House panel asks for Sara’s SALNs, files on her threat to kill Marcos
The House committee on justice opened a new stage on Wednesday in the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte by asking two agencies—the Office of the Ombudsman and the National Bureau of Investigation—to produce documents pertaining to her declared wealth and the death threat she issued in 2024 against President Marcos, first lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and then Speaker Martin Romualdez.
As expected, Duterte snubbed the invitation to the “hearing proper” that would evaluate the impeachment complaints for probable cause, after the panel found them to be sufficient in form, substance and grounds.
The Vice President’s defense lawyers said there was no rule requiring her to attend, as they again questioned the panel’s jurisdiction.
They also said their client would rather not participate especially after the panel’s chair, Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro, earlier described the proceedings as a “mini-trial”—which to them suggested something separate from or preemptive of a full impeachment trial that only the Senate is authorized to conduct.
“Under these circumstances, and considering the public statements made by the chairperson, it appears that the Committee intends to conduct a trial,” the lawyers said in a letter sent to the committee.
“In light of these, while the invitation for the respondent and counsel to participate in the Committee’s mini-trial is well noted, we cannot, however, do so at this point on the grounds that the Committee and/or the HOR, as well as any of its members, lack jurisdiction to conduct any form of trial or exercise any of its incidents,” Duterte’s camp letter further stated.
Conducting the hearing without Duterte, the committee issued a subpoena asking the Ombudsman for her statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth (SALN) from 2007 to 2025.
It also asked the NBI to produce the records to the probe it conducted on the Vice President’s online rant in November 2024 where she said she had asked a person to kill the first couple and the former Speaker should an alleged murder plot against her succeed.
Rodriguez objection
Manila Rep. Joel Chua made the motion to have the subpoenas issued, saying Akbayan Rep. Chel Diokno asked the panel on March 5 to secure the documents as potential evidence against Duterte.
Raising an objection, Cagayan de Oro Rep. Rufus Rodriguez argued that subpoenas for the NBI and Ombudsman be issued separately.
He said he was against the subpoena on Duterte’s SALN since there remained no specific allegation of wrongdoing stated in the complaints regarding those documents. Without the “ultimate facts,” asking for the SALNs would be “a clear fishing expedition,” he added.
Madriaga appearance
It was a reiteration of the point he raised during a hearing on March 4. In that same hearing, however, Bicol Saro party list Rep. Terry Ridon said that based on Duterte’s SALN from 2008 to 2004, her net worth rose by over 1,000 percent.
A total of 34 committee members present on Wednesday eventually voted in favor of Chua’s motion—to subpoena both sets of documents—with only Rodriguez opposing it.
Also on Wednesday, Mamamayang Liberal Rep. Leila de Lima moved that the committee also secure an affidavit executed by Ramil Madriaga, who is currently detained on kidnapping charges and who claimed to have served as the Vice President’s “bagman.”
De Lima was referring to Madriaga’s sworn statement where he asked the Ombudsman to investigate Duterte for alleged corruption, claiming he was responsible for “transporting large amounts of money to several persons as instructed by VP Sara.”
De Lima also asked that the committee require Madriaga’s appearance before the panel, in support of calls earlier made by Diokno.
Again, Rodriguez opposed it, saying Madriaga’s testimony would only touch on the issue of confidential funds involving the Department of Education (DepEd), where Duterte also served as secretary from 2022 to 2024, or before the breakdown of her alliance with President Marcos.
Rodriguez maintained the committee had no jurisdiction over what Madriaga would say on the DepEd’s confidential fund. In a previous hearing, the Cagayan de Oro congressman said the Vice President must be treated differently from Duterte the education secretary, as these were two different personas.
But De Lima recalled that the matter had already been resolved by the committee. “You know, she was occupying the DepEd secretary portfolio in her concurrent capacity as Vice President. Now you don’t distinguish the actions made, especially the anomalous actions, the impeachable offenses made, because it’s with and pertains to the Department of Education,” she said.
“Just to explain it further, what if the Vice President kills someone, it doesn’t say it’s in relation to (either) the Vice President and as DepEd secretary, but that happens, that crime happens during her incumbency as Vice President. She may have two hands, as VP and as DepEd (head), but there’s only one brain, she has one persona,” she added.
Put to a vote, De Lima’s motion on Madriaga’s affidavit and appearance were upheld by 29 members, with only Rodriguez voting against it.
‘Accomplishment reports’
Also during the Wednesday’s hearing, ACT Teachers party list Rep. Antonio Tinio asked the panel to summon Michael Poa, Duterte’s former chief of staff and spokesperson during her DepEd stint and now one of her defense lawyers.
According to Tinio, Poa, who then held the rank of undersecretary, may provide the committee with “accomplishment reports” on how the DepEd had spent its confidential funds while under Duterte.
“Some of… these accomplishment reports have been the subject of the request for subpoena that this committee has approved,” he added.
Again, it was Rodriguez who objected.
“I could not find nexus borne by evidence or ultimate facts that would now make the chief of staff and lawyer of the Vice President to be subpoenad—in fact he has entered his appearance as (defense) counsel. So I would like to know whether there are documents which he certified or he signed that would make him be able to be invited, to be given subpoena, to appear in this committee?” Rodriguez said.
“Otherwise then we can (skip), just because they are in the Office of the Vice President we’ll be giving subpoena to everybody there in the Vice President’s office? So I object and I would like to know about that, are there documents that would show that he has been part of these confidential funds?” he added.
In response, Tinio said Poa’s involvement in preparing the reports were included in one of the impeachment complaints endorsed by De Lima.
Thirty four committee members later voted in favor of issuing a subpoena on Poa, while Rodriguez and two other lawmakers objected.
Poa willing to appear
In a press briefing, Poa said he was to comply with the subpoena but said: “I was a bit surprised because I think the ground stated there was that I was the one in charge of the accomplishment reports, etc., (yet) obviously the facts and documents show that it was not me.”
“But nonetheless, I don’t see any point in not appearing, so I will definitely abide by the subpoena. Of course, we first have to see what exactly does it contain,” he added.
At the same press briefing, Sheila Sison, one of the 16 lawyers tapped by Duterte, said it was “unconstitutional” for the House to conduct any form of “trial” at this stage since only the Senate, convening as an impeachment court, had such an authority. It was again in reference to the phrase used by Luistro, the committee chair.
The next hearings will be on April 14, 22 and 29. —WITH REPORTS FROM DEMPSEY REYES AND JOHN ERIC MENDOZA
******
Get real-time news updates: inqnews.net/inqviber
