2 hours ago
1
Upgrade to High-Speed Internet for only ₱1499/month!
Enjoy up to 100 Mbps fiber broadband, perfect for browsing, streaming, and gaming.
Visit Suniway.ph to learn
MANILA, Philippines — The Office of the Ombudsman will comply with a House panel’s directive to submit certified true copies of Vice President Sara Duterte’s statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN).
However, Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla clarified that he would not attend the April 14 hearing, but would instead send the official custodian of the documents.
“The custodian of the SALN will be the one to bring them. I will not attend personally because I am not the one holding those documents. The officer who has custody will bring them, as that person has personal knowledge of the records being requested,” he said at a press briefing yesterday.
The subpoena, issued by Speaker Faustino Dy III, justice committee chairperson Rep. Gerville Luistro and Secretary General Cheloy Garafil, directed the ombudsman to produce Duterte’s SALNs during her years in public office from 2007 to 2025.
The committee said the documents are needed to review Duterte’s declared SALN as part of its evaluation of impeachment complaints filed by various groups and endorsed by several lawmakers.
Alongside the document request, the panel also ordered the appearance of detainee Ramil Madriaga, who claims he acted as Duterte’s “bagman.”
In a subpoena dated March 31, Madriaga was directed to testify in person on April 14 and submit original copies of his November 2025 affidavit, as well as any supporting evidence.
The committee cited his alleged role in handling confidential funds linked to the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education, as detailed in his sworn statement.
The hearings, led by Luistro, are scheduled on April 14, 22 and 29 as lawmakers determine whether sufficient grounds exist to elevate the impeachment complaints to the plenary.
Not showbiz
Supporters of Vice President Duterte were reminded that the House of Representatives’ clarificatory hearings on the impeachment complaints are not for entertainment or “showbiz,” but a serious constitutional mandate.
Manila 3rd District Rep. Joel Chua issued the reminder following remarks by Zamboanga City Mayor Khymer Olaso criticizing the ongoing proceedings.
“This is not idle chatter in the plaza or an exchange among gossipers on the street. This is an impeachment proceeding. The House committee on justice is not acting on a whim, and it is certainly not acting for amusement,” Chua said in Filipino and English.
“We are carrying out a constitutional mandate. No mayor, no former lawmaker and no partisan voice can wish that duty away just because the process makes them uncomfortable,” Chua added, warning that ridicule is no substitute for reason and no answer to constitutional accountability.
He also stressed the need for discipline in public discourse, particularly on issues involving impeachment.
“Public office demands discipline in language, especially when the subject is impeachment. What Mayor Olaso offered was not serious criticism. He treats this as just a show, a showbiz talk show. The Filipino people deserve better than officials who confuse mockery with argument,” he said.
“This impeachment, this is a test of the fitness of our leaders,” he said over the ABS-CBN News Channel, noting the importance of determining whether a public official remains fit to hold office.
Lagbas clarifies vote
While the House gathers evidence, lawmakers also clarified that the proceedings remain at a preliminary stage and do not yet constitute a vote to impeach.
Misamis Oriental 1st District Rep. Karen Lagbas emphasized that her vote at the committee level was limited to determining the sufficiency of the complaint in substance, not a decision on impeachment itself.
Lagbas emphasized that the actual vote on impeachment takes place in the plenary, not at the committee level.
“It still has a long process. After the holiday break, the next stage is the hearing for evidence to determine whether the complaint is truly impeachable,” she said.
She explained that complaints filed through the committee undergo several stages, including determination of sufficiency in form and substance, evaluation of grounds, hearings on evidence and a finding of probable cause.
She reiterated that her vote was meant to uphold constitutional processes, not to determine guilt.
“This process ensures that all sides are heard and that evidence will be properly evaluated in the appropriate forum,” she said. — Gerry Lee Gorit
