World

Gina Acosta Faces Scrutiny Over OVP Confidential Funds Usage

Former OVP special disbursing officer Gina Acosta is questioned about the handling and documentation of confidential funds during the impeachment trial.

25 August 2026Tagblick Newsdesk

AI-generatedWritten by an AI system, editorially responsible — how we work

Archive photo: Gina Acosta Faces Scrutiny Over OVP Confidential Funds Usage — Archive photoPhoto: Office of the Vice President of the Philippines · Wikimedia Commons · Public domain

During the ongoing impeachment trial, former special disbursing officer Gina Acosta confirmed she did not possess official receipts for medical expenses covered under the Office of the Vice President's (OVP) confidential funds. When pressed by prosecutor Amando Virgul Ligutan, Acosta was asked what the nature of the confidentiality was regarding routine purchases such as Biogesic or paracetamol.

Senator-judges further interrogated Acosta about the thoroughness of her examination of the documentary evidence related to the liquidation of these confidential funds. Concerns about the due diligence exercised in this area were highlighted throughout the proceedings, raising questions about accountability.

Acosta also voiced her confidence in Vice President Sara Duterte’s management of these confidential funds during her testimony. This assertion was made in response to comments from Senator-judge Risa Hontiveros, who indicated that Acosta might face repercussions should any misconduct be proven in the trial.

Additionally, prosecutor Mae Divinagracia pointed out that the request for confidential funds was made prior to the submission of any written plan, stating, 'The amount was predetermined, and then the plan was followed afterward.' This detail adds another layer to the scrutiny surrounding the use of confidential funds within the OVP.

This item was written by an AI system on the basis of the headlines and short teasers of the independently operating newsrooms named below. We disclose this under Art. 50(4), second subparagraph, of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (AI Act). Before publication we check origin and verifiability — anything that appears in only one place is not published — as well as language, substance and legally sensitive content. No separate substantive review of each individual item by a natural person takes place; we therefore do not rely on the exemption in Art. 50(4), second subparagraph, of the AI Act. Editorial responsibility for this publication rests with the person named in the imprint (§ 18 Abs. 2 MStV). Please report errors to [email protected] — we will correct or remove the item. Full reports are available from the sources listed.