Joselito Malig

Article (news)

Vivienne Gulla

ABS-CBN News

MANILA - Vice President Sara Duterte’s statement criticizing a motion for the House Committee on Justice to take custody of Ramil Madriaga “suggests fear” for his testimony, according to House Committee on Justice member and Manila 3rd District Rep. Joel Chua. He issued the statement after Duterte tagged the request as giving Madriaga “special treatment” and “a grave insult to the minor victim who was traumatized by his criminal acts”.“So, takot pala talaga siya sa mga nalalaman ni Madriaga. Such statements may ultimately aid the House when it performs its constitutional duty of presenting the Articles of Impeachment before the Senate,” Chua said.“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,” he added.Madriaga claimed to be Duterte’s alleged former bagman, but the Vice President has denied this, calling him “an alleged kidnapper who fabricated an entire story”.Chua challenged Duterte to engage the impeachment proceedings against her “with clarity and respect rather than attempt to discredit it” if she truly believes in due process.“The House will not be deterred from performing its constitutional duty,” the lawmaker said.Akbayan Party List Representative Chel Diokno, who requested the House panel to transfer Madriaga to its custody, meanwhile, stands by his motion to preserve documentary evidence and secure the witness in the impeachment proceedings against Duterte.“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.“The Vice President has every opportunity to refute the allegations against her by submitting her answer and evidence. Sa huli, ang ebidensya ang magsasabi kung dapat may pananagutan. At ang impeachment proceeding ang tamang lugar para lumabas ang katotohanan,” Diokno added.For Bicol Saro Party List Representative Terry Ridon, Duterte’s statement appears to be “conflicting” with the statement of her lawyer, Atty. Paolo Panelo. On Thursday, Panelo reiterated that their camp wants Madriaga “alive and well” so he can testify, and if transferring his custody to the House of Representatives ensures that, they “welcome the move”.“Parang conflicting ho ‘yung pahayag ng ating pangalawang Pangulo doon po sa pahayag ng kanya pong abogado doon po sa perjury case against Mr. Madriaga… Tingin ko po ay nagbabangga po ito,” he said.Ridon and House Committee on Justice Chairperson Gerville Luistro sees Diokno’s point in seeking protection for Madriaga, but they said the decision on the matter is up to the court handling his pending criminal case.&quot;It will ultimately depend on the court.. if it will agree. Pero… dapat po masecure talaga ‘yung person ni Mr. Madriaga kung totoo ‘yung sinasabi pong threats against this life. It doesn&#x27;t have to be in the House detention facility sa totoo lang, basta I think BJMP should really secure Mr. Madriaga,” Ridon said.“I don&#x27;t think that that is special treatment, because I have seen the significance of the affidavit of Madriaga… If something wrong will happen to Madriaga, how will the complainant substantiate the allegations in their complaint?&quot;&quot;I perfectly understand the position of Congressman Chel Diokno in requesting for a transfer of custody… of course, you will be concerned about addressing the safety, especially their allegations of threat already. Because if we lose Madriaga, then there will be very much difficulty on their part on how they&#x27;re going to prove their allegations in the complaint,” Luistro added.Luistro is “inclined” to transmit Diokno’s request to the court through the Office of the Clerk of Court, if the House panel agrees.“We can only request… at the end of the day, it will be the decision of the court… In the case of Madriaga, he has a pending case and that&#x27;s why strictly the jurisdiction over his person belongs to the court,” she explained.Diokno’s motion is expected to be tackled by the House Committee on Justice when it reconvenes on March 18th, Wednesday. The panel is also expected to discuss the appearance ad cautelam filed by Duterte’s lawyers.Ridon has raised a possible “conflict of interest” in the inclusion of Atty. Michael Poa and Atty. Reynold Munsayac in Duterte’s legal team for the impeachment proceedings against. Luistro said if an objection to the appearance ad cautelam is raised, the panel will rule on it.“They were people who are associated to the VP during the period when the alleged (confidential fund) misuse took place. So there is a very big possibility ipe-present sila ng prosecution as witnesses, perhaps as hostile witnesses. If that happens, and we allow their entry of appearance as lawyers of VP, pwedeng ma-raise ‘yung rule ng privileged communication between a lawyer and a client, which means na lahat ng pinag-usapan ng abogado at ng kliyente within the definition of the attorney-client relationship cannot be divulged in court because it is protected by the rule on privileged communication,” Luistro said.“So there is where conflict of interest arise. But of course, this will be addressed in the Justice Committee if Cong. Ridon will formalize his objection to the entry of appealance, there&#x27;s a possibility, pagbotohan ito ng justice members whether or not to allow the entry of appearance of Atty. Munsayac and Atty. Poa,” she added.Asked whether Ridon will make a motion to reject the entry of appearance of Munsayac and Poa, he said, it is “on the table”.“Pagka po finormalize ito pong entry of appearance noon pong mga defense panel. I think that is on the table… I think that can be formalized into a motion,” Ridon said.On Diokno’s motion to subpoena Duterte’s bank records, Luistro said it will be tackled by the House panel if it finds sufficient ground to proceed to a hearing proper.<div> </div><div>NO FISHING EXPEDITION, NO POLITICS</div>Luistro and Ridon rejected Duterte’s claim that conducting an investigation to “search for evidence to support accusations already made in the impeachment complaints” would amount to a “fishing expedition” by the lower chamber.“There can be no fishing expedition kung mayroon na po already available documentation na papasok doon sa mga impeachable grounds against the Vice President. Pwede lang magka-fishing expedition kung absolutely zero documentation ‘yun pong impeachment processes as we speak. Hindi po ‘yun totoo… Even without the subpoenas, complete po ‘yung documentation for all the other grounds. So, ang binabanggit ho natin dito, we would want to get additional information, additional documentation in the course of the proceeding. And, more importantly, kasama naman po ito doon sa aktwal na kapangyarihan at trabaho ng House Committee on Justice serving as a part of the impeachment proceedings. So, hindi po totoo that there is another fishing expedition against the Vice President” Ridon added.The House Committee on Justice Chairperson also denied Duterte’s claim that the impeachment proceeding against her is a “political attack designed to protect certain individuals and advance personal and foreign interests”.“We do not look on the political landscape. We do not look on the 2028 election. We do not look on the issues, political issues surrounding the Philippine politics right now. We simply focus on the impeachment complaint and the rules that we are supposed to follow as we move forward to our impeachment proceeding… We are rule-based. We are following strictly the rules because we understand the importance of the impeachment process.&quot;&quot;We cannot please everyone. If to her, there&#x27;s a question about the integrity of the justice members, well, for us, we are doing it properly because we understand the solemnity of our duty under the Constitution,” she said.As of Friday, Duterte has yet to file a verified answer to the two impeachment complaints against her, which the House panel found sufficient in form and substance. She has until Monday to do so.

Vice President Sara Duterte’s statement criticizing a motion for the House Committee on Justice to take custody of Ramil Madriaga “suggests fear” for his testimony, according to House Committee on Justice member and Manila 3rd District Rep. Joel Chua.

Vice President Sara Duterte’s statement criticizing a motion for the House Committee on Justice to take custody of Ramil Madriaga “suggests fear” for his testimony, according to House Committee on Justice member and Manila 3rd District Rep. Joel Chua.

Chua says Sara Duterte 'scared' of Madriaga's testimony

News

Entertainment

Lifestyle

Sports

Metro.Style

More

Traffic

Manila

Horoscope

Nation

Chua says Sara Duterte 'scared' of Madriaga's testimony

Vivienne Gulla,

ABS-CBN News

Published Mar 13, 2026 04:38 PM PHT

Read More:

Sara Duterte

impeachment

ABSnews

Madriaga

ABS-CBN is the leading media and entertainment company in the Philippines, offering quality content across TV, radio, digital, and film. Committed to public service and promoting Filipino values, ABS-CBN continues to inspire and connect audiences worldwide.

Corporate

Investors

Governance

International Distribution

Corporate

Governance

Investors

International Distribution

NPC Seal of Registration

Privacy Policy

AI Policy

Terms of Service

Advertise with Us

© 2026 ABS-CBN Corporation. All Rights Reserved.

NPC Seal of Registration

Privacy Policy

Terms of Service

AI Policy

Advertise with Us

© 2026 ABS-CBN Corporation. All Rights Reserved.

NPC Seal of Registration

Privacy Policy

Terms of Service

AI Policy

Advertise with Us

© 2026 ABS-CBN Corporation. All Rights Reserved.