Sara’s lawyer: Madriaga can’t be allowed to mislead public
Vice President Sara Duterte was not bothered by the allegations made last year by Ramil Madriaga, who claimed that he was her bagman, but she took action and sued him for perjury after lawmakers seeking her ouster announced plans that they were going to use his affidavit to impeach her, her lawyer said on Thursday.
Salvador Paolo Panelo Jr. told the Inquirer that Duterte decided to put her foot down on Madriaga’s “worthless accusations” when she filed the perjury complaint against him on Wednesday, the first criminal complaint she has filed since taking office in 2022.
The Vice President had intended to wait for the “proper forum” to answer the “fraud’s” accusations based on the affidavit he executed and transmitted to the Office of the Ombudsman last year, Panelo said.
“But she has to draw the line when these worthless accusations are used in impeachment proceedings against her to mislead the public, and subvert the will of the people,” he said.
All four impeachment complaints against Duterte, including the third and fourth that passed scrutiny by the House justice committee, used Madriaga’s affidavit as a basis for allegations that she misused her confidential funds at the Office of the Vice President (OVP) and the Department of Education (DepEd).
Cash in duffel bags
In his affidavit, Madriaga claimed that large sums of money were delivered when Duterte was education secretary and that the cash, contained in duffel bags, was from her confidential funds.
Madriaga, through his lawyers at the Palad Lauron Palad & Te Law Firm, executed an affidavit in November last year also claiming he had worked for Duterte when she was Davao City mayor.
Madriaga’s lawyers later called a press conference where they claimed that Duterte had visited him at his detention cell in Camp Bagong Diwa, Taguig City, on two occasions last year.
Raymund Palad, one of Madriaga’s lawyers, said the Vice President allegedly attempted to prevent Madriaga from exposing her supposed dealings.
Duterte denied the allegation and called it “another fishing expedition.”
Madriaga’s affidavit was submitted as part of the impeachment proceedings against the Vice President, which lawmakers said will have significant impact on the impeachment complaints against her.
Panelo lambasted the reliance on Madriaga’s testimony and that such a move reeks of “purely political motives.”
“Madriaga must be held accountable for his lies, and the complainants and other members of Congress relying on his testimony should be exposed for their purely political motives in pursuing impeachment against the Vice President,” he said.
‘Notice to Respondent’
The House justice committee has told Vice President to respond to the two verified impeachment complaints against her.
Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro, the committee chair, signed the “Notice to Respondent” for Duterte. It was received by the OVP on Thursday morning.
It directed her to file her “Verified Answer” to the complaints within a “nonextendible” period of 10 calendar days and serve a copy to the complainants.
If she did not submit her response within that period, it would be interpreted as “general denial” to the allegations in the complaints, the notice said.
The impeachment cases against Duterte cited allegations of betrayal of public trust, bribery, graft and corruption, including the alleged misuse of P612 million in confidential funds from both the OVP and DepEd.
The third and fourth complaints were found to be sufficient in form and in substance on Wednesday.
The next stage of the impeachment proceeding will begin in April after the Holy Week, according to Luistro. The complainant, the witnesses and Vice President Duterte may all attend the hearing.
Lone ‘No’ vote
During Wednesday’s deliberations on the third and fourth impeachment complaints, justice committee members reminded Quezon City Rep. Bong Suntay, who was eventually the only one who voted against the impeachment complaints, that the credibility of witnesses would be scrutinized in the later stages of the process.
Suntay had questioned why Madriaga’s affidavit was being brought up when he is currently detained on kidnapping charges and therefore had a questionable background.
“So, we are relying on an affidavit issued by an individual who is currently in prison?” Suntay, a lawyer, asked.
Mamamayang Liberal Rep. Leila de Lima pointed out that the committee was then only determining whether the fourth impeachment complaint against Duterte was sufficient in substance. Checking the credibility of Madriaga will come at the stage when evidence against Duterte is offered, she said.
“Are we talking now here about the credibility of a prospective witness in these proceedings? We are not yet at the evidentiary stage, we are not yet supposed to judge whether or not Mr. Madriaga is credible,” De Lima said, adding that it was premature to raise the matter at that point.
******
Get real-time news updates: inqnews.net/inqviber
