Week 9 of Vice President Sara Duterte's Impeachment Trial Part 2

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. 

Week 9 of Vice President Sara Duterte's Impeachment Trial Part 1

Week 9 of Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial was curtailed once more due to Monday, August 31st being National Heroes Day. Testimony resumed on Tuesday with AFP Colonel Manaros Boransing II. He testified that, under Duterte, no Department of Education confidential funds were allowed for the Army's Youth Leadership Summit. 

https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/2296490/boransing-insists-no-duterte-offices-funds-in-army-youth-summits

Not a single peso — whether regular allocations or confidential funds (CF) — from Vice President Sara Duterte’s offices was received or used for the youth leadership summits conducted by the Philippine Army (PA), Col. Manaros Boransing II said on Tuesday.

During the resumption of Duterte’s impeachment trial, Boransing was asked by prosecution lawyer Reynaldo Robles whether the Army’s Youth Leadership Summit (YLS) and the Information Education Communication (IEC) campaign — two anti-communist recruitment initiatives — were funded by the Office of the Vice President (OVP) and the Department of Education (DepEd).

Robles asked this as the DepEd under Duterte cited the YLS and the IEC as activities that would justify the use of their CFs in 2023.  In response, Boransing said they did not receive any CF from Duterte’s offices, and only PA funds were used, and local government unit (LGU) allocations for local partners.

“There was no funding released to the 1st Infantry Division from DepEd, sir, of any source,” Boransing said.

“How about funding, by way of confidential funds, provided by the offices identified with the respondent Vice President Sara Duterte, particularly the OVP, Office of the Vice President, or the Vice President Security and Protection Group or VPSPG, were there funding provided from those offices for your YLS and IEC activities in 2023?” Robles asked.

“For 2023 sir, there were no funds from other government agencies released to 1st Infantry Tabak Division, sir,” Boransing added.

The Army official also clarified that they did not receive even regular funds from OVP, DepEd, or VPSPG.

“I was asking you about confidential funds, now let me ask you about funds in general, confidential or otherwise, how much funding was provided or downloaded to your unit by the DepEd, for your conduct of the YLS and IEC activities for 2023?” Robles asked again.

“As I earlier said, no funds whatsoever or any amount was downloaded to the 1st Infantry Tabak Division for 2023 for the Youth Leadership Summit and Information Education Communication campaign, by any government agency sir,” Boransing answered.

Robles’ inquiry was similar to the questions thrown at Boransing and other PA officials who attended an October 17, 2024, hearing of the House of Representatives’ committee on good government and public accountability — which probed allegations of anomalous CF use within the Vice President’s offices.

During that hearing, Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro — who eventually became chairperson of the committee on justice and lead public prosecutor — observed that DepEd under the Vice President made it seem that they used their CF for the YLS and IEC when it was the PA and LGUs that shouldered most of the expenses.

Luistro made this conclusion after asking Boransing which agencies’ funds were used for the YLS, as the DepEd claimed to have allocated P15 million of its CF.

When Boransing said that they used their own funds, Luistro asked retired former Education Undersecretary and Maj. Gen. Nolasco Mempin if it was true that DepEd did not allocate funds for the YLS since it is an AFP program.

Mempin replied in the affirmative.

However, Luistro was able to solicit a confirmation from the Commission on Audit (COA) that the acknowledgement receipts used by DepEd to show that the P15 million CF was spent for the YLS.  However, DepEd labeled this disbursement as reward to informers.

Boransing and other PA officials told the House panel that they would have not given DepEd certifications for the YLS if they knew that DepEd would use these to justify confidential expenses for rewards to informants.

Boransing is the eighth witness presented by the prosecution for Article I of the Articles of Impeachment, or the allegations that the CFs for Duterte’s offices were misused.

In fact the Army received no funds from the Office of Vice President or the Department of Education for the Youth Leadership Summit. 

A second military official, Col. Magtanggol Panopio, claimed he was surprised the DepEd used a certification he issued "in connection with the Department of Education’s (DepEd) liquidation of PHP15.54 million in confidential-fund rewards."

https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1283093

Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) Col. Magtanggol Panopio said Tuesday that he was surprised to learn that a certification he issued merely to confirm the conduct of Philippine Army youth activities had been used in connection with the Department of Education’s (DepEd) liquidation of PHP15.54 million in confidential-fund rewards.

In his testimony before the Senate impeachment court, Panopio said he discovered the document’s use only when he appeared before a House inquiry into DepEd’s confidential intelligence funds in 2024, not when he issued the certification dated Dec. 5, 2023.

“We only learned of this when we appeared before Congress during the hearing on confidential intelligence funds of the Department of Education, Your Honor,” he said.

Presiding Officer Senator Francis Escudero placed the date of that House hearing on the record as Oct. 17, 2024. Panopio confirmed that it was there that he learned that his certification had been included among DepEd’s documents in responding to a Commission on Audit (COA) Audit Observation Memorandum.

“We were surprised because the certification is only for the certification that we conducted the Youth Leadership Summit. Hindi po namin sine-certify we were not certifying anything about money or funds, Your Honor,” he said.

He said the document was issued under instructions coursed through his military command and coordinated with former DepEd Undersecretary Nolasco Mempin.

Issuing such documents was not unusual in itself, he said, because military activities commonly involved other government agencies and local partners.

“It is part of my job as the assistant chief of staff for civil-military operations to issue certificates to our partners, especially on activities conducted by the division, Your Honor,” he said.

“That certification affirmed that the Youth Leadership Summits have been implemented in our area of operations during the year 2023, Your Honor,” he added.

Meanwhile, Panopio traced DepEd inputs to teachers, schools, and communities – not paid intelligence.

His certification stated that areas for the summits were identified through information obtained primarily from DepEd and that information exchange supported military operations focused on protecting schools.

Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian questioned what kind of information that language described and whether it was confidential or surveillance information.

Panopio explained that site selection began with ordinary interagency planning.

“When we conduct YLS, we are following different phases. During the planning phase, we are coordinating with different agencies like the LGUs, the schools and the community where we will conduct the YLS,” he said.

Asked who within DepEd supplied the information, Panopio did not identify a national official, confidential agent, or paid source, pointing principally to school personnel participating in local coordination.

“I assume that it came from the teachers on the ground as members of DepEd, who provided us the information on how and where to conduct the YLS, Your Honor,” he said.

He later identified teachers on the ground as the personnel he believed were being referred to in the certification.

Panopio did not claim that every input was public, initially describing the information, based on experience, as potentially mixed.

“So, I think we can say that the information may be somehow confidential or there is an open-source. But based on experience, it is mixed, Your Honor,” he said.

Gatchalian then required him to identify the actual subject matter. Panopio cited conditions known within communities, including disaster-response concerns, parenting, terrorism and communism, drug abuse, and family matters.

When asked whether those were confidential, he clarified, “It is open-source information because it is known in the community.”

Pressed for an example of genuinely confidential information from DepEd, Panopio did not cite an intelligence report, surveillance record, or informer’s disclosure.

“I can speculate only, or maybe the personal circumstances like teenage pregnancies or other personal information that became confidential because it is their personal life, Your Honor,” he said.

The prosecution says this means the Department of Education under Vice President Sara Duterte filled the military into signing off on the use of confidential funds. 

https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1283075

Vice President Sara Z. Duterte as Education secretary in 2023, fooled the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), prosecution spokesperson Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong said on Tuesday.

The Lanao del Sur lawmaker made the statement following the testimony of retired Army Col. Manaros Boransing II before the Senate impeachment court.

Boransing, who served as assistant chief of staff of the Philippine Army’s 1st Infantry “Tabak” Division in 2023, testified about certifications issued for the AFP’s Youth Leadership Summit and other military-led activities.

The certification was among the documents submitted by the Department of Education (DepEd) during the liquidation of its PHP112.5 million confidential funds spent in the latter part of 2023.

Adiong said Boransing’s testimony raised concerns over how the AFP program was used in supporting DepEd’s liquidation documents.

“There is only one conclusion that we can draw from Boransing’s testimony: The AFP was scammed,” he said.

He alleged that DepEd used a long-running AFP youth program as justification for confidential fund expenses that were questioned by the Commission on Audit (COA).

“That is how desperate the Department of Education was during the tenure of Duterte that they were still willing to use a legitimate operation long conducted by the AFP as a front to justify their confidential funds, which was flagged by COA,” he said.

Tingog Party-list Rep. Jude Acidre echoed the concern, saying the testimony raised broader questions about the handling of confidential funds.

“It looked like the AFP and the people were scammed,” Acidre said.

Acidre said the testimony strengthened the prosecution’s argument that there were possible irregularities in the liquidation of confidential funds.

He said the use of the AFP certification as supporting documentation may have created a misleading impression that DepEd directly funded or conducted the activities.

Sara Duterte's lead defense attorney, Michael Poa, took the stand as a hostile witness. He served as DepEd Undersecretary when Duterte was DepEd Secretary. His testimony agreed with the two AFP officials. NO confidential funds were used for the AFP's Youth Leadership Summit. 

https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1283148

Former Department of Education (DepEd) Undersecretary Michael Wesley Poa on Wednesday confirmed that no DepEd confidential funds were given to the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) for the Youth Leadership Summits (YLS) cited in military certifications submitted to the Commission on Audit (COA).

Poa made the admission as a hostile witness in the 21st day of the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte.

Asked by private prosecutor Benjamin Tolosa Jr. to confirm that no DepEd confidential funds were given to the AFP for the YLS, Poa replied: “Yes, sir. I confirm that.”

The testimony reinforced earlier statements from Army officers Col. Manaros Boransing II and Col. Magtangol Panopio that the YLS was a regular military activity and that their units did not receive DepEd confidential funds for the activities covered by their certifications.

Poa also recalled the AFP officers saying they did not know when they issued the certifications that would later be used in connection with DepEd’s confidential fund liquidation.

“I remember them saying that, sir,” Poa testified.

He further recalled that one or two of the military officers explained that such certifications were ordinarily issued to agencies participating in the YLS.

The prosecution then asked why the AFP certifications were used to support DepEd’s response to an Audit Observation Memorandum (AOM) concerning rewards supposedly paid to confidential informers.

Poa testified that his interpretation at the time was that information obtained by DepEd through the payment of rewards supposedly helped the military identify areas for its activities.

He, however, repeatedly acknowledged that he had no personal knowledge that this was actually what happened.

“That is just my interpretation of the certification,” Poa explained. “Whether or not that is indeed the case, I really do not have personal knowledge of it.”

Poa also confirmed that when previously asked where the supposed link between the confidential fund information and the AFP activities came from, he had described it as his “theory.”

“Yes, sir,” Poa testified.

In his April 17, 2024 response to COA, Poa said financial rewards were given to informers for leads or information that supposedly allowed DepEd to formulate targeted programs and interventions against recruitment, violent extremism and other criminal activities.

The response cited four AFP certifications as evidence of the “success of various programs, projects, and activities directly resulting from the information provided by informers.”

But under questioning, Poa acknowledged that he did not personally know what specific information had been provided by the informers or whether that information actually led to the AFP activities cited in the certifications.

He also confirmed that he had no personal knowledge of how DepEd’s confidential funds were operationally used and became involved only after receiving the COA audit observation and preparing the agency’s response.

“Any involvement that you had with respect to confidential funds, it started when you received the AOM?” Tolosa asked.

“When I received the AOM, yes, sir,” Poa replied.

Poa said he consulted DepEd special disbursing officer Edward Fajarda, who referred him to then-Undersecretary Nolasco Mempin for documents showing the supposed success of activities linked to the confidential fund expenditures.

Poa likewise confirmed that Mempin himself had no personal knowledge of how the confidential funds were used.

Mempin eventually provided the AFP certifications that Poa attached to DepEd’s response to COA.

Duterte served as education secretary when DepEd spent PHP112.5 million in confidential funds in 2023.

The PHP112.5 million forms part of the first Article of Impeachment accusing her of alleged misuse, misappropriation and irregular liquidation of confidential funds

But he also testified that he has no personal knowledge of how the confidential funds were spent. So, what is he doing on the stand if he is only testifying from hearsay? How is it that Sara's number one had direct access to her but was out of the loop on how the confidential funds were being spent?

https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1283162

Former Department of Education (DepEd) Undersecretary Michael Wesley Poa testified Wednesday that he reported directly to then-Education Secretary Sara Duterte, received her instructions on department operations, and sought her guidance before media interviews despite allegedly having no firsthand knowledge of how the agency’s confidential funds were operationally used.

Poa took the witness stand as a hostile prosecution witness on Day 21 of Duterte’s impeachment trial.

Private prosecutor Benjamin Tolosa Jr. questioned him about the authority he exercised and his working relationship with Duterte while serving as DepEd spokesperson, undersecretary, chief of staff, officer-in-charge for finance, and head of the procuring entity.

Defense counsel Shiela Sison earlier acknowledged Poa’s standing within the department.

“I can stipulate, Your Honor, that he is trusted and that he is good at what he does,” Sison told the impeachment court.

Poa began as DepEd spokesperson in July 2022. By April 2023, he was undersecretary and chief of staff. He subsequently served briefly as officer-in-charge of the finance office and later as head of the procuring entity.

Poa explained that although President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. formally appointed him undersecretary, his appointment came through Duterte.

“Sir, it was the President who appointed me as Undersecretary, as you know. But of course, upon the recommendation of the Secretary, then it was the Vice President,” Poa said.

When Tolosa asked whether he had a direct reporting relationship with Duterte, Poa answered: “Yes, I do.”

Poa likewise confirmed that his position gave him direct access to Duterte without having to pass through other department officials.

He also testified that as chief of staff, he gave Duterte updates and received her instructions on matters affecting DepEd’s operations.

The relationship extended to Poa’s work as spokesperson.

Poa described Duterte’s input as “guidance,” rather than instructions; but he confirmed a statement he made at a previous congressional hearing, in which he described consulting her before interviews.

“When there’s news, and I need to get to an interview, honestly, I have to message the Vice President at that time to find out every time what she wants me to say during the interview,” the earlier statement read.

Poa confirmed in court that those were his words.

The prosecution contrasted Poa’s access, authority and institutional role with his repeated position that he had no operational knowledge of the confidential funds.

“I don’t have personal knowledge in the operations of DepEd. So, I’m answering based on my understanding, based on what I’ve read when I was trying to study,” Poa said while discussing his interpretation of confidential-fund requirements.

He likewise confirmed that his involvement in the confidential-fund issue began only after DepEd received an Audit Observation Memorandum from the Commission on Audit.

Poa had not signed the original liquidation reports submitted for the funds, and identified former special disbursing officer Edward Fajarda, Duterte as head of agency, and an accountant as among those who signed the records.

For the prosecution, Poa’s testimony highlights how a senior official entrusted with speaking for Duterte and helping manage DepEd remained outside the operational handling of the money until state auditors demanded further proof.

Duterte led DepEd when the agency received and used PHP112.5 million in confidential funds in 2023 and signed the corresponding liquidation reports as the agency’s head, according to Poa’s testimony.

The prosecution said Duterte must now explain who exercised control, what safeguards she imposed, and how the public money was actually used.

Despite knowing nothing and likely being purposefully kept out of the loop, Poa was appointed by Sara to answer the COA's audit concerning the confidential funds. Why? Was he picked as a fall guy because he had no knowledge of the inner workings of Duterte's financial schemes?

Why did Vice President Sara Duterte pick Michael Poa to answer questions from the Commission on Audit (COA) about P112.5 million in Department of Education (DepEd) confidential funds if he had no firsthand knowledge of the operations the money was supposedly spent on?

That was one of the points that House private prosecutor Benjamin Tolosa Jr. tried to clarify as he questioned Poa, former DepEd spokesperson when Duterte still headed the department, who testified on Wednesday as a hostile witness on the 21st day of the vice president’s impeachment trial.

In a statement, the prosecution said it included that issue in a 13-point offer for Poa’s testimony.

Despite being one of the defense lawyers and their legal spokesperson, Poa was presented as a witness, the statement said, for being Duterte’s former DepEd spokesperson, chief of staff, officer-in-charge of finance, and head of the procuring entity. Poa was also the former spokesperson of the Office of the Vice President (OVP).

Following is an overview of the 13-point offer of the prosecution, as described in its statement:

Point 1

This described Poa as “one of the Vice President’s most trusted men,” a relationship the prosecution considers central to his assignment.

Points 2 to 4

These focused on Poa’s knowledge. Tolosa offered to prove that Poa had “no prior participation in the operational use of the confidential funds before COA issued its Audit Observation Memoranda (AOM), yet Duterte directed him to prepare the responses.”

According to the prosecution, the officials Poa consulted could not supply firsthand information either. These were former special disbursing officer Edward Fajarda and then-Undersecretary Nolasco Mempin.

“The documents eventually gathered consisted principally of Armed Forces certifications,” the statement said, referring to the certifications issued by the military on DepEd’s participation in the 2023 Youth Leadership Summits.

https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/2297670/prosec-why-let-poa-talk-about-secret-funds-if-hes-unaware-of-ops

That is a question only Sara Duterte can answer and as of now she has no plans to testify let alone attend her own impeachment trial. 

Week 8 of Vice President Sara Duterte's Impeachment Trial Part 2

This is part 2 of an analysis of Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial.  Sara has decided to once more comment on the merits of the case against her. Obviously the prosecution is engaged in persecution and there are no merits.

https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/2292625/sara-duterte-prosecution-is-resorting-to-theatrics-insults

Vice President Sara Duterte on Wednesday blasted the prosecution in her impeachment trial for allegedly using “theatrics” and “insults.” 

She said that doing these actions is a sign of “feigning confidence” in presenting what she says is a weak case.

Duterte made the pronouncement as her trial before the Senate impeachment court entered its 19th day.

“They should not be fishing for evidence during the trial or desperately try to turn something they wish to be true into a wild story of alleged wrongdoing,” said Duterte in a statement. 

“A strong case does not need the adornment of theatrics,” she noted. 

“A Senator calling a witness ‘stupid,’ a lawyer calling me the ‘mastermind of a scam’ or another witness referring to me as a ‘brat,’ does not prove a case, nor does it produce evidence,” she added.

According to Duterte, resorting to such insults does nothing but reveal the need to “feign confidence in the face of a weak presentation.”

Meanwhile, the vice president then alluded to the flood problem in the country, including the flood control scandal—accusing the administration of preparing to divide the 2027 budget.

"The country is already inundated with floods and poverty, but it seems no one is taking responsibility, because the impeachment, will divide the 2027 budget," Duterte said.

"And preparing how to break the Constitution to stay in office is the priority of the administration and all its allies," she added. 

Duterte is currently facing the Senate impeachment court through her lawyers on allegations of misusing confidential funds, unexplained wealth, bribery and grave threats.

Ah, yes it is politics at is finest. Accuse others of that which you are doing. Sara claims the porsectuion is engaged in theartics and the case is unmerited all the while engaging in her own theatrics by making baseless and unmerited claims against the Marcos administration. 

Senator Escudero, the presiding officer, did not take too kindly to these remarks and has put Sara on notice. She was admonished to refrain from talking about the case. 

https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1282719

Presiding Officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero on Wednesday reminded Vice President Sara Duterte to observe restrictions on public comments about her impeachment case after she issued a statement while the court was announcing stricter enforcement of Rule 18.

Duterte challenged prosecutors to prove the charges through evidence instead of “insults, speculation, or political theatrics,” and accused them of “fishing for evidence” to support what she described as a weak case.

House lead prosecutor Gerville Luistro later raised the statement before the court, but Escudero said Duterte would not be sanctioned for it because it was issued while his ruling was still being delivered.

“Given that it was done while the ruling was being issued, prospectivity would still apply,” Escudero said, before asking defense lead counsel Sheila Sison to remind Duterte to comply with Rule 18.

He said future violations could prompt action from the impeachment court and, since Duterte is a lawyer, possible referral under mechanisms governing members of the Bar.

When Luistro sought to read part of Duterte’s statement into the record, Escudero stopped her, saying doing so would itself bring comments on the merits into the proceedings.

“No need. Again, I find it unacceptable and it will be commenting on the merits,” he said, adding that the court could take judicial notice of the statement if necessary.

Escudero earlier ordered the strict enforcement of Rule 18, which bars senator-judges, prosecutors, the impeached official, their counsels and witnesses from publicly commenting on the merits of the pending case.

But it's not just Sara Duterte who needs to refrain from uttering such public comments. It is the defense and prosecution as well. Now, Duterte's team is scrambling to find a new spokesperson to stay in line with Rule 18 because her lead defense lawyer is currently holding both jobs. 

https://mb.com.ph/2026/08/26/vp-sara-duterte-defense-urgently-seeks-new-spokesperson-amid-sub-judice-rule

The defense team of Vice President Sara Duterte is moving with greater urgency to find a new spokesperson following the impeachment court's ruling to strictly enforce the sub judice rule, a development that has put defense spokesperson and lawyer Michael Poa in an increasingly difficult position.

In a press briefing on Wednesday, August 26, Poa—who is both a member of Duterte's legal team and its spokesperson—said the panel has yet to find a replacement but is increasingly aware of the risks posed by lawyers publicly discussing matters related to the impeachment proceedings.

“For us, it has become risky, and there are times when your questions also would put us in a corner to answer certain things that might delve into the merits, and it's not your fault, of course, you're just doing your job,” Poa said.

Poa noted that with the court’s stricter enforcement of the sub judice rule, his dual role has “become difficult” because members of the legal team could be “made an example of” and face penalties. However, he stressed that the defense team respects the ruling and would comply with the impeachment court's orders.

Senate impeachment court presiding officer Sen. Francis “Chiz” Escudero, in his ruling, reiterated his earlier suggestion that both the prosecution and defense panels consider appointing spokespersons who are not covered by the rules governing lawyers involved in the impeachment proceedings.

‘Sense of urgency’

Poa said the defense has yet to identify anyone for the position, but finding a spokesperson has taken on a new sense of urgency.

“We don't have one yet, but I think it's definitely important to have one,” he said, adding that he had already raised the matter with Duterte. “Perhaps now, there is a sense of urgency,” he added.

Qualities of a new spokesperson

Poa said the defense is looking not simply for a replacement, but for someone capable of translating the complex and highly technical impeachment process into language ordinary Filipinos can understand.

“We want someone who can really explain the process well,” Poa said. “Someone who can laymanize the process for our fellow Filipinos, and someone who will be consistent with whatever the defense wants him or her to say sa media,” he added.

He said the team wants someone who can explain the process clearly, make it understandable to ordinary Filipinos, and consistently communicate the defense's position to the media.

Consistency, he added, would be particularly important to ensure that the public is not confused about where the defense stands on issues arising from the impeachment proceedings.

“Someone who can really communicate well. And when we say communicate well, it means someone who can laymanize this very technical process,” Poa added.

While having a legal background could help a spokesperson understand the proceedings, Poa said the defense was not limiting its search to lawyers.

“It’s always easier to understand legal processes if you are a lawyer. But we’re not trying to take away anything from non-lawyers,” he said, noting that non-lawyers can also explain complicated matters well and quickly grasp the issues involved.

A difficult dual role

Poa said balancing his duties as Duterte's lawyer and as the defense team's public spokesperson has not been easy, particularly when questions from reporters could potentially touch on the merits of the impeachment case.

“It hasn't been easy for me to also navigate what are the merits and which are not,” he said, referring to the challenge of determining which matters can and cannot be publicly discussed.

He added that there could be occasions when he might inadvertently give an answer on a matter that should not be discussed publicly, something he said could also reflect badly on the defense team.

Poa said Duterte had previously been presented with several options: he could continue as spokesperson and leave the legal team, remain on the legal team and give up the spokesperson role, or continue doing both.

According to Poa, Duterte's initial preference was for him to remain as her lawyer while the team searched for another spokesperson.

“Her immediate answer was that she wants me as her lawyer and the option would be to look for another spokes,” he said.

Defining the limits of sub judice

While stressing that the defense intends to comply with the impeachment court's ruling, Poa said the team would still need to determine the precise scope of the sub judice rule and discuss its implications with Duterte.

“It's not a total gag order where you cannot talk about anything,” Poa said.

He said the restrictions primarily concern the merits of the case, including matters contained in the pleadings, the relevance of the evidence presented, and the credibility of the witnesses.

“It's just really what covers sub judice, which is really the merits of the case,” he said, explaining that the key issue is determining exactly what falls within the rule's coverage.

Poa said he would have to discuss the recent developments with the Vice President.

For now, he said, the defense will have to carefully navigate the restrictions while accelerating its search for a spokesperson who can clearly communicate its position, simplify the complex impeachment process for the public, and ensure consistency in the team's message—without exposing members of the legal panel to possible sanctions. 

The fact that Sara's team is only realizing now that they need a spokesperson who is not one of her layers is astoundingly inept. They knew about these rules weeks ago and they did not prepare accordingly. 

Because of her specious remarks Sara is being questioned as to why she simply does not attend the trial so she can her the testimony and examine the evidence. 

https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/2293315/duterte-told-why-say-theres-no-evidence-if-you-dont-attend-trial

Lawmakers have asked Vice President Sara Duterte how she was able to conclude that the prosecution has failed to present any evidence in her impeachment trial, despite the proceedings having gone on for eight weeks, while she has been absent.

In an ambush interview on the sidelines of Duterte’s trial on Wednesday, public prosecutor and Bicol Saro party-list Rep. Terry Ridon said that if Duterte had attended some of the hearings, she would have seen the magnitude of evidence presented by the prosecution.

“Maybe if our vice president had shown up to her trial from the start, she would know the state of the evidence laid down by the prosecution,” Ridon told reporters.

“And I think it is very important to remind (the public) that it has been weeks, I think this is the eighth week of the trial, but the vice president chose not to show up to this trial,” he added.

In a separate press briefing, Deputy Speaker Jefferson Khonghun said that Duterte’s statements will be a good test of how the Senate Impeachment Court will implement Rule 18, the sub judice rule, which bars comments and disclosures on the merits of the case.

“It doesn’t look good that the presiding officer is reading the ruling on sub judice and then the vice president is discussing the case. She has not attended her trial, and yet she chooses to say a lot of things outside,” he added.

On Wednesday morning, while her trial was ongoing, Duterte released a statement calling out the prosecution and some members of the impeachment court.

Duterte said that the prosecution has been relying on “theatrics” and “insults,” while saying that a senator-judge called a witness “stupid.” 

She also claimed that the prosecution has been fishing for evidence in an attempt to “legitimize the two impeachment complaints,” which she said were “filed without a shred of evidence.”

When asked whether he thinks Duterte will follow Rule 18, Khonghun said “no.”

“Ever since, she has not behaved well. You saw how she acted outside the court, so we do not expect the vice president to follow the court’s orders. She hasn’t even shown up yet,” he added.

Earlier, prosecution spokesperson and impeachment adviser Robert Ace Barbers said that they would seek clarification from the impeachment court on the matter.

Eventually, House lead prosecutor and Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro asked Escudero if she could make a manifestation on the matter. Escudero stopped Luistro, saying that he was well on his way to addressing the matter.

Escudero said that since Duterte’s statements were made while the ruling was being discussed, they fell under the principle of prospectivity. However, he asked the defense panel, particularly lead defense lawyer Sheila Sison, to remind her client about the matter.

Lawmakers have previously called out Duterte’s absence from the trial. On Aug. 3, Ridon questioned why she could travel abroad but not attend the trial.

Duterte is not required to attend the trial, as she is represented by her counsel. However, last August 17, Manila Rep. Bienvenido Abante Jr. — one of the endorsers of the fourth impeachment complaint — said Duterte should show up and answer the allegations herself, instead of having her staff face tough questions from the parties and senator-judges.

According to Abante, if Duterte can attend the proceedings for her perjury charge against ex-aide Ramil Madriaga and the arraignment of her brother Davao City Rep. Paolo Duterte for his grave threats case, the vice president should also make time for the impeachment court and not let staffers alone be grilled.

Given her demeanor and past actions it is likely Sara will refuse to attend and she will continue to comment on the merits of her case. The question is will the Senate actually hold her accountable for any future remarks she may make? After all, Sara already violated rule 18 and Escudero let her off the hook by saying "next time you're really gonna get it!"