Listen to the article
In a rare disclosure during an impeachment hearing, Representative Leila de Lima confirmed meeting with Ramil Madriaga, the alleged former bagman of Vice President Sara Duterte, but firmly denied providing him with any scripted testimony.
The meeting, which took place on December 8, 2025, has become the center of swirling controversy as the impeachment proceedings against Duterte intensify. Online claims suggesting de Lima orchestrated Madriaga’s testimony have gained significant traction, with one YouTube video amassing 88,000 views and thousands of interactions.
During her testimony before the House justice committee on April 14, de Lima clarified the circumstances of her meeting with Madriaga. She revealed that Madriaga had initiated contact through a handwritten letter dated November 17, 2025, which was delivered to her via his lawyer. In the letter, Madriaga sought assistance regarding what he described as his unjust detention.
“I did not add anything to this affidavit. I did not change anything in this affidavit. I did not dictate anything to Mr. Madriaga regarding this affidavit,” de Lima stated unequivocally during the hearing.
The timeline of events appears to support de Lima’s account. Madriaga executed his sworn affidavit on November 29, 2025, more than a week before his face-to-face meeting with de Lima. When they did meet at a Bureau of Jail Management and Penology facility, Madriaga’s legal counsel was present throughout the conversation.
According to de Lima, the purpose of her visit was to assess Madriaga’s credibility and clarify portions of the affidavit he had already completed. She described asking “probing and critical questions” rather than coaching or influencing his statements.
Madriaga himself has corroborated this sequence of events, confirming that he had furnished de Lima with his completed affidavit prior to their meeting, contradicting claims that she had provided him with a pre-written script.
The impeachment case against Vice President Duterte has gained significant momentum in recent weeks. On April 29, the House justice committee voted unanimously to find probable cause for impeachment, with 53 lawmakers supporting the motion across two separate complaints.
The allegations against Duterte include misappropriation of confidential funds, bribery of Department of Education officials, and unexplained wealth. These charges are supported by witness testimony and an Anti-Money Laundering Council report that identified billions in transactions allegedly inconsistent with Duterte’s declared assets.
Throughout the proceedings, Duterte and her legal representatives have been notably absent from the hearings, instead issuing general denials through public statements and press conferences outside Congress.
On May 4, the committee moved forward by approving its report containing the resolution that outlines the articles of impeachment. Fifty-five lawmakers voted in favor, with none opposing. The committee will now transmit the report to the House plenary for broader deliberation.
The impeachment process requires a one-third vote of all House members to formally impeach Duterte, which would then advance the case to the Senate for trial. Political analysts suggest a plenary vote could occur as early as May 11, potentially setting the stage for one of the most significant political trials in recent Philippine history.
As the case progresses, the controversy surrounding de Lima’s meeting with Madriaga highlights the intensely partisan nature of the proceedings, with both sides carefully scrutinizing every statement and interaction for potential advantage in the court of public opinion.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
8 Comments
As someone with an interest in Philippine politics, I’m following this case closely. The allegations of orchestrated testimony are serious, but de Lima’s rebuttal seems to contradict the online claims. I’ll be watching for any new developments that could shed more light on what really happened.
This is a great example of why we need robust fact-checking processes, especially for high-stakes political stories. The online narratives don’t always align with the actual events, so it’s important to dig deeper and get the full picture from credible sources.
Well said. Jumping to conclusions based on limited information or unverified claims can lead us astray. Maintaining a critical eye and waiting for the facts to emerge is the best approach here.
The impeachment proceedings against VP Duterte seem to be generating a lot of heated rhetoric and conflicting claims. Verifying the details around this specific allegation against Rep. de Lima will be crucial in understanding the bigger picture. I hope the investigation can uncover the truth, whatever that may be.
This is an interesting development in the ongoing political drama. I’d like to see the full details on this before drawing any conclusions about the allegations against VP Duterte. Fact-checking is crucial in these charged situations.
Agreed, it’s important to get the full picture from reliable sources before forming an opinion. Accusations and counter-accusations can get messy without proper investigation.
The meeting between Rep. de Lima and Madriaga seems to be a key part of this story. De Lima’s denial of scripting his testimony is notable, but we’d need to see the evidence on both sides to assess the truth. These high-profile political cases can get very complex.
Absolutely, the details around that meeting will be crucial in verifying the claims. It’s wise to withhold judgment until the facts are fully laid out.