Vice President Sara Duterte on Wednesday filed a perjury complaint against her alleged former aide Ramil Madriaga, who earlier claimed that her campaign was bankrolled by drug syndicates and Philippine Offshore Gaming Operators (POGOs).

Duterte lodged the complaint before the Taguig City Prosecutor’s Office, saying she is seeking to hold Madriaga criminally liable for what she described as fabricated allegations.

“Ngayong araw ay naghain ako ng kasong perjury laban kay Ramil Madriaga upang tuluyang mapanagot siya sa kanyang mga kasinungalingan (Today I filed a perjury case against Ramil Madriaga to finally hold him accountable for his lies,” Duterte said in a statement dated March 4, 2026),” Duterte said in a statement dated March 4, 2026.

“Hindi maaaring hayaang gamitin ang mga imbentong kwento upang linlangin ang publiko (Fabricated stories should not be allowed to mislead the public),” she added.

The Vice President was accompanied by her legal counsel, Paolo Panelo Jr.

Linked to impeachment complaint

Madriaga had claimed in December 2025 that proceeds from illegal drugs and POGO operations funded the “Inday Sara Duterte is My President (ISIP) Pilipinas” campaign and related groups.

His allegations were later cited in the impeachment complaint filed against the Vice President at the House of Representatives.

Amid this, Duterte drew parallels between Madriaga and past witnesses who testified against her father, former president Rodrigo Duterte, before the International Criminal Court, alleging that “bought or fabricated” testimonies were being reused in political attacks.

She described Madriaga as an accused in a kidnapping case who allegedly pretended to be a campaign supporter before surfacing as a witness in the impeachment proceedings.

Duterte has denied having any personal relationship with Madriaga and claimed he is part of efforts to undermine her possible presidential bid.

Madriaga camp stands firm

In a separate statement, Madriaga’s camp said he stands by his sworn affidavit and is prepared to defend it in court.

“Mr. Madriaga executed his affidavit in good faith and based on information he believes to be true. We welcome the opportunity to address this complaint before the proper forum, where facts—not intimidation or public pressure—will determine the outcome,” his camp said.

They argued that perjury complaints should not be used to “intimidate, retaliate, or silence individuals” who provide testimony on matters of public interest, adding that questions surrounding confidential funds and campaign financing deserve transparent answers.

Madriaga’s camp also questioned the timing of the complaint, noting that his affidavit was executed and notarized in November 2025.

“The question naturally arises: why only now?” his camp said, adding that despite facing a separate criminal case, Madriaga remains entitled to the constitutional presumption of innocence.