‍MANILA, Philippines — Vice President Sara Duterte’s defense team said it saw no need to cross-examine two Armed Forces of the Philippines officers presented by the prosecution during the 20th day of her impeachment trial.

Defense Deputy Spokesperson Atty. Justin Nicol Gular explained that cross-examination is generally used to test a witness’ credibility, but lawyers may choose to skip it when they find no issue with the testimony presented.

The defense did not cross-examine retired Col. Manaros Boransing II and Col. Magtanggol Panopio, who testified before the Senate impeachment court on Tuesday, September 1.

“If we do not see any issue as to the testimony of the witness… lawyers sometimes do not conduct cross-examination anymore,” Gular said.

Gular added that the testimonies were largely based on documents already presented before the impeachment court.

House prosecutor and Manila 3rd District Rep. Joel Chua, meanwhile, said the decision could be part of the defense’s legal strategy. He noted that cross-examining a witness can sometimes further clarify testimony in a way that may not benefit the questioning party.

Boransing and Panopio were presented by the prosecution in connection with certifications issued by Philippine Army units covering Youth Leadership Summits conducted in 2023.

The two officers testified that no confidential funds from the Department of Education or the Office of the Vice President were received or used by their Army units for the youth summits. Boransing said the activities were funded through Army and local government resources.

Panopio also testified that he was not aware when he issued a certification that it would later be submitted by DepEd to the Commission on Audit as part of documents related to its confidential fund expenditures.

The prosecution is seeking to establish that the military certifications did not certify or account for DepEd’s confidential fund spending.

During the proceedings, however, defense lead counsel Atty. Sheila Sison maintained that the certifications were issued “for whatever legal purpose it may serve,” arguing that the officers signed the documents knowing they could later be used for a legal purpose.

The defense also agreed to stipulate that no confidential funds were directly transferred from DepEd to the AFP, but it declined to concede that no confidential or intelligence information was shared between the two agencies.

The defense has maintained that there was no irregularity in DepEd’s use of the AFP certifications in documents submitted in connection with the liquidation of its confidential funds.

‍