for an expense connected to his work.

He also said he had not been reimbursed for the amount.

That disclosure immediately raised questions about how personal advances are treated under the rules governing confidential funds.

Defense: No Reimbursement From Confidential Funds

Poa explained that the applicable COA joint memorandum circular does not allow confidential funds to be used as a reimbursement mechanism.

According to the defense spokesperson, if an agency were to use confidential funds to reimburse an employee who had personally advanced money, the agency could potentially be held liable.

That means the fact that Ortonio has not been reimbursed could have a very specific significance.

Why the Distinction Matters

There is an important difference between:

An employee personally advancing money for an expense

and

The government reimbursing that employee using confidential funds.

The first does not automatically establish misuse of public funds.

The second may raise compliance questions if the governing rules prohibit such reimbursement.

That distinction is central to understanding Ortonio's testimony.

Ortonio Has Not Been Reimbursed

The witness's statement creates an unusual situation.

If Ortonio personally spent ₱150,000 and has not received reimbursement, then the amount remains an out-of-pocket expense from his perspective.

The next questions are therefore:

• What was the ₱150,000 spent on?

• Why did Ortonio have to advance the money?

• Was the expense authorized?

• Was it connected to a legitimate official activity?

• Can the expense be reimbursed through another legally permitted mechanism?

• What documentation exists for the transaction?

Those questions remain important.

The Defense's Explanation

Poa's statement appears intended to clarify that the lack of reimbursement should not automatically be interpreted as evidence that the OVP failed to pay an obligation or improperly withheld money from the employee.

Instead, the defense says the rules themselves prevent confidential funds from being used for reimbursement.

In other words:

The issue may not be “Why wasn't Ortonio reimbursed?”

It may be:

“Was reimbursement even legally permitted using this particular source of funds?”

Why COA Rules Matter

Confidential funds are subject to specific accounting, documentation and auditing requirements.

Because these funds involve activities that may require confidentiality, the rules governing their use are particularly important.

The government cannot simply treat confidential funds like a general-purpose petty cash account.

Expenses must fall within the purposes authorized by the applicable rules.

A Potentially Important Impeachment Issue

The testimony could become significant because the impeachment trial has repeatedly focused on how confidential funds were spent, documented and liquidated.

The prosecution is examining whether transactions complied with government rules.

The defense, meanwhile, has repeatedly argued that some of the prosecution's interpretations of the rules and audit findings are incomplete or incorrect.

The ₱150,000 advance provides another example of why the precise wording of the rules matters.

The Question of Documentation

Regardless of whether reimbursement is permitted, documentation remains critical.

The court may need to establish:

What was purchased or paid for?

Who authorized it?

Why did an OVP official personally advance the money?

Was there an approved procedure for handling the expense?

Was the expense eventually charged to an authorized government account?

Was the expenditure properly documented?

These questions can help the senator-judges determine whether the transaction complied with applicable rules.

Don't Confuse “Not Reimbursed” With “No Expense Occurred”

Another important distinction:

The fact that Ortonio has not been reimbursed does not mean the underlying expense did not happen.

Nor does it automatically mean the expense was unauthorized.

It simply means that, according to his testimony, he personally advanced ₱150,000 and had not received reimbursement.

The legitimacy and proper treatment of that expense still have to be established through the evidence.

The Bigger Confidential-Funds Debate

The exchange highlights a broader problem surrounding confidential funds:

Rules matter.

When billions of pesos are entrusted to government agencies, the process for spending and liquidating those funds has to be clear.

If certain expenses cannot be reimbursed from confidential funds, officials need to know that before making personal advances.

If an official nevertheless advances money, there must be a lawful mechanism for resolving the expense.

The Bottom Line

Defense spokesperson Michael Poa said confidential funds cannot be used for reimbursements under the applicable COA joint memorandum circular.

His statement came after OVP Assistant Chief of Staff Lemuel Ortonio testified that he had personally advanced ₱150,000 and had not been reimbursed.

The testimony does not by itself establish wrongdoing.

Instead, it raises a more precise question:

WHAT DOES THE RULE ACTUALLY ALLOW?

If reimbursement from confidential funds is prohibited, then the court will need to determine how Ortonio's ₱150,000 advance was supposed to be handled—and whether the underlying expense was properly authorized and documented.

In a trial where confidential-fund rules are under intense scrutiny, the exact wording of the rules could matter as much as the amount of money involved.

“Vote on Truth, Not Noise”: A Call as Impeachment Pressure Mounts

As impeachment discussions resurface, a voice from within the House is urging restraint—and conscience.

Harold Duterte, a party-list representative and cousin of Vice President Sara Duterte, called on lawmakers to vote based on truth, not noise, ahead of any move related to impeachment.

His message was direct: impeachment is not elastic, nor should it be driven by headlines, pressure, or political momentum. Under the Constitution, it must rest on clear, provable violations—not assumptions, volume, or public spectacle.

He emphasized that impeachment is a solemn constitutional duty, not a popularity contest. Lawmakers, he said, must evaluate charges soberly, guided by evidence, conscience, and fidelity to the Constitution—not by numbers, noise, or narratives shaped outside the chamber.

This comes amid renewed discussions following developments tied to earlier impeachment filings, including legal questions raised about due process, timing, and procedural compliance within the House of Representatives of the Philippines.

At the heart of the statement is a reminder often lost in political storms: impeachment is not punishment—it is a process, and processes lose legitimacy when rushed, weaponized, or detached from evidence.

Whether one supports or opposes impeachment, the underlying question remains unavoidable:
👉 Will lawmakers decide by conscience and Constitution—or by pressure and noise?