Week 9 of Vice President Sara Duterte's Impeachment Trial flipped the script with the lead defense attorney becoming a key eyewitness for the prosecution. It seems Attorney Michael Poa's fate is entwined with that of Sara Duterte. Being that he was Undersecretary for the DepEd while she was Secretary and he handled the COA audit response.
 |
| https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/2297970/poa-admits-he-also-faces-liability-if-vp-found-guilty |
Michael Poa, who served as Vice President Sara Duterte’s chief of staff, undersecretary for finance and spokesperson at the Department of Education (DepEd), acknowledged on Wednesday that he could face liability if Duterte is found guilty of misusing millions of pesos in confidential funds, while maintaining that he had no personal knowledge of how the money was used.
Poa, now one of Duterte’s defense lawyers but testifying as a hostile prosecution witness on Day 21 of her impeachment trial, also said he learned about the unusual names appearing in acknowledgment receipts for confidential fund payments only during congressional hearings in 2024, even though he had prepared DepEd’s response to a Commission on Audit (COA) audit observation memorandum (AOM) questioning P112.5 million in confidential expenditures.
Asked by Senator-judge Risa Hontiveros whether Office of the Vice President (OVP) and DepEd personnel could be held accountable if Duterte were found liable, Poa said: “It’s possible. Just being objective, Your Honor.”
Hontiveros then asked if Poa himself could face liability.
“It’s possible. I hope not, but possible,” he replied.
No operational role
Poa maintained that he had no operational role in handling the confidential funds. He said his involvement began only after he received the COA’s AOM flagging DepEd’s confidential fund reward payments. Before that, he said, he had no personal knowledge of how the funds were used.
After receiving the AOM, Poa said he approached then Undersecretary for Administration Nolasco Mempin to obtain proof of the success of activities supposedly funded through the rewards, particularly accomplishment reports.
Mempin, whom Poa said also had no personal knowledge of the funds’ use, eventually obtained certifications from Armed Forces of the Philippines officers, including Col. Manaros Boransing II and Col. Magtanggol Panopio.But Boransing and Panopio told the impeachment court on Tuesday that they did not know their certifications would be used to support the liquidation of DepEd’s confidential expenditures. The two Army officers said their documents merely recorded participants’ attendance in eight Army-sponsored Youth Leadership Summits and 53 Information Education Campaign activities. They also testified that neither DepEd nor the OVP provided the AFP with confidential funds for those programs.
“Unfortunately, all that really came to me was this certification. So, that’s all I attached to our response to COA,” he said.
‘Impression’ and ‘theory’
Poa also softened his earlier explanation to the House that activities supported by the confidential funds were targeted based on information supplied by informants, describing that explanation as merely his “impression” and “theory.”
Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian pointed out that Poa’s written response to the COA sounded more definitive, making it appear that information from informants had directly contributed to successful operations.
“How do you now prove that this success is from confidential information, from payment of rewards? How do you connect this to a successful payment of reward that led to a successful operation?” Gatchalian asked.
He also told private prosecutor Benjamin Tolosa Jr. that buying information from informants did not necessarily guarantee an immediately successful operation.
“Not all information purchased will necessarily result [in] immediate success,” Poa said when asked whether proof of success was required under Joint Circular 2015-01, which governs the use of confidential and intelligence funds.
Senator-judge Joel Villanueva questioned Poa on the basis for using AFP certifications to support DepEd’s P15.54 million in confidential fund expenditures.
‘Abogadong walang alam’
Poa said he did not consider the certifications in isolation, pointing to language in the documents referring to a “synergistic exchange of intelligence and information” that enabled authorities to identify areas where activities would be conducted.
The prosecution’s offer of Poa’s testimony triggered a sharp exchange after Tolosa described him as “ang abogadong walang alam (lawyer who knew nothing),” referring to his being tasked by Duterte to answer the COA despite repeatedly saying he did not know how the confidential funds were used.
Defense lead counsel Sheila Sison vehemently objected, saying Poa had rights under the trial rules to be protected from irrelevant, improper and insulting questions and from harsh or insulting treatment. Tolosa apologized and said he meant only that Poa had repeatedly testified in the House that he knew nothing about the funds.
Presiding officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero ordered the phrase stricken from the record, saying it was discourteous and should not be used in referring to a fellow lawyer.
Names surfaced in House
Poa’s testimony also underscored the limits of his knowledge of the documents used to liquidate the confidential funds.
Asked by Senator-judge Erwin Tulfo whether he was familiar with names appearing in acknowledgment receipts submitted to the COA as proof of payment to supposed confidential informants, Poa said he did not remember seeing anything fictitious while at DepEd. He said he saw the unusual names only when the receipts were shown during the House inquiry in 2024, including the controversial “Mary Grace Piattos.”
When he asked former DepEd special disbursing officer Edward Fajarda for documents evidencing payments required for the COA audit, Poa said Fajarda initially handed him a sealed envelope, saying the documents were confidential. Poa asked to see at least one sample because he was responsible for submitting DepEd’s response to the COA. The envelope was opened and he was shown an acknowledgment receipt.
‘First time’ hearing of Nolasco
Poa prepared DepEd’s response to COA’s AOM covering confidential expenditures for the first three quarters of 2023. The COA had flagged the lack of documents supporting the use of P112.5 million in confidential funds. Poa submitted DepEd’s response for the first two quarters in February 2024 and for the third quarter in April.
Poa likewise testified that he first learned during the 2024 congressional hearings that the confidential funds had allegedly been transferred to a security officer.
He had previously said that only Duterte and Fajarda were privy to the use of the funds. But Fajarda testified during the House inquiry that he had turned over the funds to Col. Dennis Nolasco, then deputy chief of the Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group.
Tolosa asked whether Fajarda’s statement was the first time Poa learned of Nolasco’s involvement. Poa said it was, adding that it was also the first time he learned that Nolasco was a security officer and that Fajarda had transferred the funds to him.
Poa agreed that when he prepared DepEd’s response to the COA, he did not know about Nolasco’s role and could not have spoken with him about payments supposedly made to informants.
Meanwhile, the House prosecution panel is weighing whether to abandon the bribery article against Duterte.
Public prosecutor Joel Chua said in a press briefing that the panel was studying whether to proceed directly to the unexplained wealth article after completing its presentation on the alleged misuse of P612.5 million in confidential funds.
“We are considering dropping one article,” Chua told reporters, stressing that no final decision had been made. The panel is still weighing an option.
Chua said dropping one article could shorten the proceedings, with the prosecution hoping to finish its presentation by the first week or mid which the dle of October, the defense by November and the impeachment court potentially issuing a decision by December.
Why was Poa tapped to handle the COA response when he had no knowledge of how the funds were actually spent? He only knew of things second hand and did not learn crucial information until the House hearing in 2024.
He also never saw the vault in which the confidential funds documents were by law supposed to be kept.
 |
| https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/2297647/poa-admits-he-never-saw-depeds-vault-for-confidential-documents |
It is not clear whether the Department of Education (DepEd) had a vault for its confidential documents, with its former spokesperson and chief-of-staff Michael Poa on Wednesday admitting that he had never seen the safe during his time with the department.
According to Senator-Judge Francis “Kiko” Pangilinan during the 21st day Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial, the lack of such a vault would be a violation of Joint Circular (JC) No. 2015-01, the primary regulatory framework for the entitlement, release, use, reporting, and audit of confidential and intelligence funds or CIF.
Under the JC, agencies utilizing CIF are strictly required to keep receipts, logs, as well as sensitive identity details inside a secured agency vault managed by a designated Special Disbursing Officer (SDO).
"According to the JC there is a vault required but I didn’t see that vault," Koa admitted during the proceedings.
"I didn’t see any vaults when I was at DepEd," he aded.
In fact, Poa even said that when he was instructed to respond to an audit observation memorandum or AOM from the Commission on Audit regarding DepEd’s confidential funds, the lawyer said the department’s SDO had to “get it from the field.”“So it was not in the vault?” said Pangilinan.
“Based on logic, it was not in the vault at the time that I asked for it,” Poa responded.
Pangilinan then pointed out that being from the field meant that the confidential documents were outside the vault for almost six months.
But Poa said DepEd SDO Edward Fajarda would be the best person to address the matter as he had no personal knowledge about it.
"That’s one concern, that you don’t know if there is a vault, and if there isn’t a vault, that’s already a violation of the JC," said Pangilinan.
“You don’t know if it was kept on the envelope because the SDO said it was on the field, so most likely it was not in an envelope in the vault, so another violation, assuming ha? I don’t know” he added.
With this, Pangililanan lamented how many questions about DepEd’s spending and handling of confidential funds continue to be left unanswered—leaving the public unable to know if the funds were spent correctly.
"That’s what’s a bit tragic here. We want to know the truth but we can’t get the truth from the witness, it’s a bit sad," he said.
Poa, for his part, apologized, reiterating that he simply had no personal knowledge on the matter—adding that if he did, he “would gladly answer.”
Appranelty there might not even have been a vault! That would be another violation by Sara Duterte. Senator-Judge Francis “Kiko” Pangilinan is right to lament "how many questions about DepEd’s spending and handling of confidential funds continue to be left unanswered."
The only people who can answer these questions are Sara and those who actually handled the funds.
 |
| https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1283176 |
Vice President Sara Duterte, then education secretary, and officials directly involved in handling the Department of Education’s (DepEd) PHP112.5 million in confidential funds were the only ones who knew how the money was used, former DepEd undersecretary, chief of staff, and spokesperson Michael Wesley Poa testified on Wednesday.
In his testimony, Poa, now part of Duterte’s defense team, admitted he had no personal knowledge of the expenditures that he later defended before state auditors.
He confirmed that Duterte and then-DepEd special disbursing officer (SDO) Edward Fajarda knew about the use of the confidential funds.
He later added then-DepEd security officer Col. Dennis Nolasco, whose role he learned about only after a House of Representatives hearing in November 2024, where Fajarda confirmed that he turned over the confidential funds to Nolasco.
“Opo (Yes),” Poa replied when private prosecutor Benjamin “Jay” Tolosa Jr. identified Duterte and Fajarda as those who knew how the funds were used.
Poa also testified that Duterte knew about and authorized his handling of DepEd’s response to an Audit Observation Memorandum (AOM) from the Commission on Audit (COA) questioning the expenditures.
He said he informed Duterte when the AOM arrived and sought her permission to coordinate with Fajarda.
“In-inform ko po siya (I informed her) that we got the AOM, and I informed her and asked for permission if I can coordinate with the SDO, dahil ’yan lang naman ang alam ko na may alam dito sa mga pondo na ’to (because to my knowledge, he was the only one who knew about these funds). And she said, ‘Okay,’” Poa said.
Poa said he later briefed Duterte on his answers to COA and that she responded, “Okay.” He also gave her a soft copy of the response a day before it was submitted.
Poa acknowledged that he did not know about Nolasco’s alleged role when he prepared the response.
“Actually, that was the first time that I heard that there was a security officer,” Poa said, referring to the 2024 inquiry of the House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability where he learned about Nolasco.
Poa confirmed his recollection of Fajarda’s previous testimony that all three PHP37.5 million releases were turned over to Nolasco. He also said he never spoke with Nolasco while gathering information to answer COA.
The Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) certifications attached to DepEd’s COA response also came under scrutiny during Poa’s testimony.
Poa confirmed that the certifications did not identify the informers who supposedly received confidential fund rewards or the particular information purchased with those rewards.
“No particular specific information was identified. Yes,” he said.
Poa said the AFP certifications were submitted as proof of success in connection with the rewards but insisted he had no personal knowledge whether information obtained through the rewards actually resulted in the military activities cited.
“That is just my interpretation of the certification,” he clarified. “Whether or not that is indeed the case, I really do not have personal knowledge of it.”
Poa also confirmed that no DepEd confidential funds were given to the AFP for the Youth Leadership Summits covered by the certifications.
Army Col. Manaros Boransing II and Col. Magtangol Panopio earlier testified that their certifications were not intended to account for or justify DepEd’s confidential fund expenditures.
The House prosecution panel presented Poa as a hostile witness, a status granted by the Senate impeachment court that allowed private prosecutor Tolosa to ask leading questions.
He was the third prosecution witness declared hostile after former Office of the Vice President (OVP) special disbursing officer (SDO) Gina Acosta and OVP Assistant Secretary and Assistant Chief of Staff Lemuel Ortonio.
The PHP112.5 million forms part of Article I of the impeachment charges accusing Duterte of alleged misuse, misappropriation, and irregular liquidation of PHP612.5 million in confidential funds, including PHP500 million at the OVP.
The public may never hear hide nor hair from them. That leaves a man like Attorney Poa as the fall guy. Even if Sara Duterte is convicted and permanently banned from holding public office the public will likely never know the true story of where all the money went.
