‘This is no longer about allegations — this is about consistency. And the inconsistencies are glaring.’
RAMIL Madriaga, the alleged bagman of Vice President Sara Duterte, is divested of his bulletproof vest as he attends an impeachment hearing at the House of Representatives in Quezon City.
AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
Vice President Sara Duterte and her allies on Thursday dismantled self-confessed bagman Ramil Madriaga’s claims across three fronts: her bar record, a Commission on Audit (CoA) ruling on confidential funds, and a painting he claimed to have given her.
Madriaga alleged that Duterte had sought special consideration in law school, exhibited violent behavior as a student, and was linked to irregularities in the use of confidential funds. He also claimed to have personally gifted her a painting made by a scholar from Laguna.
Duterte rebutted this by releasing her 2005 Bar exam grade, showing she had scored 80 percent, above the 75-percent passing mark, debunking Madriaga’s insinuation that she was a dull student and was prone to violence toward her classmates.
“I was never the subject of any complaint for rudeness or violence against other students at SSC-R College of Law,” Duterte said.
Supreme Court records showed the passing rate of the 2005 Bar exam was just 27.2 percent, with only 1,526 of 5,607 examinees making it.
“Madriaga and his cohorts in the House of Representatives do not come close to my capacity to achieve results with very little effort because they cannot even weave a believable lie, much less follow the rule of law,” Duterte said.
Even as the Vice President rebutted questions about her academic record, a parallel dispute over her use of her office’s confidential funds escalated.
Timeline doubted
The CoA affirmed its earlier ruling disallowing P73 million in confidential funds of the Office of the Vice President for 2022, rejecting Duterte’s appeal that her right to due process had been violated.
Duterte argued that state auditors failed to observe procedural fairness by issuing a notice of disallowance without first releasing an audit observation memorandum (AOM).
The CoA dismissed her claim, saying “her right to due process was never violated.”
“The petitioner’s right to due process was not violated when the amount of P3.5 million was disallowed in audit despite not previously raised in the AOM,” it said.
The disallowed amount covered expenditures from 21 December to 31 December 2022, including P69.78 million allocated for “rewards” and P3.5 million spent on furniture and equipment such as tables, chairs, desktop computers, and printers.
The P73.28-million flagged was part of the P125 million in confidential funds released by Malacañang to the OVP in 2022, which auditors said was disbursed over an 11-day period.
Madriaga, however, contradicted that timeline.
“I read in several media reports that the P125-million OVP confidential funds in 2022 were reportedly utilized in just 11 days. This is wrong because I personally disposed of the money in less than 24 hours, perhaps about 18 hours,” he said in his testimony before the House panel.
3 versions
Duterte’s camp also challenged Madriaga’s credibility.
Col. Raymund Dante Lachica, former head of the Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group, said Madriaga’s claims were riddled with inconsistencies across multiple sworn statements and his congressional testimony.
“This is no longer about allegations — this is about consistency. And the inconsistencies are glaring,” Lachica said.
He noted that Madriaga had presented “at least three versions” of his claims — his original affidavit, a supplemental affidavit, and his latest testimony.
“The developments do not validate the allegations — they raise the burden to prove them,” Lachica said, adding that “credibility will be decided not by repetition — but by evidence, consistency and truth.”
Another claim by Madriaga was also disputed.
Davao-based artist Tanya Gaisano Lee denied Madriaga’s assertion that he had given Duterte a painting.
“I gifted the painting to VP Sara when she was mayor of Davao City in 2021,” Lee said.
“Anything stated otherwise is false,” she added.
Under oath
Madriaga had told the lawmakers: “During our video conference, I noticed the painting I personally gave her as a gift,” and claimed, “I gave her a painting made by one of my scholars in Laguna… I had it made.”
Lee rejected the claim. “I am not a scholar, I am not from Laguna, I am from Davao,” she said.
The painting had appeared in a 2021 social media post by Duterte when she was Davao City mayor.
Madriaga’s lawyer, Raymond Palad, challenged Lachica to testify under oath at the next House hearing on 22 April.
“Explain under oath, not through press releases,” Palad said.
Lachica said he is prepared to respond in the proper legal forum while maintaining that the accusations were baseless.
