THE power-hungry politicians whose insatiable obsession to remain in power beyond 2028 must be so desperate — that they have to use a nonentity and a polluted source with zero credibility like a certain Ramil Madriaga, who is charged with a heinous crime and currently incarcerated. They are doing this to pursue their evil design to remove Vice President Sara Duterte from office, bar her from joining the 2028 presidential race, demolish her reputation — and continue maligning the much-beloved former president Rodrigo Duterte, who is languishing in detention at the International Criminal Court (ICC), in a clear and blatant violation of our Constitution, as well as in utter disregard of the Rome Statute that created the ICC.
The overwhelming majority of House Committee on Justice membership make loud declarations that they are complying with their constitutional mandate of initiating an impeachment complaint and are following the Constitution and the July 25, 2025, decision of the Supreme Court junking the impeachment complaint filed against Vice President Duterte last year, where it enumerated the due process clause requirements imposed by the Constitution for a valid transmission of an impeachment complaint to the Senate, and that they are observing the rule of law in holding a hearing to determine the existence of probable cause. But they are doing the exact opposite and once again violating their mandate in transgressing the rights of Vice President Duterte.
They wrongly insist that they can conduct a “mini-trial” or a full-blown hearing, compelling the attendance of Sara Duterte and issuing subpoena duces tecum for the production of documents against the vice president, and subpoena ad testificandum to hear the testimonies of witnesses without subjecting them to cross-examination by Sara Duterte. They argue that the phrase “mini-trial” they have in mind is not akin to the trial in the Senate, as directed by the Constitution, but to the preliminary investigation referred to by the Rules of Court in finding probable cause.
In a preliminary investigation, the investigating prosecutor’s task is to receive a criminal complaint, and its supporting documentary and testimonial evidence then allows the respondent to respond to the complaint and submit rebutting and exculpatory evidence, if the latter so desires. The respondent may opt to waive the right to appear before the investigating prosecutor and choose not to dispute the allegations of the complaint if the same is patently baseless. Thereafter, the investigating prosecutor proceeds to rule on the existence of a probable cause and files the criminal information in the appropriate court. If the complaint is unsupported by credible proof or if the evidence presented is inadmissible in court pursuant to the Rules of Court, the complaint is thereby dismissed. The constitutional presumption of innocence is accorded the accused. The latter does not have to prove his/her innocence because the law imposes the burden of proving the guilt of the respondent on the complainant. The investigating prosecutor cannot side with any of the parties as the law requires neutrality and impartiality on the former. A compulsory process like issuing a subpoena duces tecum for the production of documents to support the allegation of the complaint is at the behest or request of the complainant and not at the initiative of the investigating prosecutor. Should such a subpoena be issued motu proprio by the issuer, the latter becomes biased and partial.
In the instant proceeding before the House Justice Committee, the latter on its own accord issued the subpoena ad testificandum on Madriaga and subpoena duces tecum to certain government agencies to produce before it certain documents favorable to the accusers, making it glaringly clear that the probing body is assisting the complainants in proving their impeachment complaints, which is a brazen violation of the respondent vice president’s rights.
During the hearing where Madriaga took the stand, the usual anti-Duterte members of the committee took turns in asking him leading questions in support of the impeachment complaint. When Madriaga gave an answer to a question thrown at him that sounded either incredible or that would impeach his credibility, the obviously biased committee chairman would immediately suggest to any member to move for the striking out of the question and reply of Madriaga from the records. On cue, a committee member would move and is duly seconded by the other members, and consequently that part of the testimony of the witness would be stricken out. One member of the committee, perhaps trying to redeem herself from the bashing she received from the netizens owing to previous prejudiced, nutty and nonsensical remarks on the proceedings and on Sara Duterte, reminded her colleagues to focus on the allegations contained in the affidavits of Madriaga in determining the sufficiency of substance of the impeachment complaint and to strictly follow the House rules of the impeachment proceedings.
The contents of Madriaga’s affidavit, his supplemental affidavit, as well as his testimony before the committee on justice are false and malicious narratives designed to demolish the character and reputation of Sara and Rodrigo Duterte.
In the perjury case against Madriaga filed by the vice president, his claim of being part of the intelligence and security group, and that he had a professional and personal relationship with the former has been thoroughly rebutted as false and malicious by the very military men (Colonels Nolasco and Lachica) he depended to validate his untruthful allegations. In two separate sworn statements, the two belied the allegations of Madriaga. They also disputed the other claim of Madriaga with respect to Vice President Duterte’s allegedly instructing him and them to deliver duffel bags containing millions of pesos to various persons in different places.
Madriaga’s statement that he was instructed by the vice president to organize ISIP, a support campaign group for the 2022 elections, was also disputed by lawyer Ryan Kilala, who said in a sworn statement that it was he who suggested to Madriaga to form ISIP because he was an admirer and supporter of Sara Duterte. Madriaga’s allegation that he saw Kilala’s wife driving a car was proved false by testimonial and documentary evidence. It turned out the driver he referred to not only does not have a driver’s license, but has never driven a vehicle all her life.
The lying witness also asserts that he gifted Vice President Duterte with a painting, but the artist who created the painting contradicted him stating it was she who gave the painting to Sara.
There are other incredible and malicious imputations made by Madriaga: the allegation of a term-sharing agreement between President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and Vice President Duterte brokered by the latter father; the canard that the former president gave Madriaga P25 million to buy branded motorcycles; that he was used by the elder Duterte as a dummy in several bank accounts where he withdrew several millions of pesos for deliveries to certain persons and places upon the instruction of the ex-president. Not only are these allegations illogical and incredible by themselves, and strain the imagination, they are also unverifiable.
In short, the sworn narratives of Madriaga are deliberate concoctions engineered by the political enemies of the Dutertes to obliterate them from the political landscape.