Duterte camp wants Trillanes, 40 others, to testify in impeachment trial

MANILA, Philippines — Vice President Sara Duterte’s camp appears to want arch-nemesis and former Senator Antonio Trillanes IV, along with former aide Ramil Madriaga and over 40 other individuals, to testify before the Senate Impeachment Court for her trial.

Alleged copies of the pre-trial brief from Duterte’s camp, sent by sources to INQUIRER on Tuesday, showed a long list of documents and personalities that the defense panel wanted to admit as witnesses for the impeachment trial.

Trillanes and Madriaga — two individuals who were resource persons when the House committee on justice heard the complaints against Duterte — were among the high-profile names included in the defense’s list of witnesses.

Article continues after this advertisement

“The respondent intends to present the following witnesses: Ramil Madriaga – to disprove the allegations in the Articles of Impeachment, identify documents, and prove such other relevant matters related to the foregoing,” the defense’s pre-trial brief said on page 22.

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

“Antonio F. Trillanes IV – to disprove the allegations in the Articles of Impeachment, prove that the allegations in the Articles of Impeachment are mere conclusions of law and fact, identify documents, and establish such other matters related to the foregoing,” it added.

Aside from the two, the following personalities or possible representatives of their offices were also identified as possible witnesses:

Former Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin

Former Budget Secretary Amenah Pangandaman

Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla

Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) Executive Director Ronel Buenaventura

Bureau of Internal Revenue Commissioner Charlito Mendoza

National Bureau of Investigation Director Melvin Matibag

Commission on Audit – Intelligence and Confidential Fund Audit Office’s Atty. Gloria Camora

Trillanes, a staunch critic of the Dutertes, was one of the resource persons invited by the committee on justice for its April 22 hearing.

During the discussions, it appeared that Trillanes finally got vindicated after the AMLC confirmed the veracity of several alleged Duterte financial transactions that he mentioned in his sworn affidavit.

Article continues after this advertisement

AMLC’s confirmation came after Mamamayang Liberal party-list Rep. Leila de Lima randomly picked 18 financial transactions listed in Trillanes’ annexes and asked AMLC to check if this was part of their investigation.

READ: Trillanes vindicated: AMLC confirms Sara Duterte’s 18 transactions

Article continues after this advertisement

AMLC Executive Director Ronel Buenaventura, in response, said they cannot divulge the information about the nature of the transfers and where it was located, but only whether there was such a transfer of the same amount on the same date — which committee chair and Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro is good enough.

Trillanes also claimed that Duterte and other members of the Duterte family got money from an alleged drug lord.

Madriaga, on the other hand, claimed in a supplemental affidavit that the vice president ordered him in December 2022 to coordinate with Col. Dennis Nolasco about delivering cash to allies in San Pablo, Laguna; a comedy bar in Quezon City; and the Office of the Ombudsman parking lot, as a way of “returning a favor.”

According to Madriaga, four large duffle bags were unloaded from the vehicles, three of them were dark and one was light-colored — containing around P30 million to P35 million each.

This is believed to be the P125 million confidential fund in 2022, which Madriaga said he liquidated in one day and not the reported 11 days.

READ: Madriaga: OVP’s 2022 secret funds spent in 1 day, not 11 days

Buenaventura’s role

Aside from confirming that the 18 transactions in Trillanes’ sworn affidavit exists in AMLC’s database, Buenaventura also said early in that April 22 hearing that they found covered and suspicious transactions made by the vice president and her relatives.

Buenaventura gave the answer after being asked by Deputy Speaker Ferjenel Biron if they found suspicious transactions made by Duterte and her kin.

The AMLC official later clarified that covered transactions are bank transactions over P500,000, which banks report to the council, while suspicious transactions refer to those whose amounts are not determined, but were reported by banks because there is something questionable in terms of how funds were sourced.

READ: AMLC confirms suspicious transactions made by Sara Duterte, kin

INQUIRER has asked the defense panel for a confirmation on the witnesses requested by Duterte’s lawyers, but they have not issued a reply as of posting time.

Duterte was eventually impeached for a second time last May 11, after 257 House lawmakers voted in favor of adopting House Resolution (HR) No. 989 which contains the Articles of Impeachment.

Only 25 members voted against it, while nine abstained.

According to HR No. 989, the allegations in the two complaints tackled by the House committee on justice were consolidated into four grounds:

Culpable violation of the Constitution, graft and corruption, and betrayal of public trust through the systematic liquidation misuse, misappropriation and irregular of confidential funds amounting to P500 million under the Office of the Vice President (OVP) and P112.5 million under the Department of Education (DepEd)

Culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust when Duterte amassed unexplained wealth manifestly disproportionate to her lawful income and earnings during her incumbency as a public official

Bribery, graft and corruption, culpable violation of the Constitution, and betrayal of public trust when she gave monetary gifts or payments to DepEd officials to induce the violation and circumvention of procurement and other related laws

Culpable violation of the Constitution, high crimes, and betrayal of public trust by contracting for the assassination of the president, the first lady, and the former speaker of the House, by making grave threats, and by actively inciting sedition against the republic /apl

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.