Terry Ridon warns: 2 Duterte lawyers could become witnesses

MANILA, Philippines — There may be a potential conflict of interest for Vice President Sara Duterte’s defense panel for the impeachment hearing as two of her lawyers may be potential witnesses, Bicol Saro party-list Rep. Terry Ridon said.

Ridon on Wednesday showed to reporters a copy of the Duterte camp’s entry of appearance for the impeachment discussions, dated last March 7, 2026, which listed the following lawyers as part of the Vice President’s legal counsel:

• Philip Sigfrid Fortun
• Gregorio Narvasa II
• Sheila Sison
• Carlo Joaquin Narvasa
• Justin Nicol Gular
• David Ronell Golla VII
• Lindon Miguel Bacquel
• Karol Grace Oroceo
• Clarlaine Radoc
• Francesca Marie Flores
• Miguel Carlos Fernandez
• Michael Wesley Poa
• Reynold Munsayac
• Mark Vinluan
• Ralph Bodota
• Roberto Batungbacal

According to Ridon, Poa, and Munsayac were all named during discussions on the alleged misuse of controversial funds (CF) in Duterte’s offices, namely the Office of the Vice President (OVP) and previously, the Department of Education (DepEd).

“The presence of potential witnesses in the Vice President’s legal team raises serious ethical and procedural questions,” Ridon said.

READ: House panel vows fairness  in Sara Duterte impeachment proceedings

“If these lawyers possess firsthand knowledge of the transactions or decisions under scrutiny, they may eventually have to testify under oath,” he added.

Ridon stressed that Poa was the DepEd spokesperson when Duterte was still Education secretary, at the same timeframe when the agency received CF allocations.  The lawmaker said Poa is the one who “repeatedly explained and defended the use of confidential funds before the public and the media.”

“That position places him close to the policy decisions and internal processes governing the use of those funds. It also means he may possess material information relevant to the impeachment complaints,” Ridon explained.

Munsayac, meanwhile, served as Duterte’s spokesperson and as DepEd Assistant Secretary for Procurement.

“If there were questions regarding the preparation of documents, compliance with auditing rules, or the legal justification for certain transactions, individuals involved in those processes could be asked to testify,” Ridon said.

“A lawyer cannot simultaneously act as an advocate and a witness in the same case without raising serious ethical concerns,” Ridon said.  “If the impeachment proceedings determine that Mr. Poa or Mr. Munsayac has material knowledge relevant to the charges, the proper course would be for them to testify as witnesses rather than serve as counsel.”

During the hearing of the House committee on good government and public accountability last September 2024, former Education undersecretary Gloria Jumamil Mercado testified that she received envelopes containing money — supposedly from Duterte — which she took as a means to influence her.

Mercado used to head DepEd’s procurement division.

According to Mercado, since her designation as head of procuring entity, Mercado said that envelopes were handed to her by Assistant Secretary Sunshine Fajarda.

READ: Sara Duterte’s videos replayed as impeach raps tackled

Aside from this, Mercado said Duterte’s chief-of-staff, OVP Undersecretary Zuleika Lopez, asked her to resign after she raised several concerns about procurement for the agency’s computerization program.

Mercado said this request from Lopez came after she opposed suggestions from Munsayac that bidders in the computerization program should just “discuss among themselves” the fate of the bidding.

Other DepEd officials, Mercado noted, were asked to resign too.

Mercado has not clarified why Munsayac asked bidders to discuss the bidding process among themselves, but the computerization program was a topic raised by lawmakers during DepEd’s proposed 2025 budget deliberations at the House committee on appropriations.

Duterte’s team entered their appearance after the House committee on justice declared the two remaining impeachment complaints as sufficient in form and substance.

Originally, four complaints were filed, but the second set of complainants, led by Tindig Pilipinas co-convenor Kiko Aquino Dee, submitted a letter to the Office of the House Secretary General and appeared before the committee last March 2 to withdraw their complaint.

According to the group, they withdrew their petition and vowed to support the third complaint filed by clergy members and lawyers to expedite the proceedings.

On the same day, the committee on justice voted 22-10 to set aside the first impeachment complaint from the Makabayan Coalition for allegedly violating the one-year bar rule.

Duterte’s legal team appears the same as the defense counsel that was created for the botched impeachment trial at the Senate, save for the new additions of Karol Grace Oroceo and Roberto Batungbacal, and the replacement of Maria Selena Golda Fortun.

Duterte has been accused of being behind an alleged misuse of CFs allocated to OVP and DepEd.  One of the issues raised involved revelations about weird names signing off acknowledgement receipts (ARs) for the confidential expenses made by Duterte’s offices.

ARs are submitted to the Commission on Audit to prove that funding for projects reached its intended beneficiaries, which in this case, are confidential informants.

READ: The P1 million question: Where is ‘Mary Grace Piattos’?

Also, officials from DepEd and OVP have admitted during a previous House hearing that upon Duterte’s instructions, they left the release of the CFs to individuals who are not designated as special disbursement officers.

Lawmakers observed too that DepEd under Duterte supposedly made it seem that CFs were used for a youth training program, when it is the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and local government units (LGUs) who shouldered most of the expenses. /mr