September 2, 2026

Atty. Michael Wesley Poa testified under oath after the prosecution called him, and the Chair declared him a hostile witness.

Poa confirmed that he had served as DepEd spokesperson, chief of staff and undersecretary, OIC undersecretary for finance, and head of the procuring entity.

Poa testified that he had no personal knowledge of DepEd's confidential-fund operations and that his involvement began when he received the AOM.

The AOM identified ₱15.54 million in informer rewards for the first two quarters as lacking required supporting documents, and Poa summarized the deficiency as missing documentary evidence of success.

Poa said he sought an accomplishment report through Usec. Nolasco Mempin and based his explanation to COA on documents and AFP certifications supplied to him.

Poa testified that the AFP certifications were the only evidence of success attached to the AOM reply, but he could not truthfully say whether all the roughly ₱15 million in rewards related to the youth leadership summits.

Poa said the AOM reply represented DepEd management's position based on the special disbursing officer's inputs and the certifications, while his later description of the connection as a theory reflected his lack of personal knowledge.

Poa testified that he briefed Vice President Sara Duterte on his AOM answers, that she acknowledged receiving the response, and that she did not prevent its filing.

Poa said the August 8, 2024 credit notice covered the first and second quarters only and that, as far as he knew, COA had not reopened it or issued notices of suspension or disallowance for the periods discussed on cross-examination.

Poa described the September 2023 COA meeting as a discussion about required supporting documents and an audit-query proposal, saying COA rejected that route and required an AOM.

The prosecution called Atty. Michael Wesley Poa, and the clerk administered the oath.

After the defense clarified that it had not stipulated to the prosecution's merits offer, the chair declared Poa a hostile witness and allowed leading but not misleading questions.

The prosecution completed its examination, followed by defense cross-examination, prosecution redirect, defense recross, and senator-judge interventions.

The chair released Poa from the witness stand after no further senator-judge registered to intervene.

The court then addressed future witnesses and scheduling before adjourning until September 7, 2026, at 10:00 a.m.

Atty. Benjamin Tolosa Jr. offered Poa's testimony to argue that a trusted Duterte aide without operational knowledge was directed to answer COA and relied on AFP certifications that did not establish the claimed informer-reward-success chain.

Tolosa read Joint Circular 2015-01 as requiring a documented connection among an informer, paid information, and a successful activity, and argued that the AFP certifications did not supply that connection.

The prosecution treated the September 2023 COA meeting as evidence of Poa's earlier involvement and characterized the request for an audit query as an effort to use a less formal step before an AOM.

Tolosa emphasized that the August 8, 2024 credit notice covered only the first and second quarters, that no comparable notice covered the third quarter, and that the possible review period had not expired.

Atty. Reynaldo Robles argued that the joint circular prohibited transferring a cash advance even between accountable officers and therefore also barred transferring it to a project or security officer.

Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” R. Luistro said the prosecution planned to finish presenting its confidential-fund evidence by September 9 while seeking reasonable stipulations from the defense.

Atty. Sheila C. Sison called the prosecution's 13-point offer rhetorical and misleading, distinguished replying to an AOM from answering for the confidential-fund amount, and objected to its insulting characterization of Poa.

Sison argued that the prosecution mischaracterized the AFP officers' earlier testimony and that their answers about whether youth summits were regular AFP programs did not establish that DepEd supplied no information.

Sison objected that the COA-meeting record supported a request for an audit query, not a request that COA refrain from issuing an AOM.

The defense relied on the August 8, 2024 credit notice and elicited that, as far as Poa knew, COA had not reopened it or issued notices of suspension or disallowance for the periods raised on cross-examination.

Sison asked for the general purpose of two newly named prosecution witnesses so the defense could prepare, while expressly stating that she was inquiring rather than objecting.

Sen. Paolo Benigno "Bam" Aquino asked whether the P15 million in DepEd confidential-fund rewards was spent to operate the Youth Leadership Summit or on security and surveillance priorities connected to it. Atty. Michael Wesley Poa said he could not say whether all of the amount was for the summit or whether some went to other activities; he had submitted the Youth Leadership Summit certifications because those were what he received, while the liquidation documents were acknowledgement receipts or other documentary proof of payment. Aquino pressed that the accomplishment reports identified only eight Army Youth Leadership Summit activities. Poa confirmed that the evidence of success attached to the audit response concerned only those activities. Aquino then asked whether the payment documents were all acknowledgement receipts for rewards or information purchases. Poa said he had not seen every receipt, but understood that they were acknowledgement receipts marked as rewards or purchases of information. Aquino compared the P15 million with the Army's reported P40,000-to-P60,000 spending per summit, estimating that eight events would cost under P500,000 and asking why DepEd's security-related spending was 25 to 30 times higher. Poa said he was not an intelligence expert and viewed the comparison as inexact: the Army funded the events, while DepEd's money was described as information-gathering for areas of recruitment or insurgency. Aquino said further testimony could help establish the usual relationship between security spending and event costs. The exchange tested whether the records and reported operations explained the scale and stated purpose of the P15 million rewards.

Sen. Erwin Tulfo asked Atty. Michael Wesley Poa about his relationship with Vice President Sara Duterte and the authority that came with his roles. Poa said a common friend referred him to a July 2022 interview on teacher-loan concerns, after which Duterte asked him to be spokesperson; he said protecting a superior within legal limits was instinctive. He said he was still at the Department of Education when the Office of the Vice President's notice of disallowance emerged, but later became involved as Duterte's lawyer before the Commission on Audit. He independently sought Armed Forces of the Philippines certifications for the youth-leadership-summit issue, informed Duterte what the AFP had provided, but said she neither directed nor authorized the request. Tulfo also asked whether Poa could disburse or reallocate agency funds and how a civilian agency could incur 125 million pesos in confidential security obligations before release. Poa said he had no power or knowledge of a budget reallocation, declined to discuss the OVP theory of the case, and said DepEd had made no confidential-fund spending before the 2023 General Appropriations Act. On payments to fictitious or untraceable names, Poa assumed report signatories authorized distribution; he had seen only a sample acknowledgement receipt from a sealed envelope and noticed unusual names only during congressional hearings. He said he would first ask whether aliases were allowed in confidential operations before challenging a suspicious name because he lacked military or intelligence experience.

Sen. Francis "Kiko" Pangilinan asked whether the Department of Education had the vault required by the Joint Memorandum Circular for confidential-fund records and whether its response to the Commission on Audit's Audit Observation Memorandum could therefore be compliant. Atty. Michael Wesley Poa said he had never seen a vault and could not say whether one existed; although he prepared the response, he said the question should be put to special disbursing officer Fajarda and that the audit observation had not raised the vault. Poa recalled seeing only one or two acknowledgement receipts in a sealed envelope shortly before the response was filed, after seeking a 60-day extension because records had to be obtained from the field. Pangilinan said that explanation conflicted with the circular's requirement that proofs of payment and acknowledgement receipts be kept in a sealed envelope in the vault: records dated July and September 2023 appeared to have remained in the field for months. Poa said he did not know whether the records had been incomplete or absent, when the envelope had been prepared, or whether a vault existed. Pangilinan said those gaps left unanswered whether the confidential funds had been handled and spent as claimed or whether the supporting documents had been created later.

Sen. Joel Villanueva asked what factual basis allowed the Department of Education to tell the Commission on Audit that programs and activities directly resulted from information supplied by informers, when Armed Forces of the Philippines witnesses had said their certifications established only regular activities. Atty. Michael Wesley Poa said he read all the material he received, sought material from other undersecretaries and relied on the certifications' language about a synergistic intelligence exchange used to target activity areas; the certifications were all that reached him. He did not know whether they were sufficient and hoped COA would find them responsive. Poa said he saw no separate support: reward liquidation should have been supported by acknowledgement receipts, which he had not seen, and the certifications were his only proof of success. Poa said Undersecretary Mempin had explained that certifications served as accomplishment reports, but had not personally confirmed that AFP activity resulted from information supplied by DepEd informers paid 15.54 million pesos; their intelligence-exchange language was Poa's basis. Poa did not know the certifications' original purpose or what Mempin told the military, accepted testimony that the military had not been told they would be used for COA, and said their dates predated the audit observation memorandum. Villanueva also established that Poa received the memorandum as officer in charge for finance, not as special disbursing or confidential-operations officer; Poa had no personal knowledge of utilization and relied on furnished documents. The exchange tested whether the COA response linked rewards to claimed results rather than only related regular-activity records.

Sen. Risa Hontiveros asked Atty. Michael Wesley Poa why, at a meeting with the Commission on Audit, he and Atty. Zuleika Lopez had requested an audit query before an Audit Observation Memorandum. Poa said the request arose because COA sought details not specified in the Joint Circular or the program of fund, and the office hoped to clarify them first; COA said it could issue only an AOM. Hontiveros asked whether a properly documented and liquidated confidential-fund transaction should make an AOM straightforward to answer. Poa agreed, while saying the request was for clarification rather than an effort to avoid audit. Hontiveros questioned why the OVP sought that extra step when Poa had previously said he welcomed AOMs, and asked whether, knowing what he knew as a witness and counsel, all of Vice President Sara Duterte's confidential-fund actions at the OVP and DepEd complied with law and regulations. Poa declined to answer, citing attorney-client privilege and the risk of a biased answer, and said the evidence should answer instead. In a later round, Hontiveros asked why Poa was not alarmed that the special disbursing officer, who was accountable for the confidential funds, had transferred them to the security officer and did not know the operational details. Poa said he had assumed references to the field meant operatives and learned of the security officer only during the House Committee on Good Government hearings; he said he followed up for answers but became counsel shortly after learning the fuller picture and could not disclose it. Hontiveros then asked whether OVP and DepEd personnel who assisted the Vice President, including Poa, could face liability if wrongdoing were proved. Poa answered that it was possible. The exchange tested the stated reason for seeking an audit query, the adequacy of the fund-control protocol, and who could bear responsibility if misuse were established.

Sen. Raffy T. Tulfo asked whether reported confidential-fund rewards of 100,000 to 200,000 pesos for informants using unusual names were paid as cash, cash to buy medicine, or medicine itself. Atty. Michael Wesley Poa said he had no personal knowledge of the confidential operations, but had asked the special disbursing officer because the Department of Education accomplishment report referred to medical and food aid. He said the officer described cash allocations to operatives for safe houses, medicine or food as needed, and that acknowledgement receipts described purchases of supplies, food or medicine; Poa's impression was that cash was released, although he said the officer should confirm whether it was all cash or a mix with actual medicine. Tulfo pressed that there were no receipts showing what the cash bought. Poa said that, to his knowledge, only acknowledgement receipts had been submitted. The exchange tested whether the records documented the cash rewards and purported medical purchases.

Sen. Imee Marcos asked Atty. Michael Wesley Poa to clarify the meeting at which the Office of the Vice President sought an audit query before an Audit Observation Memorandum. Poa said the OVP told him that COA's ICFAO had called the meeting; he attended because he was then undersecretary for finance, but COA discussed the OVP rather than DepEd submission. He said COA wanted greater detail in the OVP physical and financial plan, while the office said the Joint Circular did not prescribe that level of detail and asked to clarify its position through an audit query before receiving an AOM. Marcos contrasted the query's clarifying purpose with the AOM's written 15-day response requirement; Poa confirmed that COA proceeded with an AOM for the OVP. Marcos then asked why Poa, as DepEd chief of staff, had not been involved in confidential funds before COA intervened and why he drafted the AOM response. Poa said confidential-fund work was compartmentalized, began before he became chief of staff, and had been treated as the special disbursing and security officers' responsibility; he said he learned the security officer's role only during congressional hearings. He said DepEd protocol assigned AOM handling to the undersecretary for finance and an AOM task force in coordination with the audited office, making him the drafter because he was both officer in charge for finance and assigned to the Office of the Secretary. Marcos also asked what a credit notice meant and what COA required as proof of successful confidential activities. Poa said a credit notice reflected funds allowed in audit, and said the Joint Circular did not supply an exhaustive document list, but COA required line-item detail for activities such as information purchases and rewards. Marcos asked whether requirements were agency-specific; Poa said he had not seen a satisfactory sample from another agency and had requested DepEd's own records only when preparing the AOM response. The exchange examined how the audit-query request, internal drafting protocol, and documentary standards shaped the OVP and DepEd responses to COA.

Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano asked the prosecution to distinguish a claim that confidential funds had been personally appropriated from a case inferred from spending that was illegal, irregular or improper under the Joint Circular. He said personal appropriation for a nonpublic purpose would plainly be theft, but that the alternative theory needed to be clear in a technical and widely watched proceeding. Cayetano then asked Atty. Michael Wesley Poa whether a single special disbursing officer could practically deliver funds for confidential operations across roughly 47,000 public schools and more than 20 million school-age children facing threats such as violence and extremism. Poa said that would be impractical and noted that the circular also contemplated project officers. Asked whether a transfer from the special disbursing officer to project officers would therefore be irregular, illegal or improper, Poa said no in his view; he cited the circular's provision that project officers could be held accountable for misuse as indicating they could lawfully have custody. Cayetano said public examination of confidential funds was unusual and hard to compare, while Poa cited the danger of discussing such operations publicly. Turning to the underlying use of the money, Cayetano said Office of the Vice President witnesses had pointed to Colonel La Chica; Poa said La Chica knew the operations and other witnesses had only secondhand knowledge. Cayetano said La Chica was the person who could answer whether funds had actually been used or personally misused, while the remaining inquiry concerned irregular or improper disbursement.

Sen. Joseph Victor "JV" Ejercito said the Senate wanted to finish the impeachment trial promptly but risked bypassing about 12 departmental budget hearings. As chair of the Committee on Finance, he warned that the practical choice could become finishing the trial or ending up with a reenacted budget. He proposed a caucus that afternoon or on Monday to reconcile the impeachment hearings, plenary sessions and demanding budget hearings, and said he would work toward a schedule that could accommodate both obligations. The proposal put the trial calendar in the context of the Senate's annual budget responsibilities.

Sen. Juan Miguel "Migz" Zubiri said morning impeachment proceedings had already cut into the Senate's legislative agenda and produced 12-hour days. He warned that the coming budget debate would require 12- to 14-hour sittings for at least two weeks, and usually about three, to consider every department, agency and government-owned corporation. With only 24 senators trying to handle the trial, plenary work and the budget at once, Zubiri called for a meeting on how to make the schedule work and said further information from the House panel was needed to expedite the proceedings. He warned that the Senate could otherwise face a reenacted budget and further delay its 40 priority measures, of which it was then moving only one or two each week. Zubiri said senators were prepared to work through breaks, but sought a workable balance so the trial, budget and legislative agenda could all proceed.

The Chair called the hearing to order, declared Poa a hostile witness and permitted leading questions, and directed counsel to proceed with direct examination rather than seek a stipulation on expertise.

The prosecution's evidence-in-chief remained underway, and future witness offers remained subject to the chair's review for relevance and necessity.

The general purposes of the proposed testimony of Police Major Jovelin D. Magay and Bresilo R. Sabaldan were not disclosed during the sitting.

A proposed stipulation concerning Marisa B. Grande awaited the defense's response; a separate written proposal concerning Edward Fajarda remained to be submitted, and his later attendance depended on medical fitness or an accepted stipulation.

The October-November trial calendar remained tentative pending further discussion of budget and legislative work.

The next fixed proceeding was September 7, 2026, at 10:00 a.m.

Poa on the limit of his operational knowledge: “Wala talaga akong personal knowledge sa operations mismo ng DepEd.”

Poa on the basis of his documentary reasoning: “wala akong personal knowledge and I'm just basing it on the document, the certification.”

Poa on whether all the rewards related to the youth leadership summits: “Hindi ko po talaga kayo masasagot truthfully.”

Asked whether he could also face legal liability, Poa replied: "Posible po. Sana po hindi, pero posible po."