00:18Good afternoon. Welcome to Beyond the Headlines. I'm DJ Moises.
00:21The House of Representatives Committee on Justice has scheduled a final clarificatory hearing on April 29, 2026, so that's this
00:31coming Wednesday, on the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte.
00:36But on the second district representative, Jeremy Luistro, the committee chairman, said, there is a very big possibility that the
00:45panel would proceed to vote on the determination of probable cause at the conclusion of the April 29 hearing.
00:52If the committee finds probable cause at the end of the session, the proceedings will then move to the House
00:58plenary for a vote on whether to transmit the articles of impeachment to the Senate.
01:03The impeachment is where law, politics, public trust collide. And the real question is, which one leads?
01:13Joining us today is partner of Saligal Law and senior lecturer of the UP College of Law, Attorney Armando Virgil
01:21Ligutan.
01:22Hi, Attorney Ligutan. Welcome to Beyond the Headlines.
01:29I'm also teaching here in Cebu City in two law schools.
01:34My home in Cebu City, University of San Jose Recoletus School of Law and also in UC Law, University of
01:44Cebu School of Law, DJ.
01:45Yes. So you're actually teaching in two of the three best law schools in Cebu City.
01:52Yes, I definitely agree with that, DJ.
01:55So now this one is the topic that we have today is really interesting to a lot of our viewers,
02:02especially with the session that also transpired last week during Vice President Sarah's impeachment proceeding in which there was actually
02:14a gap that was presented between the bank transactions and her declared wealth.
02:21So legally, what does this mean, attorney?
02:24It's important. It is significant.
02:29Remember, one of the charges against the Vice President is that she has accumulated what we call unexplained wealth.
02:41You know, there's a thin red line between unexplained wealth on one hand and on the other, what we call
02:50ill-gathered wealth.
02:51Now, how do you prove that?
02:53How do you prove that?
02:54It is for a good reason that the Constitution itself, DJ, requires that public officials like the Vice President should
03:05file annually under oath a document that is of currency nowadays.
03:12We call it the SAL-N, Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Worth.
03:17The reason is it is under oath exactly so that the public official will be forced to divulge to the
03:26public how much, for example, is her net worth, how much does she have in her accounts, in her bank
03:34account, for example.
03:35Because the premise, DJ, is no public official should enrich herself, while in public office.
03:45So if there is now a discrepancy as to what the public official has declared in her salary, and as
03:54to the actual movements, for example, of monies, of cash inside her bank accounts,
04:03then there arises, DJ, a presumption that the contents of the bank transactions, the contents of the bank accounts, they
04:13are what we call, what we call unexplained wealth.
04:17And the burden shifts towards the public official to prove that the wealth is not unexplained because she could explain
04:28the whereabouts, the wherewithal of these bank accounts.
04:33And it's only that, that's the presumption that it's not ill cut, that will arise.
04:38So I ask your question whether it is significant, it is.
04:42And I noticed a significant shift in the dynamics, DJ.
04:49For me, I have been attending the sessions, and I noticed a shift in how the public perceive the vice
05:02president
05:03from being, and this is consistent with the image he wants, that they want to portray, they belong to a
05:10simple family.
05:11But no, I think in one of the interviews I said,
05:15mga simpleng billionaryo pala, DJ.
05:21So, at least if we base it then, because there were mixed reactions on Ramil Madriaga's testimony,
05:29but on this particular account, on the discrepancy, you are seeing that probable cause can be established already.
05:39Conviction, even conviction, DJ.
05:41In fact, I was asked that many times.
05:43I said, it will be hard for the Committee on Justice and for the House Plenary not to vote for
05:49impeachment.
05:50I made the series of smoking guns presented.
05:55And if you may, DJ, you may ask, what are these smoking guns?
05:59We start with the COA ruling.
06:03Remember, the defense is that the ruling by COA saying that the vice president has to return,
06:10that 78 million pesos is not yet final.
06:13Now it's final.
06:14It's final.
06:15COA issued a decision affirming, sustaining the decision of ICFAO,
06:22saying that the vice president committed irregularities in the handling of confidential funds.
06:27So the vice president is now obligated to return, sustained by COA.
06:31Yeah, there is still a recourse to the Supreme Court, but it's not automatic.
06:37It is through Rule 64 and 65 of the rules of court.
06:42And I think lawyers would know that it's discretionary on the Supreme Court whether or not to accept a petition
06:50for certiorari.
06:51Now, the other is, you know, this is something that the public must understand.
06:56Last year, NBI, the forensics team of NBI conducted what we call a forensic examination of specimen signature now.
07:06Out of the 2,000, what we call documents, evidence in payment, NBI studied and examined 36 out of these
07:182,000.
07:18It's like a sampling, DJ, sampling of the documents, proving the documents, evidencing payment as submitted by the office of
07:30the vice president.
07:31And NBI ascertained, NBI found out that out of the 36 sample documents, only the same group of persons supplied
07:46the signatures and the details in these DEPs.
07:51So it's seven groupings out of 36.
07:56Could you just imagine what the point is?
07:59So it actually, I'm sorry.
08:00Yes, yes, DJ, continue, yes.
08:02Yeah, so what you're saying is, even if there were multiple signatures, but this were most likely done by just
08:10seven groups.
08:12Yes, one same group of same group of individuals, seven groupings of documents accomplished by one.
08:19Wow.
08:20Exactly.
08:21So how do you not explain that?
08:23One, they recourse to these fictitious names, that according to the Philippine Statistics Authority, these individuals do not exist.
08:34They were not born.
08:35They will not die exactly because they're fictitious.
08:38And here comes another barrage of documents saying that, in fact, in fact, aside from the use of fictitious names,
08:47they were accomplished by one, the same group of persons.
08:51Then also, the statements of Ramil Madriaga, you know, it's a strategy on the part of the vice president's team
09:01to focus on what we call insignificant details.
09:06Now, Ramil Madriaga testified that he was present, he is responsible in the disbursements of the now infamous 125 million
09:19pesos.
09:19He said he dispersed of the amount, not in 11 days, but in record 24 hours.
09:27And then, what was the response of the supporters of the vice president?
09:36They focused on the painting.
09:38You know, it can be explained.
09:39Give me two minutes.
09:41This is like a storm in a teacup, TJ.
09:44It's insignificant.
09:44Why?
09:45Because it is a fact that the same guy, Ramil Madriaga, donated a painting that looks like the one that
09:58he saw in that Zoom meeting with the vice president.
10:01So, you know, if you gave, for example, a painting to an individual and you saw a similar painting at
10:08the back of the same individual in a Zoom meeting where the details are not that conspicuous or not that
10:18conspicuous, so you would assume that this is the same painting that I gave the person.
10:23So, for me, it's insignificant, but that's the explanation.
10:25That's the explanation.
10:26So, Ramil Madriaga, here comes now what happened during the last hearing.
10:31We call this the smoking gun, the smoking gun of all smoking guns.
10:35We have AMLOC, the director of AMLOC, the executive director testifying that, in fact, within that time frame, billions of
10:45pesos were transacted using the bank accounts of the vice president.
10:50And there is a discrepancy on one hand between the bank transactions as flagged by AMLOC and, on the other
11:00hand, the declared assets and the cash deposits of the vice president.
11:06So, there arises, what we call the presumption of unexplained wealth, you know, and then they tried to explain it.
11:14So, they tried to explain it.
11:15From 2019 to 2024, the vice president under oath reported zero cash deposits, zero cash in her bank accounts.
11:28This is contrary to the practice, this is contrary to the practice she had before 2019.
11:33And, you know, the explanation, it's laughable.
11:38It's unbelievable.
11:40They're saying that the vice president decided to lump the cash deposits with other assets.
11:46Why would you do that?
11:48Why would you do that?
11:49You know, DJ, at a certain point, ako, sa ako kaabogado, no?
11:53Pero kung maabot namang gani, DJ, to the point that's, ang isa ka-depensa that I will tell the public,
12:00medyo katawa-tawa na.
12:02Kung katawa na, namurag magluha-duha siguro ko o gamit aning argument.
12:09But they did that, and they're doubling down.
12:11Why would you lump cash deposits with others when, in fact, before 2019, you did the proper thing and declared
12:20that under cash deposits?
12:22That's why, you know, the accountants, they're laughing.
12:24They are scratching their heads.
12:26They don't understand.
12:28They don't understand.
12:29So, me, as a lawyer, there must be a limit as to how you will defend your client.
12:35If it comes to a point that you know for a fact that the argument will not fly, it will
12:41make you look stupid, you should stop.
12:43You should stop.
12:44You should retain this certain level of self-respect, DJ.
12:49So, you've mentioned earlier, and at least from the flow of the discussion given, the signature which would also, which
12:57also compounded, you know, the allegation of Merguez Priatos and those who does not even, or those who do not
13:06even exist, no?
13:08So, if we are then to look at this, then you are, which you also stated earlier, it's very likely
13:16that this impeachment could result into a conviction, no?
13:20But how about, how can you also address questions coming from people that the impeachment is largely a political exercise
13:30rather than legal?
13:32And this is for the benefit also of our viewers who may want to be educated also in this area.
13:39So, it's political in the sense that the House of Representatives has the sole prerogative to initiate all cases of
13:48impeachment, and it is the Senate.
13:50Of the Philippines that will sit as the impeachment trial, and it is the Senate that has the sole prerogative
13:56to try all cases of impeachment, and to convict, for example, and remove from office the vice versa.
14:02It's political.
14:03Yes, correct.
14:04Now, I think that's a good point.
14:05And I think we saw a few days ago surveys after surveys saying that an overwhelming majority of the Filipinos
14:14want an impeachment trial.
14:16They want the impeachment, they want the impeachment to proceed.
14:20So, yes, the evidence is strong, and politically, there is an overwhelming support for the impeachment proceedings against the vice
14:30president.
14:30So, it's political in the sense that it is our politicians in the House of Representatives that will vote to
14:37impeach, and it is the same politicians, but now in the Senate that will try the vice president in an
14:44impeachment trial.
14:46So, based at least on certain forecasts, it looks like the impeachment, once it goes into plenary in the House
14:56for a vote, whether it can be sent to the Senate, it's likely for it to gather one-third of
15:04the required votes.
15:06But what's your forecast also once it reaches the Senate, and then the trial will proceed?
15:12Do you also think that by then, because the vice president promised, or not really promised, but the vice president
15:19made an indication that she would show up for the actual trial, do you think the situation can still turn
15:29to her favor?
15:31Definitely. It's like a ballgame. It's like a ballgame. It would go either way. It can go either way.
15:37But as part of the team advocating the impeachment of the vice president, we are confident with the pieces of
15:47evidence that we have.
15:49We are confident with that public perception will sway in our favor, because I do believe, I do believe, yes,
15:57we have a substantial portion of the population that already cast, so to speak, their preference towards the vice president.
16:05But I still believe, in the good judgment of the Filipinos, once they see the dying pieces of evidence against
16:12the vice president,
16:13this time in an impeachment trial, they will agree.
16:17They will agree that the vice president has no business to continue a minute longer in office.
16:27Because remember, I didn't remember, last year, there was a conviction of a school principal for pocketing 5,000 pesos.
16:38That school principal is ordered in prison for 11 years for pocketing 5,000 pesos.
16:46And here comes the vice president now.
16:48She is ordered by COA.
16:50The accumulated amount now is, she is ordered by COA to return 400 plus million, 400 million pesos in confidential
17:02fund.
17:02There is that order now.
17:05COA will only order a public official, like the vice president, to return the public money,
17:12if COA determines that there have been irregularities in the handling and in the disbursements of this public fund.
17:23Now, if we can send to jail a school principal for pocketing 5,000 pesos, why can't we remove the
17:31vice president?
17:32Is it because, see, she has a famous family name?
17:35So, what message are we delivering to our children, to the public, that having a famous family name will give
17:43you a free pass?
17:44I don't think so, DJ.
17:46The vice president and her team did not show up in the clarificatory hearings,
17:52and it looks like they will still not show up for the last one this coming Wednesday.
17:58At least from your opinion, attorney, was that a good risk that they took?
18:04I don't think so.
18:06From all sectors, from all observations that I've heard, it's not doing her any good.
18:15Her failure to confront.
18:17To show up, no?
18:18To show up.
18:19You know, there was this presidential book who said, showing up matters.
18:28Showing up is the first step towards leadership.
18:32So, if you don't show up, okay, in a constitutional process like the Constitution, you are, like, disrespecting the Constitution.
18:41You know, I was asked that.
18:43You know, for me, it's simple.
18:45What the vice president is telling the public is, she is above all this.
18:52Showing up in a constitutional process like the impeachment is showing respect to the very instrument that we call the
19:011987 Constitution.
19:03It's a disrespect, DJ.
19:07Given the weight, no, of what, especially of what transpired last week, you've mentioned this in passing, but you are,
19:17and if I remember it correctly, about 69% of Filipinos that were surveyed actually supported.
19:2388, 88%.
19:24Oh, 88%.
19:25Okay, okay, 88%.
19:27Actually agreed, no, for the perception to, for the impeachment to continue.
19:33You've mentioned this in passing earlier, but do you also think that with the evidences that were presented last week,
19:42the number would even increase by this week if a survey will be conducted?
19:47Yes, yes, yes, definitely, the number will still increase.
19:53Today, it's overwhelming, 88%, but I definitely, I definitely expect that the numbers will increase, DJ.
20:04And then, and this one, Pud, is, this is also, at least, because, okay, this question surfaced in the early
20:12part of the impeachment, but as you've mentioned, it's likely that the sentiment has already changed.
20:16But what are your thoughts also, whenever some people would still counter, in spite of the evidences that were presented
20:23last week, that the vice president is only one of the many, and why is she being singled out?
20:31No, she's not being singled out.
20:33It just so happened that she is the second highest official of the land.
20:37She is an impeachable official.
20:40You know, we have to, we have to address that.
20:42You know, we call that, what about this?
20:46And it's a fallacy, it's a logical fallacy.
20:49We cannot, we are not doomed to choose whom to prosecute, okay?
20:55It's, it's the fallacy, it's the either or fallacy.
20:59No, it's not, okay?
21:01We should run after all public officials who should be prosecuted for stealing public funds.
21:10That's why I read something on Facebook like a few months ago, and I agree with that, no?
21:15We should prosecute, we should file cases, we should impeach public officials whenever, wherever, whoever.
21:27It's, it's a misconception that because we are running after the vice president, we are not running after the other
21:35public officials.
21:37No, it's not.
21:38If you only observe, if you only read the news, we are also prosecuting.
21:42I mean, at least the agencies of government are actively prosecuting those involved in the flood control controversy, okay?
21:51So, it's that, it's, it's a misconception.
21:55In fact, it's, like, misleading the public to argue that we are only running after the vice presidents, okay?
22:02We have a limited number of public officials who may be impeached for the process of impeachment.
22:09And the vice president just so happened to be one of the, you know, officials.
22:15And, you know, there was an attempt, there was an attempt to impeach the president, but it failed.
22:20So, it's, it's a misconception.
22:21It's a misconception that we are singling out the vice president.
22:25But, for me, you know, the good thing about this process is we are showing the public, we are showing
22:33the world that we have this capacity to extract accountability, even from the second highest official of the land.
22:42So, you know, yes, we have these political differences.
22:45We have, we have differences in our political beliefs.
22:51But, it is the republic that benefits, ultimately, out of this process.
22:57Because, once and for all, we are telling the world, we are telling our children that we have this capacity.
23:05We have this capability to extract liability and accountability, even from the second highest official of the land, DJ.
23:14And, it's turning out, at least, no, from, from, from, from, from the observations that people were looking for the
23:20big fish.
23:21And, and by some twist of fate, it looks like the big fish is looking like the vice president.
23:30Yeah, and then, the other big fish, yes, no, there are cases filed against the other bigger fishes.
23:35But, remember, remember, remember, let's go back to the example, no, no matter how high your stature in government is,
23:44the law must apply with equal force to you.
23:48If we sent a school principal to jail for pocketing 5,000 pesos to jail for 11 years, why can't
23:56we remove a vice president who is ordered by COA to return millions, millions of pesos, DJ?
24:04By the way, before we close, because I'm supposed to be down to just two questions, but I just did
24:10not also want to end the session without asking.
24:13Because, some of our viewers may still be too young to remember the impeachment case that was also filed against
24:20Justice Corona, no?
24:23Justice Corona, yes, that's a good point. I can answer that.
24:26And, my question actually is, what, because, because at that time, he was convicted, no, at the Senate, no?
24:33And, and, and, and, and eventually, was there a criminal case that was filed after that?
24:39And if there was, what was the finding?
24:42Not that I know of, not that I know of.
24:45Okay.
24:45It was, but it was removed.
24:46But, in fact, I think there was an order.
24:48There was a resolution by the Supreme Court which exonerated the former Chief Justice Corona.
24:54But, I think that's a good point.
24:55Now, if we removed a former Chief Justice for her, for his failure, okay, to, to include in his salen,
25:06180 million pesos, that's one.
25:09Number two, if we removed former Chief Justice Sereno through co-waranto, not through impeachment, for her failure to file
25:20a salen while teaching at UP law, what makes this Vice President any different?
25:28What makes this Vice President any different?
25:31We removed two former Chief Justice for much less.
25:36What makes her an exemption?
25:38What makes her an exemption?
25:40Billions of pesos were constructed using her bank accounts.
25:43And, by all indications, at least as of today, these were not reflected, these were not reflected in her salen.
25:51That's an impeachable offense.
25:53Why?
25:54Because it's a culpable violation of the Constitution.
25:58Why?
25:58Because it is the Constitution itself, Section 17, Article 11, that requires public officials to submit annually, under oath, the
26:11document that we call salen.
26:13Ejen.
26:14So, now I'm down to, and thank you for indulging me with, with, with, with that particular question.
26:20So, I'm now down to my last attorney.
26:22So, years from now, because it looks like this one is the first time, no, that a Vice President would
26:30potentially be convicted and by the Senate and eventually gets impeached, no?
26:37When we look back in this particular time in history, 2026, how do you think this moment will be judged,
26:45no?
26:45Both by law and also by politics?
26:49Yeah.
26:50Years from now, when emotions, when public sentiments towards these personalities involved will die, definitely we will realize that exacting
27:05accountability from the second highest official of the land is the right thing to do.
27:13It will send a powerful signal that no matter how high your stature in government is, you are not above
27:22the law.
27:23If we are able to send to jail a principal for pocketing 5,000 pesos, we should be able to
27:32remove from office a Vice President, who is now ordered by the very agency of government, COA,
27:39to return 400 plus millions of Pesos, Equality before the law is what defines this country that we call the
27:51Republic of the Philippines.
27:53Thank you very much, Attorney, for joining us today and for making time to explain and to unpack these to
28:02our viewers so that everybody also gets an equal understanding of how the impeachment is moving forward.
28:09Thank you so much, DJ, till next time.
28:12Yeah, till next time, Attorney.
28:13So impeachment speaks the language of law, but it moves through the reality of politics.
28:20The Constitution provides the framework, but it is the people who decide how that framework is used.
28:26And long before the final decision, something else is already being shaped, and that is public trust.
28:33I'm DJ Moises, thank you for joining us this afternoon.
28:37This is Beyond the Headlines.
28:38Have a good week.
29:06Beyond the Headlines.
Comments