Columnist’s note: A few days ago, a handwritten note was presented by the media that was allegedly written by Ramil Madriaga. It dwells on an alleged plan by former president Rodrigo Duterte to assassinate President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. I thought the note could be subjected to a forensic linguistic analysis, but someone could definitely do it better than I could. I asked one of few trained forensic linguists in the country, Ma. Kaela Madrunio of Philippine Normal University, and she obliged.
Text of linguistic analysis by Ma. Kaela Joselle Madrunio
WITH the long-standing impeachment issue involving [Vice President] Sara Duterte, public discourse has become increasingly divided — and increasingly skeptical — of the “evidence” surfacing on both sides. Supporters dismiss critics as biased, while critics continue to demand proof for every claim made.
Recently, a handwritten note surfaced online, seemingly out of nowhere. It was allegedly written by Ramil Madriaga, a self-identified former associate of the vice president, who claimed to “expose” an alleged plan by former president Rodrigo Duterte to assassinate President Bongbong Marcos in order to pave the way for VP Duterte’s rise to the presidency.
Unsurprisingly, the document immediately sparked doubt. Some netizens found it difficult to believe that Madriaga — reportedly facing criminal charges — could produce text in “almost perfectly written English.” Others dismissed the content entirely, questioning both its authenticity and the credibility of its source.
Rather than entering the familiar cycle of belief and disbelief, it may be more productive to examine the document through a forensic linguistics lens.
The first question is deceptively simple: Is the writing really as “perfect” as it appears?
Even the presentation of the document raises curiosity. The underlined title, for instance, appears strikingly deliberate — as though it is meant to frame the reader’s interpretation from the outset. Yet its placement suggests it may have been added last. In handwritten documents, especially those written on lined paper, writers typically reserve space for a title. Here, the title feels more like an afterthought — one that guides emphasis rather than organizes content.
A second notable feature is the pattern of naming and reference. Throughout the text, the Duterte name is mentioned only once. Instead, the writer repeatedly uses coded references such as “FPRRD” for the former president and “VP Sara” for the vice president. In contrast, Marcos is explicitly named multiple times. This asymmetry raises questions about narrative distance and positioning: Why obscure some identities while directly naming another?
The structure of the narrative also invites scrutiny. The document describes events allegedly occurring five years prior, yet the level of detail is unusually specific. It references “extraordinary measures” such as impeachment, assassination by poisoning, and even mobilization through People Power. The precision of these recollections — especially over a significant time gap — may suggest reconstruction rather than direct memory.
Language choice further complicates interpretation. Phrases such as “using BBM merely as a political tool” carry a strong evaluative tone that presupposes intent. Meanwhile, the repeated use of first-person pronouns like “me” and “my” positions the writer as centrally involved in the events described, reinforcing a sense of personal authority and proximity. The use of the relatively rare English word “inutile” is also notable; it appears more frequently in literary or academic contexts than in everyday usage.
There is also a noticeable shift in the register throughout the text. Legalistic constructions such as “in the event that,” “thereafter,” and “or any other means” appear alongside more conversational phrasing like “if all else fails.” This blending of formal and informal styles can sometimes reflect an attempt to project authority while maintaining narrative flow.
One sentence, in particular, stands out for its structure: “The strategy is that Sara, upon assumption of the Office of the President, succeeding BBM ...” The phrasing resembles a spoken explanation more than polished written prose, as though the idea were being articulated in real time and transcribed directly onto the page. At the same time, however, it also reads like a legal draft, with two embedded clauses, suggesting that the writer may have extensive experience in composing such texts.
This brings us back to the second question: Was the note genuinely authored by the individual named, or was it dictated, reconstructed, or even fabricated?
At this stage, there is no definitive answer. However, the linguistic patterns observed — especially the traces of spoken structure and inconsistent stylistic choices — open the possibility that the text may not be the product of a single, stable authorial voice. The text may also have been written with intentional irregularities to appear less polished. Based on the diction and structure of the handwritten letter, the writer is likely someone with a strong academic background, or a role associated with authority or an institution.
A more systematic forensic linguistic analysis, particularly one focused on authorship analysis, would be required to draw firmer conclusions.
Until then, the most fitting qualifier remains the same word that anchors the entire controversy: allegedly.
Ma. Kaela Joselle Madrunio is a Filipino forensic linguist and member of the Faculty of Languages and Literature of Philippine Normal University–Manila. A recognized expert in forensic investigation, she is part of the subject-matter expert pool at the Philippine Investigation and Forensic Science Academy, and an associate member of the National Research Council of the Philippines. She is also an active member of several professional organizations, including the International Association for Forensic and Legal Linguistics, where she currently serves as the country representative for the Early Career Researchers Global South Committee. As the first Filipino to earn a degree in forensic linguistics from Aston University in the UK, she serves as the founding secretary of the Philippine Association for Forensic and Legal Linguistics. Her research interests include fraud and deception, plagiarism, authorship analysis and forensic phonetics.
