September 2, 2026

Introduction

This is the September 2, 2026 audio overview of the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte. The day centered on Attorney Michael Wesley Poa's testimony about how the Department of Education answered audit questions concerning its 2023 confidential funds.

The day's principal witness

The prosecution called Poa and placed him under 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.

Poa's role and knowledge

Poa described his former Dep-Ed roles as spokesperson, chief of staff and undersecretary, officer in charge of finance, and head of the procuring entity. He testified that he had no personal knowledge of confidential-fund operations and became involved when he received the audit observation memorandum, or A O M.

The audit issue

The A O M identified 15.54 million pesos in informer rewards for the first two quarters as lacking required supporting documents. Referring to the A O M, Poa said the document stated that documentary evidence of success was lacking.

How the reply was prepared

Poa said he sought an accomplishment report through Undersecretary Nolasco Mempin and drafted Dep-Ed's explanation from the material and Armed Forces certifications supplied to him. He testified that those certifications were the only evidence of success attached to the reply, but he could not truthfully say whether all of the roughly 15 million pesos in rewards related to the youth leadership summits.

The prosecution's challenge

Prosecutor Benjamin Tolosa Junior argued that Joint Circular twenty fifteen dash zero one required a documented chain connecting an informer, the information paid for, and a successful activity. His position was that the Armed Forces certifications did not establish that chain.

The defense's answer

Defense counsel Sheila Sison argued that the prosecution had mischaracterized earlier testimony from Armed Forces officers. She said their answers about whether youth summits were regular military programs did not establish that Dep-Ed had supplied no information.

The disputed COA meeting

The prosecution treated a September 2023 meeting with the Commission on Audit as evidence that Poa had become involved before the A O M and characterized the request for an audit query as an attempt to use a less formal step. Poa described the meeting as a discussion about required supporting documents and an audit-query proposal that C O A rejected in favor of an A O M. The defense objected that the record showed a request for an audit query, not a request to prevent an A O M.

The credit notice

On cross-examination, the defense emphasized C O A's August 8, 2024 credit notice. Poa said it covered the first and second quarters only and that, as far as he knew, C O A had not reopened it or issued notices of suspension or disallowance for the periods discussed. The prosecution stressed that the notice did not cover the third quarter and that the period for possible review had not expired.

Questions from senator-judges

Senator Francis Pangilinan asked whether Dep-Ed had the vault contemplated by the joint circular and whether Poa checked for one while preparing the reply. Senator Joel Villanueva asked what factual basis connected the paid information to the activities described in the certifications. Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian asked why the written reply used definite language when Poa later described the connection as a theory.

A question of compliance

Senator Alan Peter Cayetano distinguished an allegation of theft from a dispute over compliance with the joint circular. He asked whether one special disbursing officer could practically serve a nationwide school system and whether routing funds through a project or security officer would itself be improper.

The court's evidentiary directions

The chair sustained an objection to a misleading question and limited judicial notice of statements from the House proceedings to the fact that they were made, not their truth. The chair also directed the prosecution to question Poa from the transcript instead of replaying a House member's accusations. Later, the chair sustained an objection to questions about a conversation involving Edward Fajarda, said those questions applied more to Fajarda than to Poa, and told the prosecution to move on.

Poa leaves the stand

After prosecution examination, defense cross-examination, prosecution redirect, defense recross, and senator-judge interventions, the chair released Poa from the witness stand when no further senator-judge registered to speak.

Future witnesses

The chair ordered subpoenas for Edward Fajarda, Marisa Grande, Police Major Jovelin Magay, Attorney Sunshine Chary Fajarda, and Bresilo Sabaldan for the September 7 through 9 trial dates, while preserving preparation time for the defense if needed. Edward Fajarda was excused for September 7 because of his health, another medical assessment was directed, and a written stipulation proposal remained open for defense comment.

What comes next

The prosecution's evidence-in-chief remained underway, and the chair said it would assess future witness offers for relevance and necessity. The court adjourned until September 7, 2026, at 10 in the morning.

Close

Each finding in this overview links to its exact point in the reviewed transcript and the Senate video. This has been the September 2 audio overview.