VP questions call to place Madriaga under House protection
Vice President Sara Duterte on Friday questioned the move by the House of Representatives to provide protection to Ramil Madriaga, her alleged former “bagman,” as her deadline to reply to two impeachment complaints looms.
In a two-page statement, Duterte described the “special treatment” extended to Madriaga as “disturbing,” alleging that the latter was a kidnapper “who fabricated an entire story.”
“The request that he be given special treatment in the House of Representatives is a grave insult to the minor victim who was traumatized by his criminal acts,” Duterte said. Her statement contradicts earlier remarks made by her lawyer, Salvador Paolo Panelo Jr., who said the Vice President’s side welcomed the protection offered to Madriaga.
Duterte has until Monday to formally respond to two impeachment complaints. The House committee on justice delivered the notice to the Vice President on March 5, but since the 10-calendar day period ends on Sunday, March 15, the committee said it will allow her to submit on March 16 instead.
She will be deemed as waiving the right to file an answer should she fail to meet the deadline. She will then be considered to have entered a general denial of all allegations.
In her statement, however, Duterte insisted that the impeachment was a “fishing expedition” and a “desperate attempt to search for evidence where none exists.”
“Let me say this again for the nth time: The impeachment is a political attack designed to protect certain individuals and advance personal and foreign interests,” she said.
Lack of evidence
The Vice President also said the move by Akbayan Rep. Chel Diokno to seek subpoenas against her only proves that the complaints lack sufficient evidence.
Diokno has earlier moved that the justice committee take custody of Madriaga to ensure his safety and availability.
“This only reinforces what I have been saying all along. There is no sufficient evidence to warrant an impeachment case against me,” Duterte said.
In response, Diokno maintained that his motion was only meant to preserve documents and witnesses.
“I respect the Vice President’s opinion about the proceedings. However, my motion is clear: to preserve the documentary evidence and secure a witness so the Committee on Justice can fulfill its duty of assessing the evidence,” he said in a statement on Friday.
Diokno added that the Vice President can answer the allegations by simply submitting her answer to the complaints.
“In the end, it is evidence which would state if someone should be held accountable. And the impeachment proceeding is the correct mechanism for the truth to come out,” he said.
‘Misleading narrative’
Duterte’s statements, Manila Rep. Joel Chua said, only show that she is afraid of Madriaga’s testimony.
“As of now, the Vice President has not yet submitted her formal pleading in response to the remaining impeachment complaints […] Ironically, however, her latest public statement appears to reveal aspects of that defense strategy. So, she’s really afraid of what Madriaga may know,” he said in a statement issued also on Friday.
“Such statements may ultimately aid the House when it performs its constitutional duty of presenting the Articles of Impeachment before the Senate. More importantly, the tone and substance of the Vice President’s statement suggest fear rather than truth. It appears directed primarily at her political base in an effort to shape public opinion through misleading narratives,” Chua added.
Four impeachment complaints were originally filed against Duterte, but only two remained after the first complaint was set aside while the second was withdrawn by petitioners.
New factor
All four complaints contained allegations similar to the botched impeachment attempt in February 2025—from allegations of confidential funds misuse, threats against ranking officials, bribery of officials, and other possible violations of the 1987 Constitution.
The new factor in the complaints, however, is Madriaga’s testimony.
The third impeachment complainant endorsed by Mamamayang Liberal Rep. Leila de Lima, stated that Madriaga’s claims was a clear confirmation of how Duterte “actually converted and diverted the subject confidential funds for her own personal use, contrary to the actual purposes for which the same was earmarked for and/ or purportedly disbursed.”
Madriaga previously asked the Office of the Ombudsman to investigate Duterte for alleged corrupt activities, claiming that he was responsible for “transporting large amounts of money to several persons as instructed by VP Sara.”
On March 5, Madriaga’s lawyer Raymund Palad said his client’s life was threatened while in detention in Camp Bagong Diwa in Bicutan, Taguig City.
The National Bureau of Investigation has deployed an agent to Madriaga’s detention facility to ensure his safety and “peace of mind.” —WITH REPORTS FROM ISABELLE PECHAY AND GABRIEL PABICO LALU
******
Get real-time news updates: inqnews.net/inqviber
