MANILA, Philippines — Michael Poa, once one of Vice President Sara Duterte’s most senior officials at the Department of Education and now a member of her impeachment defense team, is preparing to move from the lawyers’ table to the witness stand—putting him at the center of one of the most closely watched questions surrounding DepEd’s confidential funds.
The House prosecution panel says Poa still has significant questions to answer about how ₱112.5 million in DepEd confidential funds was handled while Duterte served as education secretary.
Poa is scheduled to testify before the Senate impeachment court on September 2, 2026, with prosecutors seeking to have him treated as a hostile witness because he currently belongs to Duterte’s defense team. House prosecution spokesperson Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong said Poa’s former position at DepEd and his involvement in official responses concerning the confidential funds make his testimony particularly important.
Why prosecutors are focusing on Poa
Prosecution adviser Ace Barbers said Poa was close to documents and official processes involving the controversial funds during his tenure as DepEd chief of staff, undersecretary and spokesperson.
According to GMA News, prosecutors are particularly interested in Poa’s role in obtaining military certifications that were subsequently used as supporting documentation when DepEd responded to questions over its confidential-fund expenditures.
Barbers said senator-judges should hear a fuller explanation of what happened and whether DepEd’s confidential funds were used in accordance with the rules governing such expenditures.
The controversy stretches back to a 2024 House investigation, when lawmakers scrutinized approximately ₱15 million allegedly spent for payments to informants.
Poa told the House at the time that he had asked then-DepEd Undersecretary and retired Maj. Gen. Nolasco Mempin to obtain certifications from military units as DepEd prepared its response to a Commission on Audit observation.
Poa said he understood the documents as evidence that information or coordination involving DepEd had contributed to successful activities on the ground. He maintained that he acted in good faith and worked with the documentation available to his office.
But the certifications would later become controversial for another reason.
Army officers said they didn’t know how certifications would be used
The Philippine Army said in October 2024 that officers who issued certifications concerning Youth Leadership Summits knew the documents were confirming that the activities had taken place—but did not know those certifications would subsequently be used to justify DepEd confidential-fund expenses.
Army spokesperson Col. Louie Dema-ala said at the time that the certifications simply confirmed that the summits had been successfully conducted.
Military officers who appeared at the House inquiry also said DepEd confidential funds were not used to finance the summits themselves. Funding for participants and activities came from sources including military units, local governments and participating agencies, according to testimony reported at the time.
That distinction has now become central to the prosecution’s case.
If the military activities were not funded by DepEd, prosecutors want the impeachment court to determine precisely why certifications relating to those activities became part of DepEd’s explanation for confidential-fund expenditures.
The prosecution argues that because public money is involved, the circumstances surrounding those documents deserve a complete explanation before the senator-judges.
House records show Poa signed responses to COA observations
The documentary trail could make Poa’s testimony especially significant.
A House committee report states that Poa signed DepEd responses to two Commission on Audit observation memoranda concerning confidential expenses.
One response, dated April 17, 2024, covered confidential expenses totaling ₱37.5 million for periods in February-March and April-June 2023. Another response, dated August 22, 2024, covered another ₱37.5 million for July to September 2023.
According to the House report, certifications from Philippine Army units were attached to DepEd’s response as evidence supporting the claimed success of information-gathering activities for which rewards had allegedly been paid.
That documentation is likely to place Poa in a uniquely complicated position when he appears before the impeachment court: he is now defending Duterte, but prosecutors want to question him about actions he took while serving inside DepEd.
COA testimony added another layer to the controversy
The confidential-fund issue widened earlier in August when former Commission on Audit official Roderick Wamil testified about the audit of ₱612.5 million in confidential funds—₱500 million associated with the Office of the Vice President and ₱112.5 million with DepEd.
Wamil testified that some DepEd expenditures submitted to auditors included medical and food assistance and incentive or travel-related spending that he said did not fall within authorized confidential-fund purposes.
He also testified that DepEd’s plans lacked detailed identification of the schools, learners, teachers, communities or activities covered by several confidential operations.
Wamil further claimed that Poa and then-OVP chief of staff Zuleika Lopez had asked COA officials in September 2023 about issuing an audit query rather than an Audit Observation Memorandum if deficiencies were found. That assertion came from Wamil’s testimony and remains part of the evidence being contested in the impeachment proceedings.
Defense maintains there was no misuse
Duterte’s defense team has rejected the broader prosecution narrative that confidential funds were misused.
Poa has previously said the presentation of evidence from both sides would provide a fuller picture of why the defense believes the funds were not improperly used.
The defense has also challenged several prosecution assertions during the impeachment trial, including claims surrounding the timing and documentation of confidential-fund disbursements.
That distinction is important: the questions surrounding the DepEd funds are allegations being litigated before the Senate impeachment court, and the prosecution’s assertions are not themselves findings of guilt.
Why September 2 could matter
Poa’s testimony could bring together several strands that have developed over nearly two years of investigations: the ₱112.5-million DepEd allocation, the ₱15-million informant expense, the military certifications, DepEd’s responses to COA and the question of who knew what when those documents were assembled.
The Philippine Star reported that prosecutors also intend to examine testimony from military officials including Col. Manaros Boransing II and Col. Magtangol Panopio concerning the Youth Leadership Summit certifications.
Prosecutors say those officers can help establish whether the military knowingly participated in the documentation process surrounding DepEd’s confidential funds—or whether certificates issued for an entirely different purpose were later incorporated into DepEd’s audit response.
That makes Poa more than another witness.
As Duterte’s former senior DepEd official, a signatory to responses involving COA observations, and now one of the lawyers defending her, he sits at the intersection of the paperwork, the political battle and the legal defense.
The central issue senator-judges may now have to resolve is deceptively simple:
If the military certifications were not originally issued to account for DepEd’s confidential-fund spending, why were they ultimately used in explaining it—and what exactly did the officials involved know at the time?
Poa’s September 2 testimony could provide one of the clearest answers yet.
Leave a Reply