‘No irregularity’ in use of AFP certification for DepEd confi funds liquidation – defense

TESTIFY. Colonel Manaros Boransing II takes the witness stand on Day 20 of the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte on September 1, 2026. Senate Social Media Unit 'The certification was also issued for what legal, whatever legal purpose it may serve,' defense lead counsel Sheila Sison says The defense team of Vice President Sara Duterte claims there was no irregularity in the Department of Education's use of Armed Forces certifications for confidential fund expenses. During the impeachment trial, prosecution witnesses from the AFP testified that youth summits were conducted without the use of DepEd's confidential funds. The defense did not cross-examine AFP witnesses, stating they found no issues with their testimonies, and emphasized the importance of public records regarding the funds in question. This is AI-generated. Read the article for full context. Report any errors. MANILA, Philippines – The defense team of Vice President Sara Duterte maintained that there was “no irregularity” in the Department of Education‘s use of Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) certifications to support its confidential fund expenses. “Of course, on our side, since we’re advocating for the client, there’s really no irregularity. But this is not advocating through the media. That has been our position in the answer,” defense counsel and deputy spokesperson Justin Nicol Gular told reporters on Tuesday, September 1. The Senate impeachment trial is in the middle of hearing the prosecution’s evidence about Duterte’s alleged misuse of the confidential funds of the Office of the Vice President and the DepEd when she headed the agency. On Tuesday, the prosecution presented witnesses from the AFP — Colonel Manaros Boransing II and Colenel Magtanggol Panopio — to prove that the Philippine Army conducted youth summits without DepEd’s confidential funds, and that Duterte and her office allegedly misrepresented the AFP certifications issued to the DepEd about these activities. Boransing and Panopio issued certifications proving the success of the AFP’s youth summits in partnership with agencies like DepEd. However, DepEd allegedly submitted these certifications to the Commission on Audit (COA) for the liquidation of the agency’s P15.54-million funds. Although he said that there was nothing irregular on the use of certifications, Gular refused to belabor on that point, explaining the recent sub judice reminder from the impeachment court. Gular, however, said that the public is entitled to interpret what happened during the trial proper. During the trial’s 20th day, defense lead counsel Sheila Sison shared the contents of the AFP’s certifications. She noted that the certifications of Panopio and Lieutenant Colonel Carlos Sangdaan Jr. stated that the projects were done in collaboration with other agencies like DepEd. “… The certification was also issued for what legal, whatever legal purpose it may serve,” Sison added. “But that statement, just basically means what it says — for whatever legal purpose it may be used for. And you can find this in several documents, not only in the document tackled by the impeachment court,” Gular explained. DepEd’s credit notice In the trial, the DepEd’s credit notice from COA was again brought up. On August 11, COA state auditor Xylene del Campo confirmed that COA’s Intelligence and Confidential Funds Auditing Office (ICFAO) cleared DepEd’s P75-million confidential funds through a credit notice. Presiding officer Chiz Escudero, on Tuesday, clarified with the parties if the P15 million DepEd funds in question were part of the P75-million cleared funds. Both defense counsel Lindon Miguel Bacquel and prosecution counsel Reynaldo Robles responded in the affirmative. “I think what’s important is just to ensure that that document exists in public records. And we just want that public record or that document, the credit notice to be highlighted as well that it is included as one of the documents, as among those that senator-judges should consider during the impeachment trial,” Gular explained in a mix of Filipino and English, when asked about the credit notice’s relevance. However, Robles reiterated Del Campo’s August remarks, stating that COA and ICFAO are still studying the possibility of referring the matter to its fraud audit unit. Meaning, COA’s credit notice is not yet conclusive. Why no cross? Bacquel was the defense’s assigned lawyer for the supposed cross-examination of both Boransing and Panopio but he declined to cross-examine the AFP witnesses. Gular explained that cross-examination is done by the defense to test the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses. “But if we do not see any issue as to the testimony of the witness…. Lawyers sometimes do not conduct cross-examination anymore,” Gular said in a mix of Filipino and English. “That’s the reason why we don’t conduct cross-examination.” – Rappler.com How does this make you feel? Loading