MANILA, Philippines — Tensions flared in the House Committee on Justice on Wednesday, March 4, 2026, as lawmakers clashed over the credibility of a primary witness in the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte.
Quezon City Rep. Bong Suntay challenged the inclusion of an affidavit by Ramil Madriaga, a former associate of the Vice President who is currently detained at Camp Bagong Diwa on kidnapping charges.
- Suntay’s Argument: He argued that Madriaga is a “polluted source” because of his criminal background and current imprisonment. He questioned if there was any proof Madriaga was ever an authorized employee of the VP to begin with.
- The Counter: Rep. Joel Chua and Mamamayang Liberal Rep. Leila de Lima immediately interjected, stating that the committee was only at the stage of determining “sufficiency in substance.”
De Lima raised a point of order, which was sustained by Committee Chair Gerville Luistro.
- Evidentiary Stage: The panel ruled that judging the weight of evidence or the character of a witness belongs to the later evidentiary stage of the proceedings, not during the initial validation of the complaint.
- Recital of Facts: Chua reminded the panel that they only need to see if the complaint contains a clear “recital of facts” that, if proven true, would constitute an impeachable offense.
The hearing also touched on other legal maneuvers by Duterte’s allies:
- Separation of Roles: Rep. Rufus Rodriguez argued that allegations involving the misuse of Department of Education (DepEd) funds should not be part of the VP’s impeachment because her roles as VP and DepEd Secretary were separate.
- “Split Personality”: This was rejected by Deputy Speaker Paolo Ortega V and Rep. Bienvenido Abante Jr., who stated the Vice President cannot claim a “split personality” to avoid accountability for actions taken while in office.
The committee ultimately voted to move the complaints forward, giving Vice President Duterte 10 days to file her formal response.