Vice President Sara Duterte’s defense on Wednesday accused prosecutors of using misleading and insulting language to portray former Department of Education Undersecretary (DepEd) and defense lawyer Michael Poa as personally responsible for P112.5 million in confidential funds, as the Senate impeachment court struck from the record a prosecution remark calling him an “abogadong walang alam.”

Lead defense counsel Sheila Sison said the prosecution’s description of Poa as having “answered for” the funds was misleading because his role in responding to Commission on Audit (COA) findings did not mean he had personal involvement in the disbursement or operational use of the money.

“This is quite misleading and appears to be a deliberate use to imply or insinuate that the witness was made to provide just mere excuses to the auditors,” Sison told the court.

Sison was responding to prosecutor Benjamin Tolosa Jr.’s 13-point offer of Poa’s testimony, which sought to establish that the lawyer was among Duterte’s trusted aides but had acknowledged under oath that he knew nothing about the actual use of the confidential funds.

Tolosa also described Poa as an “abogadong walang alam” for being the person tasked by Duterte to respond to COA’s audit observations despite having no knowledge of the transactions.

Sison demanded that the phrase be removed from the record, arguing that Poa had rights under the rules to be protected from irrelevant, improper and insulting questions and conduct.

Impeachment court presiding officer Francis Escudero granted the request, saying the description is not fitting to describe a fellow lawyer

“The Chair hereby orders that the phrase, ‘abogadong walang alam,’ be stricken off the record. Chair finds it discourteous, to say the least,” Escudero said.

Tolosa later apologized if the remark had caused offense but claimed he was referring to Poa’s previous testimony before Congress, where the lawyer repeatedly said he had no personal knowledge of the use and liquidation of the confidential funds.

“There was never any intention on my part to insult you in any way,” Tolosa said.

But Sison said the prosecutor could have used more precise language. “If that was his explanation, he could have simply said that the witness has no personal knowledge,” she said.