By Winston Garcia
(An Opinion on the Unanswered Questions Surrounding the Withdrawal of the Confidential Funds Impeachment Charge)
The sudden and unexpected withdrawal of Article I of the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte, involving the alleged misuse of P612.5 million in confidential funds, raises one particularly disturbing question:
Did the decision to drop Article I have something to do with Col. Raymund Dante Lachica, whose testimony several senator-judges had expressed interest in hearing despite the House prosecutuin panel’s refusal to present him?
The circumstances surrounding this decision deserve close examination.
During the impeachment proceedings, former Office of the Vice President special disbursing officer Gina Acosta testified that she turned over P500 million in confidential funds to Colonel Lachica in four separate installments of P125 million.
Lachica was reportedly entrusted with implementing the confidential activities for which these funds were intended. Yet Acosta admitted that she had no personal knowledge of how the money was ultimately distributed.
This made Lachica a particularly important potential witness.
He could have explained where the money went, who received it, how it was spent and whether the expenditures were supported by legitimate confidential operations.
Surprisingly, the House prosecution panel decided not to call him.
The prosecutors repeatedly explained that his testimony was unnecessary because they had already presented sufficient evidence to establish the alleged misuse of confidential funds.
But the senator-judges themselves did not necessarily share the prosecution’s assessment.
Sen. Raffy Tulfo expressly manifested that Lachica and another security officer should be summoned to explain irregularities involving the identities of alleged confidential-fund recipients.
Sen. Erwin Tulfo likewise questioned whether the prosecution’s decision not to present these security officers was final.
More significantly, Senate impeachment court presiding officer Francis Escudero expressly recognized that the senator-judges could call Lachica as a witness of the court itself, independently of the prosecution.
Thus, the prosecution’s refusal to present Lachica did not necessarily mean that he would escape examination.
Even without the cooperation of the House prosecutors, the Senate still had the opportunity to summon him and require him to explain the ultimate disposition of the confidential funds.
This is what makes the subsequent developments particularly significant.
On Tuesday, Oct. 13, 2026, the House prosecution panel suddenly withdrew Article I altogether.
With that withdrawal, the alleged misuse of confidential funds ceased to be an issue for adjudication by the Senate impeachment court.
Consequently, any attempt by a senator-judge to summon Lachica specifically to explain the disposition of those funds would face a serious objection that his testimony was no longer relevant to the remaining impeachment charge.
The Senate’s acceptance of the withdrawal did not necessarily eliminate every possible legal basis for calling Lachica. But it substantially weakened the very basis upon which the senator-judges had previously contemplated summoning him.
The prosecution’s earlier refusal to present Lachica could not guarantee that he would never testify. The subsequent withdrawal of Article I, however, substantially reduced the possibility of his being compelled to testify about the confidential funds in the impeachment trial.
The timing and sequence of these developments naturally invite questions.
Why did the prosecution abandon Article I after repeatedly declaring that the evidence of misuse was already sufficient?
Why was Lachica never called, notwithstanding his reported receipt of P500 million?
And why was the entire charge withdrawn when the impeachment court had already recognized its authority to summon him independently?
One possibility deserving examination is whether concern over Lachica’s potential testimony influenced the prosecution’s decision.
That possibility remains unproven. The prosecutors have explained their withdrawal as a strategy to expedite the trial by concentrating on another article. Nevertheless, the explanation does not fully resolve the questions surrounding Lachica’s absence.
There is also an important circumstance that should not be overlooked.
Lachica himself reportedly declared that he had never refused to testify and was prepared to tell the truth if lawfully summoned, subject to applicable security restrictions.
If he was willing to appear, why did the House prosecutors decline to present him? And why was the charge under which the Senate might have independently summoned him subsequently abandoned?
The matter is particularly significant because Lachica’s testimony could have addressed the very question that the previous witnesses had been unable to answer conclusively: What ultimately happened to the P500 million allegedly placed in his custody?
The public is entitled to know the answer.
The withdrawal of Article I does not establish that Lachica committed any wrongdoing, nor does it prove that the prosecution intended to protect him or anyone else. But it leaves unanswered questions concerning his role and the final disposition of substantial public funds.
The decision also removed an important opportunity for the Senate impeachment court to examine those questions under oath.
The central issue, therefore, is not merely why the prosecutors refused to call Colonel Lachica.
It is why, after senator-judges had expressed interest in summoning him themselves, the prosecution abruptly withdrew the very article that provided the principal basis of examining him.
Was this simply a coincidence arising from a legitimate prosecutorial strategy?
Or did the prospect of Colonel Lachica being questioned independently by the senator-judges play some part in the decision to abandon Article I?
Only a full and candid explanation from the House prosecution panel can begin to resolve these questions.
Until then, the sudden withdrawal of Article I and the unexplained absence of Colonel Lachica will remain closely connected questions in the public examination of the impeachment proceedings.