- 1 day ago
Confused about the impeachment case against VP Sara Duterte?
Let’s break it down LIVE.
Atty. Amando Virgil D. Ligutan, Managing Partner of SALiGAL Law, joins Beyond the Headlines to explain the legal basis of the impeachment complaint, the process ahead, and what it means for accountability and governance in the Philippines.
Ask your questions in real time 👇
Let’s break it down LIVE.
Atty. Amando Virgil D. Ligutan, Managing Partner of SALiGAL Law, joins Beyond the Headlines to explain the legal basis of the impeachment complaint, the process ahead, and what it means for accountability and governance in the Philippines.
Ask your questions in real time 👇
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
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