MANILA, Philippines — Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial enters Day 20 on Tuesday, September 1, with the spotlight shifting to military officers whose signatures became part of a controversial paper trail involving confidential funds at the Department of Education.
And the central question is deceptively simple: What exactly were those military certifications meant to prove?
Retired Col. Manaros Boransing II is expected to take the witness stand before the Senate impeachment court as the House prosecution continues presenting evidence under Article I of the impeachment case. Col. Magtangol Panopio is expected to testify after him.
The testimony could become another crucial test of the prosecution’s allegation that confidential funds under Duterte’s watch were improperly spent or liquidated.
Duterte’s defense has maintained that there was no misuse of the ₱612.5 million in confidential funds being questioned in the proceedings and has disputed several conclusions advanced by prosecutors and audit witnesses.
Why the AFP witnesses matter
The controversy traces back to the Department of Education’s 2023 confidential-fund spending while Duterte was concurrently vice president and education secretary.
According to GMA News, then-DepEd spokesperson and undersecretary Michael Poa acknowledged during a 2024 House investigation that he asked then-DepEd undersecretary and retired Maj. Gen. Nolasco Mempin to obtain certifications from military units.
Those documents were used as supporting material after the Commission on Audit sought evidence connected to ₱15 million in confidential funds reportedly spent on informants.
But testimony from the military officers during the earlier House inquiry created the controversy now returning to center stage.
Boransing, Panopio and other officers said they had issued or signed certifications connected to Youth Leadership Summit activities — but maintained that they were not informed that those certifications would later be used to support the liquidation of DepEd confidential-fund expenditures.
Inquirer reported that Boransing previously told lawmakers his unit did not receive DepEd intelligence funds for the annual Youth Leadership Summit and that he would not have issued the certification had he known how it would be used. Panopio is expected to address the same issue and potentially corroborate portions of Boransing’s previous testimony.
That distinction could prove important.
The mere existence of a military program or certification does not by itself establish what confidential money was spent on. Prosecutors are expected to probe whether the certifications legitimately documented the results of confidential operations — or whether documents describing separately funded military activities were later used to support unrelated confidential-fund liquidation.
The ₱112.5-million DepEd question
The military testimony forms part of the much bigger dispute over ₱112.5 million in confidential funds allocated to DepEd during Duterte’s tenure as education secretary.
Combined with ₱500 million in confidential funds attributed to the Office of the Vice President, Article I centers on allegations involving a total of ₱612.5 million. Duterte has not been convicted of the allegations, and the Senate impeachment court is still hearing evidence from both sides.
Government auditing rules make the documentation issue significant because Joint Circular No. 2015-01 requires strong internal controls as well as strict accounting and auditing procedures for confidential and intelligence funds despite their classified nature.
State auditors appearing earlier in the trial have already questioned portions of the supporting documentation for confidential-fund expenditures.
The defense, however, has repeatedly challenged the prosecution’s interpretation of the transactions and says its evidence will show there was no misuse of the funds.
Michael Poa could become another key witness
The AFP testimony may also set up an unusual courtroom development.
Michael Poa — currently one of Duterte’s defense lawyers but formerly a DepEd undersecretary and spokesperson — is expected to be called by the prosecution to testify about the department’s confidential-fund spending.
House lead prosecutor Gerville Luistro earlier told the impeachment court that Poa would be asked to testify on how DepEd’s ₱112.5 million in confidential funds was disbursed during Duterte’s tenure.
Poa previously told the House that he sought documentation or “evidence of success” after COA raised questions and said he believed the military certifications reflected activities resulting from coordination and information involving DepEd.
Poa and Philippine Statistics Authority official Marissa Grande have been lined up for September 2. Grande is expected to address whether names appearing as recipients in confidential-fund liquidation records correspond with government records.
Another deadline is approaching
At the same time, another potentially significant evidentiary deadline is moving closer.
The Senate impeachment court has ordered concerned banks and financial institutions to turn over certain peso-denominated records involving Duterte, her husband Manases Carpio and 20 entities linked to the couple by September 2, subject to limitations imposed by the court.
The defense reserved its right to object and pursue available legal remedies concerning the subpoenas.
That means the impeachment trial is moving on several tracks simultaneously: testimony over confidential-fund documents, questions surrounding supposed beneficiaries, financial records and disputes over who knew what when the funds were authorized, spent and liquidated.
Why Day 20 could matter
Day 20 may ultimately come down to something more basic than the amount of money involved.
It could come down to whether the documents used to support government spending actually proved what officials said they proved.
The prosecution will try to establish a connection between DepEd’s confidential-fund liquidation and military certifications whose signatories say they were unaware of that purpose.
The defense will have the opportunity to challenge that interpretation, question the witnesses and later present its own evidence.
And because Boransing and Panopio have already spoken about the certifications before Congress, Tuesday’s hearing gives senator-judges something particularly valuable: the chance to hear those statements under the procedures of an impeachment trial and test them through questioning from both sides.
After weeks of testimony over cash withdrawals, acknowledgment receipts, audit findings and unusual names appearing in confidential-fund documents, Day 20 brings the case back to a straightforward question:
If the military certifications were not originally issued to document DepEd’s confidential-fund spending, why did they end up being used in the paper trail?
What the AFP officers say under questioning may determine how much weight senator-judges ultimately give those documents — and where the prosecution’s confidential-fund case goes next.
Leave a Reply