Ex-IBP chief calls on Sara Duterte to face impeachment proceedings
MANILA, Philippines – Former Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) national president Atty. Domingo “Egon” Cayosa said on Sunday that Vice President Sara Duterte ought to appear at the impeachment hearings and give sworn testimony, similar to her alleged bagman, Ramil L. Madriaga.
Cayosa, a constitutional lawyer, noted that it is easier for the vice president to issue denials on social media since those statements are not made under oath.
“Maging patas sana kasi si Madriaga nanumpa siya eh. So tinaya niya talaga ‘yung katotohanan na alam niya laban doon sa maaari siyang kasuhan ng perjury. Under oath eh, so mataas ang uri ng kanyang statement,” Cayosa said in an interview with Super Radyo DZBB 594khz on Sunday.
READ: Majority of Filipinos back impeach trial vs Sara Duterte – survey
“Kasi madali lang magsabi ng kung ano-ano, hindi naman oath eh. So hindi patas sa ngayon. Mas maganda, kung talagang patas ang gusto na pagdinig, dumalo sila doon at manumpa din,” Cayosa said.
Cayosa also pointed out that it is Duterte’s lawyer— not the vice president herself—who has been addressing Madriaga’s allegations about the delivery of confidential funds from her offices.
READ: Sara Duterte skipping impeachment hearing, lawyer says
It is also her lawyers, he noted, who have been discrediting Madriaga and his testimony in media interviews, despite him having submitted sworn affidavits and testified under oath before the committee.
“‘Yung pinaparatangan kasi nung sa kabila—ang sumasagot ay mga abogado, mga sa media. Walang under oath,” Cayosa said.
“‘Yun ang kahalagahan sana, ‘yun bang pagsagot nang detalyado doon sa mga paratang at saka ‘yung pagdalo sa congressional hearing ay under oath din,” he added.
Cayosa said it is only fair if Duterte faces the allegations head-on by testifying her defenses and presenting counter evidence at the impeachment proceedings for her denial to have more weight like Madriaga’s.
Even if there are minor inconsistencies in Madriaga’s sworn statements, Cayosa stressed that the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus does not automatically apply.
This means, he said, that the portions of his testimony that are true and provable remain valid and cannot be entirely discarded.
“More importantly, kung ‘yung ibang pinagsasabi niya ay malinaw o totoo naman at mapatunayan naman, kung may pagkakamali, hindi naman ho mawi-wipeout lahat ng sinabi na actually tama naman,” Cayosa said.
Madriaga claimed Duterte ordered him to deliver the P125 million in confidential funds in December 2022 to three different locations in less than 24 hours.
He also alleged that he served as a financial dummy for the Duterte family, picking up millions of pesos in cash from various bank accounts set up in his name and delivering them to drop-off points that included Malacañang during Rodrigo Roa Duterte’s presidency.
The vice president, however, has been a no-show at the House impeachment hearings.
She even filed a petition before the Supreme Court (SC) challenging the jurisdiction of the Committee on Justice to conduct the impeachment proceedings.
Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of Cebudailynews. We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.
