MANILA, Philippines — Two officers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) officers are expected to take the witness stand on Sept. 1, 2026, as the impeachment court resumes proceedings on questions surrounding the use and liquidation of confidential funds under Vice President Sara Duterte.
Col. Manaros Boransing II and Col. Magtangol Panopio are scheduled to testify on certifications connected to the Department of Education’s accounting of P112.5 million in confidential funds released in 2023.
The prosecution had initially included retired Major General Adonis Bajao in its witness lineup, but later dropped him after the impeachment court encountered difficulty serving his subpoena because his address could not be established.
Deputy Speaker Paolo Ortega V said the testimony of Boransing and Panopio could help complete the prosecution’s account of the questioned transactions and clarify how military personnel became involved.
“Then the whole story will be pieced together, so to speak. We can see how it was spent, where it went, and there are no receipts and no additional information about what was used,” Ortega said during an online press briefing.
Ortega stressed that receiving or distributing confidential funds was not part of the duties of military personnel assigned to provide security.
“It is not their job to get that money and distribute or give that money. That is not part of their job,” he said.
“Their job there is to secure their Vice President. And there is nothing in any document we have that gives them authority. They are not even bonded,” he added.
House impeachment team adviser and spokesman Ace Barbers said the AFP officers’ testimony could help explain why military personnel became involved in transactions now being examined by the impeachment court.
“It is important to understand why they were dragged into this, involved in this impeachment issue,” Barbers said.
Barbers said the prosecution also wanted to establish the significance of the certifications issued by the officers and determine why they were required.
“It is important to understand what the significance and weight of that certification is, and why it was necessary to issue a certification. Where was it used?” he said.
He said the testimony could also establish whether the AFP personnel knowingly participated in the questioned transactions or were drawn into them without knowing how their certifications would be used.
“Whether they turn out to have been used for any personal purpose by some politicians, there should be accountability. But if they were used without having anything to do with it, there should also be accountability,” Barbers said.
Barbers stressed that the AFP should remain politically neutral and faithful to its constitutional mandate, saying the proceedings involving the military officers should ultimately shed light on the transactions at the center of Duterte’s impeachment case.
“They should remain apolitical, they should remain neutral, and they should always be loyal to the Constitution and loyal to our Philippine flag,” he said.
Poa to testify on DepEd role
Defense lawyer Michael Wesley Poa is also expected to testify in the proceedings, particularly on his previous role at DepEd and his participation in responding to Audit Observation Memoranda issued by the Commission on Audit concerning confidential funds.
Poa, who is now part of Duterte’s defense team, has said he was ready to answer questions about his personal knowledge and previous government work but will invoke attorney-client privilege on matters covered by his communications with the Vice President.
“If the scope of the question is about DepEd and what my participation was, which was the AOM, just the reply to the AOM, I will answer that, just as I did in the House,” Poa said during a post-trial briefing on Wednesday.
Poa has also said his testimony was expected since the pre-trial proceedings and that he had already testified on the matter before the House of Representatives' Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability.
The House prosecution panel said it was eyeing Poa as a hostile witness because of his current role as Duterte’s counsel, although the final determination rests with the impeachment court.
Meanwhile, the court and the public are also expected to watch whether both the prosecution and defense panels observe the sub judice ruling issued by the impeachment court on Wednesday.
The ruling bars the parties from making public statements that could prejudice, influence or interfere with the proceedings while the impeachment trial is ongoing.
