The Senate impeachment court has ordered one former and two incumbent military officers to testify before the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte.
Lead prosecutor Gerville Luistro said Colonel Manaros Boransing II (retired), Colonel Magtangol Panopio, and Major General Adonis Bajao are expected to testify on Wednesday, August 27, concerning the DepEd's disbursement of its 2023 confidential fund allocation.
“This is prompted by the inability of the next hostile witness, in the person of Edward Fajarda, to make himself available tomorrow and on Wednesday,” Luistro said, referring to Fajarda, who reportedly suffered a stroke.
During a House good government and public accountability inquiry on the OVP and DepEd budget back in October 2024, then DepEd spokesperson, now defense lawyer Michael Poa, told lawmakers that he asked then Undersecretary and retired Major General Nolasco Mempin to ask for certifications from a military unit for the liquidation of the P15 million confidential funds that the DepEd spent for informants in 2023.
At that time, Duterte was a concurrent Education Secretary.
But Boransing, Panopio and Bajao told the same House hearing that while it was their signatures that Mempin sought for certifications, they all insisted that they did not know that Mempin would use them to liquidate the DepEd’s P15 million confidential fund expenditures for informants.
It turned out that the certifications stated that the P15 million was spent by the DepEd for a Youth Leadership Seminar, but Boransing said such a seminar was not funded by the confidential fund of the DepEd.
“For our participants [of the YLS]...they used the local government unit funds. For the participants from the other stakeholders from DepEd, from PDEA (Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency), from the police, of course they used their own funds,” Boransing said.
“We are not aware,” Boransing added when asked if they were aware as to the purpose of the certifications where they affixed their signatures.
Boransing’s answer of “we are not aware” was repeated by others who signed the certifications, such as Bajao, Panopio, and Lieutenant Colonel Carlos Sangdaan, Jr.
But ahead of the military officials’ testimony, the prosecution will first call Office of the Vice President (OVP) Assistant Chief of Staff Lemuel Ortonio as its hostile witness on Tuesday, August 25. —LDF, GMA News
Facts Only
* The Senate impeachment court ordered testimony from three military officials: Colonel Manaros Boransing II (retired), Colonel Magtangol Panopio, and Major General Adonis Bajao.
* Testimony is expected on Wednesday, August 27.
* The testimony concerns the DepEd's disbursement of its 2023 confidential fund allocation.
* Lead prosecutor Gerville Luistro cited the unavailability of Edward Fajarda as a reason for the order.
* In October 2024, Michael Poa stated that he asked retired Major General Nolasco Mempin to request certifications from a military unit for liquidating P15 million confidential funds spent on informants in 2023.
* Boransing, Panopio, and Bajao testified that they did not know the purpose for which they provided signatures on the certifications sought by Mempin.
* The certifications stated the P15 million was spent on a Youth Leadership Seminar.
* Boransing stated the Youth Leadership Seminar participants used local government unit funds, and other stakeholders used their own funds.
* Multiple signatories, including Bajao and Panopio, confirmed they were unaware of the purpose of the certifications.
Executive Summary
Full Take
The process of requiring testimony from high-ranking military officers introduces a layer of institutional accountability into a financial matter concerning confidential government funds. The core tension lies between the procedural necessity of establishing facts for an impeachment trial and the reluctance or ignorance exhibited by the officials regarding the specific use of their signatures on documentation related to fund liquidation. This dynamic suggests a potential separation between the administrative action (issuing certifications) and the actual execution of the financial expenditure, creating an informational gap that the testimony is intended to bridge.
The pattern observed points toward an attempt to diffuse responsibility through layers of signature delegation. When officials claim ignorance regarding sensitive expenditures, it raises questions about the internal controls governing access to funds and the flow of information regarding their authorization. The context suggests a potential systemic pattern where procedural requirements for fund liquidation (requiring military endorsement) override direct knowledge of the end-use, perhaps as a mechanism to insulate decision-makers from direct responsibility for the specific allocation details. This forces an examination not just of financial accountability, but of hierarchical transparency within the educational and defense sectors.
What assumptions drive the request for testimony? The underlying assumption appears to be that procedural legality (the act of signing) does not automatically equate to knowledge of purpose (the nature of the expenditure). Further inquiry should focus on whether the structure allows for clear lines of accountability when documentation is authorized by one party but signed by another, and what mechanisms exist to ensure that institutional memory regarding fund usage is systematically recorded, independent of individual awareness. What verifiable mechanisms exist to reconcile the official procedural compliance with the lack of explicit knowledge among the signatories?
Sentinel — Human
The text reads like a standard journalistic report detailing procedural updates and prior testimony from a legal proceeding, characterized by specific factual references and direct attribution.