Former Commission on Audit auditor Roderick Wamil testified that Michael Poa was present at a meeting where officials from the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education allegedly asked COA to replace a formal Audit Observation Memorandum with a lighter “audit query.”
Poa is now one of Vice President Sara Duterte’s lawyers in the impeachment trial. He may have first-hand knowledge of a meeting connected to the same confidential-fund issue he is now helping defend.
I do not need a law degree to understand why that looks wrong.
I cannot tell the Senate which legal rule applies or whether Poa is formally required to leave the defense team. I can only look at what has been placed before the public and ask the question any ordinary Filipino would ask.
How can someone who was reportedly inside that meeting now help question the witnesses talking about it?
WHAT HAPPENED IN THAT MEETING?
According to Wamil, Poa attended a meeting with OVP chief of staff Zuleika Lopez and other officials. Wamil said officials asked COA to change how it would present its findings, replacing an Audit Observation Memorandum with an “audit query.”
An Audit Observation Memorandum is a formal document used by COA to raise possible problems found during an audit. A request to use something less formal would naturally raise questions, especially when the audit involved confidential funds.
Wamil’s testimony does not tell us everything Poa did during that meeting. We do not know from this account whether he made the request, supported it, objected to it, or remained silent.
His presence alone proves no wrongdoing.
But Poa was asked about the meeting, and his answer gave the public very little. He said he vaguely recalled it and was still checking whether COA had initiated the contact.
That response should have led to more questions. Why was he there? What was discussed while he was in the room? Did he speak? Did he agree with the request? Did he advise anyone about it?
Instead, the Senate moved on.
TULFO ASKED WHAT MANY FILIPINOS WERE ALREADY THINKING
Senator-judge Raffy Tulfo raised the obvious concern during the 13th day of the trial.
“Isn’t that a conflict of interest for him to represent here now?” Tulfo asked.
Presiding Officer Chiz Escudero replied that Duterte was the respondent and Poa was only one of her lawyers.
Escudero may believe that answer settled the legal question raised from the floor. It did very little for Filipinos watching from outside the courtroom.
Nobody was asking the Senate to declare Poa guilty of anything. Nobody was asking that he be placed beside Duterte as an accused person.
The concern was much simpler.
A prosecution witness said Poa attended a meeting connected to the handling of COA’s findings. Poa is now helping defend Duterte against accusations involving those same confidential funds.
Does his role in that meeting affect his role in the trial?
Escudero answered a different question. He explained why Poa was not the respondent, which everyone already knew. He did not explain why Poa should be allowed to question witnesses about a meeting he may later have to explain himself.
WHY DOES THIS LOOK WRONG?
Perhaps lawyers have a technical term for this. They can debate whether it is a conflict of interest, a lawyer-witness problem, or something else entirely.
I am looking at it through the eyes of someone who wants to believe this trial is a serious search for answers.
A lawyer is supposed to fight for his client. A witness is supposed to tell the court what he personally saw, heard, and did.
What happens when the lawyer may also know something important about one of the events being discussed?
Can Poa challenge Wamil’s account without also protecting his own version of what happened? Can he argue that the meeting was harmless while avoiding questions about what he said or did inside that room?
I do not know the legal answer. I do know that Filipinos deserve to hear the questions asked openly instead of watching the Senate brush them aside.
PRESENCE IS DIFFERENT FROM PARTICIPATION
The criticism has to remain fair.
Wamil placed Poa at the meeting. He did not, based on the testimony described so far, prove that Poa personally asked COA to change its findings.
There is also no basis here for declaring that Poa planned a cover-up or directed anyone to hide anything. Those would be serious accusations, and the public record presented in the trial would have to support them.
Still, being present is relevant when the meeting itself is under scrutiny.
Poa could clear up part of the confusion with a full account. He could explain why he attended, who asked him to join, what was discussed, and what role he played.
“Vaguely recall” leaves the public with more questions, especially when the same person is now an active lawyer in the trial.
A vague memory proves no guilt. It also gives the Senate no reason to close the discussion.
WHY IS THE SENATE SO EAGER TO MOVE ON?
This is the part that angers me.
The impeachment trial is supposed to help Filipinos understand what happened to hundreds of millions of pesos in confidential funds. Witnesses are being called because documents, receipts, certifications, and official explanations have raised serious questions.
Then a witness names one of Duterte’s current lawyers as someone who attended a meeting about how COA would present its findings.
The response from the presiding officer was essentially that Poa is a lawyer, not the respondent.
Of course he is a lawyer. That is exactly why the situation deserves closer attention.
His role in the defense gives him the power to challenge witnesses, raise objections, shape arguments, and influence how the Senate understands the evidence. His reported presence at the meeting means he may also possess information that the Senate has not fully heard.
Why does the Senate treat those two roles as though they have nothing to do with each other?
Poa has been forceful when opposing subpoenas for Duterte’s bank and tax records. He has cited bank secrecy laws and the Anti-Money Laundering Act. He has called the prosecution’s requests a “fishing expedition.”
He has every right to raise legal objections for his client.
Yet when the questions reached a meeting he personally attended, the public received a vague recollection and a promise that he was still checking the details.
That contrast deserves attention. It is no proof of wrongdoing, but Filipinos are allowed to notice when a lawyer speaks with confidence on issues involving his client and offers little when the questions reach his own involvement.
ANOTHER LAWYER CAN HANDLE THAT PART
Duterte has a defense team. Poa is not her only lawyer.
Even without removing him from the entire case, the Senate could ask another defense lawyer to handle questions about the COA meeting. That would keep Poa from directly challenging a witness whose testimony concerns an event Poa also attended.
It would also protect Duterte’s defense. Her lawyers could continue presenting their case without allowing the trial to become tangled in questions about Poa’s personal role.
That seems like a reasonable response while the Senate determines whether Poa’s own account will be needed.
Instead, Escudero treated Tulfo’s question as though the only choices were allowing Poa to continue normally or declaring him an accused person.
There are other options. The Senate simply has to take the concern seriously enough to use them.
FILIPINOS DESERVE A REAL ANSWER
I am not trying to decide a legal ethics case from my living room. I am asking why the people running this impeachment trial seem uninterested in how the situation looks to the public.
A witness has placed a defense lawyer inside a meeting connected to the audit findings being discussed. That lawyer has given only a limited account of what he remembers. The Senate then dismissed the concern without examining whether his knowledge could affect his work in the trial.
That is not enough.
Poa should explain his role in the meeting. The prosecution should state whether it believes his testimony is needed. The Senate should decide whether another defense lawyer must handle any questioning connected to that event.
Those are reasonable questions in a trial that is supposed to uncover the truth.
Bawal ba talaga, Atty. Poa?
I do not know whether the rules automatically bar him from the defense team. The Senate has lawyers and senator-judges who are supposed to know the answer.
What I know is that Escudero’s five-second dismissal settled almost nothing. Until Poa’s role in that meeting is fully explained, Filipinos have every right to keep asking why he is helping defend a case that may also require answers from him.