MANILA, Philippines — The alleged bagman of Vice President Sara Duterte accused her of lying under oath, presenting evidence detailing interactions not only with her, but with her father, former president Rodrigo Duterte at the resumption of the impeachment hearing by the justice committee of the House of Representatives on Tuesday, which the vice president did not attend.
In a supplemental affidavit, Ramil Madriaga claimed that he was introduced to the former president by the late Paranaque representative Roilo Golez prior to the 2016 presidential elections, where he served as one of his political officers.
Madriaga said that when Golez decided to support the canddiacy of the elder Duterte, he was introduced to him in a meeting in Davao City.
Duterte, Madriaga said, also directed him to serve as a "counter-intelligence agent" for the National Security Council, but was not under the employ of the Office of the President.
He also said that the former president wanted his daughter Sara, who was then the mayor of Davao, to enter politics instead of his eldest child, Paolo, and his youngest, Sebastian, whom he described as "baliw" and "bading" (crazy and gay).
Madriaga also claimed that he served as "dummy" for the transfer of large amounts of money from the former president.
He also revealed that in November 2021, the former president mentioned to him that Ferdinand Marcos Jr. would run as president while his daughter would become his running mate. and that a "few months ago, BBM (Bongbong Marcos) and Sen. Imee Marcos visited him to discuss a possible alliance to the 2022 National elections."
"During this meeting, BBM was able to convince [president Duterte] to have Sara as BBM's vice president. However, they also agreed that by 2025, BBM will voluntarily step down to give way for a Sara presidency. After Sara took her oath as vice president, PRRD (President Rodrigo Roa Duterte) had a discussion with me, with retired generals of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, where I was also present regarding all the possible scenarios for unseating BBM by 2025," Madriaga said in his affidavit.
Asked for comment, former Duterte administration spokesman and chief presidential legal counsel Salvador Panelo described Madriaga's affidavit as "nonsense."
"It a lot of nonsense coming from a polluted source engineered by the political enemies of PRRD who will stop at nothing to besmirch his reputation. Madriaga is the face of false and malicious information on VP Sara and PRRD," Panelo told The Manila Times.Panelo's son, Salvador Paolo Panelo Jr.,counsel of the vice president in Madriaga's perjury case, said that his allegations were "pure fiction" and not even remotely believable.
The committee left the chair for the vice president vacant "because we are extending the opportunity to participate to her so long as we continue this proceeding," said Batangas 2nd District Rep. Gerville Luistro, the committee chairman.
Although Duterte was not required to attend the hearing that sought to determine whether the impeachment complaints filed against her had probable cause, she was nonetheless still notified.
At the start of the hearing, Luistro defended the proceedings amid criticism that the committee was conducting a "trial" and was thus exceeding its jurisdiction.
"The House initiates. The Senate decides," she said.
"Under the Constitution, the House has the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment", she said.
Luistro, referencing a viral song, said, "The impeachment process starts with the House. The first move is ours. The direction is ours. And like what the youth say, 'hawak natin ang beat.'"
"What we are doing here is not a trial. Our only question is: Is there enough basis for the process to move forward?" she said.
"This Committee, therefore, is not overstepping. [...] We are simply following the rules—our rules—grounded in the Constitution," she said.
Under the 1987 Constitution, only the House has the power to initiate impeachment cases and only the Senate can conduct an impeachment trial.
Luistro said that the committee hearing was not a fishing expedition.
"We know what we are looking for: whether there is probable cause or none," she said.
"And it is clear to us: we are not usurping the power of the Senate to decide whether the official is 'guilty' or 'not guilty,'" she said.
Luistro also addressed the claim that the hearing was a distraction. She acknowledged that the country was facing many problems. "But let me ask: Does the existence of many problems mean we should ignore one specific problem?"
