Poa admits learning CF handout to security exec only at House probe

MANILA, Philippines — Former Education Undersecretary Michael Poa has admitted that he only knew about the practice of leaving confidential funds (CF) to Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group (VPSPG) officials during a House of Representatives hearing in October 2024.

At Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial on Wednesday, counsel for the prosecution Benjamin Tolosa Jr. asked Poa — who was presented as a hostile witness — about the House committee on good government and public accountability proceedings which probed alleged CF misuse within the Office of the Vice President (OVP) and the Department of Education (DepEd).

Tolosa showed Poa transcripts of the hearings when he was present, wherein he said that only two individuals knew how CFs under DepEd were spent — Duterte and former special disbursing officer Edward Fajarda.  However, Poa was also confronted with Fajarda’s statements in the hearing that he turned over the CF to Col. Dennis Nolasco, former deputy chief of the VPSPG.

Article continues after this advertisement

READ: Boransing insists: No Duterte offices’ funds in Army youth summit

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

“At that time, the only two people who were privy to the confidential fund — these were your statements on October 17 and September 25, 2024 — were the SDO Fajarda and Vice President.  But during that hearing, you heard Fajarda say that apparently according to him, he transferred all of the [CF] to Col. Nolasco,” Tolosa said.

“Now this is my question: upon hearing that, was that the first time that you heard it during that hearing?” he asked.Poa then replied that it was even the first time that he was informed about the existence of a security officer, which was Nolasco.

“I’ll be more precise, actually that was the first time that I heard that there was a security officer,” Poa said.

READ: Army exec admits shock over DepEd using his docs to justify

Article continues after this advertisement

“Yes, okay, that there’s a security officer, number one; and number two that the funds were transferred, the confidential funds were transferred by SDO Fajarda to Nolasco,” Tolosa clarified, which Poa confirmed again.

After this, Tolosa then asked whether this means Poa was not aware of the role played by Nolasco when he crafted a response to the audit observation memorandum (AOM) from the Commission on Audit (COA), where the confidential expenditures made by DepEd in 2023 were flagged.

Article continues after this advertisement

Poa previously admitted that it was him, as chief-of-staff of DepEd and as officer-in-charge of the DepEd’s finance division, who prepared the response to COA’s AOM.

When he answered Tolosa, Poa said it is correct that he did not know of Nolasco’s role.

READ: Auditor: First time to see agencies rely on acknowledgement receipts 

“That’s also the first time.  So it means that at the time you were preparing your response to the AOMs, you did not even know about this role of Col. Nolasco, correct?” Tolosa asked.

“That’s correct, that’s correct,” Poa replied.

“So at that time that you were preparing that response, necessarily, you were not able to talk to the person who supposedly paid these funds to the informers, is that correct?” Tolosa asked again, to which Poa agreed.

Informing the VP

Tolosa then quizzed Poa why he did not discuss the issue of having a third person knowledgeable about the CF disbursements with Duterte, considering that he is one of the closest officials of the Vice President, and as he can contact her directly.

“That was news to you when you suddenly heard because you said in Congress, there was only VP Sara, you said it under oath consistently, VP Sara Duterte and Fajarda who were privy to it.  Now October 5, you heard that apparently there’s a third person here who actually handled the funds, Col. Nolasco,” Tolosa said.

“Now, my question is, upon hearing that, did you approach VP Sara since you had direct access to her, to ask ‘Ma’am totoo po ba ‘yong sinabi ni SDO Fajarda na ‘yong confidential funds binigay lahat kay Col. Nolasco?’” he asked.

(Now, my question is, upon hearing that, did you approach VP Sara since you had direct access to her, to ask ‘Ma’am is it true that SDO Fajarda said that all of the confidential funds were given to Col. Nolasco?’)

In response, Poa said it was a strange time since he had just resigned from his last post as OVP spokesperson.

“No, and can I explain […] It was a very strange time at that point because I just resigned as spokesperson of the OVP, so the communication wasn’t like before, at that time,” Poa added.

COA had issued several AOMs for the OVP and DepEd’s confidential expenditures, as the auditing body found several issues in the disbursement of the CF.  One example is an AOM for DepEd’s P15.54 million confidential expenditures, which the agency explained and justified by using certifications made by Philippine Army (PA) officials about the conduct of youth-oriented workshops.

During the trial on Tuesday, Army Col. Maranos Boransing II and Army Col. Magtanggol Panopio testified that none of Duterte’s offices — whether it be DepEd, OVP, or even the VPSPG — placed any of its regular allocations or CFs to two programs, namely the Youth Leadership Summit (YLS) and the Information Education Communication (IEC).

During the trial, Panopio also admitted being shocked that DepEd under Duterte used his certification to justify its confidential expenses.

Another AOM discussed during the impeachment trial was the one issued to OVP’s CF expenditures for the first and second quarter of 2023.

Prosecution witness and state auditor Roderick Wamil explained that among the observations in the AOM were the OVP’s failure to provide documents evidencing payment and proving the success of information-gathering or surveillance activities to necessitate the payment of rewards.

Wamil also testified that after auditing over 30 agencies’ confidential and intelligence fund expenses in a span of 10 years, it was only during Duterte’s time that he saw agencies rely merely on acknowledgement receipts (ARs) and not submit official receipts.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

ARs are documents provided to the Commission on Audit (COA) to show that funding reached its intended beneficiaries, which in OVP and DepEd’s case, are confidential informants.  These documents are signed by the beneficiaries to prove that they received payments — like the controversial Mary Grace Piattos which the prosecution claims to be a fictitious personality. /mr