By Wilnard Bacelonia | Philippine News Agency
The Department of Education (DepEd) appeared to have justified its confidential fund spending first before looking for evidence to support it, Senate President Win Gatchalian said Wednesday as he questioned the link between paid intelligence and military youth activities cited in the agency’s response to state auditors.
During Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial, Sen. Gatchalian confronted former DepEd Undersecretary Michael Poa over the sequence of events that led the department to obtain Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) certifications while responding to a Commission on Audit (COA) finding.
“Impression ko kasi dito, nag-justify kayo muna, tsaka n’yo hinahanapan ng evidence,” Sen. Gatchalian said.
Poa, who signed DepEd’s response to COA, testified that after the audit observation memorandum was issued, he asked then-DepEd undersecretary Nolasco Mempin to look for documents that could demonstrate successful operations arising from information obtained through confidential activities.
The AFP certifications subsequently obtained by DepEd covered Youth Leadership Summits (YLS) and information and education activities conducted with military units.
Sen. Gatchalian questioned how DepEd could categorically state in its COA response that activities directly resulted from information provided by informers when Army officers who testified Tuesday said they received no confidential information from DepEd in connection with the activities.
“Kasi kung hindi nagkaroon ng House hearing, on its face value, eh parang yung confidential funds nakatulong doon sa success. Pero iba naman yung naririnig namin kahapon doon sa dalawang colonel na hindi nagamit yung, wala silang nakuhang confidential information galing sa DepEd,” Sen. Gatchalian said.
Poa explained that his response was based on information from DepEd’s special disbursing officer (SDO) and his reading of the military certifications.
He said the SDO told him that rewards had been given to people who provided information, while some AFP certifications referred to information or intelligence used to identify areas where the activities would be conducted.
“Base po doon, kaya po sinasabi ko na yung information derived from the informers, yun po yung naging pamamaraan kung paano na-identify yung mga areas,” Poa said.
Under further questioning, however, Poa said the SDO did not tell him that he personally handed cash rewards to informers, while Poa himself did not speak with DepEd’s security officer about the transactions.
Poa also testified that Duterte did not instruct him to obtain the AFP certifications and that he merely informed her afterward that the documents had been secured.
The military officers who testified Tuesday said they did not know their certifications would eventually be used by DepEd in addressing COA’s findings on its confidential fund expenditures.
Poa acknowledged their testimony and said he did not know what Mempin told the officers when the certifications were requested.
The questioned DepEd confidential fund expenditures were incurred during Duterte’s tenure as education secretary and form part of the evidence being presented in her impeachment trial.
Legality of confidential fund use
Meanwhile, Poa declined to say whether Duterte’s use of confidential funds at DepEd and the Office of the Vice President (OVP) complied with laws and government regulations.
Senator-Judge Risa Hontiveros posed the question to Poa during Duterte’s impeachment trial, asking him to answer based on what he now knows.
“Knowing what you know now, lahat po ba ng ginawa ni VP Duterte sa confidential and intelligence funds ng OVP at ng DepEd ay naaayon sa batas at naaayon sa lahat ng rules and regulations?” Sen. Hontiveros asked.
Poa declined to give an assessment.
“Your Honor, I cannot answer that question. I’d love to answer that question, of course. Pero aside from it being attorney-client privilege, obviously whatever I say here will be biased, Your Honor,” he said.
Poa said he preferred that the impeachment court draw its conclusions from the evidence rather than from an opinion coming from Duterte’s own counsel.
“Because I would rather let the evidence answer than a statement coming from one of her counsels, Your Honor,” he said.
Presiding Officer Francis Escudero agreed with Poa’s decision not to answer, saying the question would have required him to speak as Duterte’s counsel rather than as a factual witness.
“I would have to agree with the statement of Atty. Poa because the answer would have called for him acting already as counsel and not as witness for the Vice President to state a matter of fact or law,” Sen. Escudero said. (PNA)
