Poa admits he also faces liability if VP found guilty

MANILA, Philippines — 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.”

Article continues after this advertisement

READ: Sara Duterte impeachment trial: Who is Michael Poa?

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

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.

Article continues after this advertisement

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.

Article continues after this advertisement

“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.

READ: Poa admits he never saw DepEd’s vault for confidential documents

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.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

Chua said dropping one article could shorten the proceedings, with the prosecution hoping to finish its presentation by the first week or middle of October, the defense by November and the impeachment court potentially issuing a decision by December. — With reports from Zacarian Sarao and Keith Clores /das