Detainee-turned-witness Ramil Madriaga’s passing revelation about Pharmally Pharmaceuticals before the House Committee on Justice could have damning implications against impeachment respondent Vice President Sara Duterte.
According to Manila 3rd district Rep. Joel Chua, Duterte may have committed an election offense if allegations that her 2022 election campaign is partly financed by Chinese nationals linked to Pharmally are proven true.
Chua, a justice committee, says the claims potentially violate Section 81 of the Omnibus Election Code. The particular provision prohibits foreign nationals from contributing to a candidate’s campaign expenditures.
If confirmed, Chua said Duterte would have committed “culpable violation of the Constitution”, since she took an oath to uphold it and abide by the laws enforced by constituted authorities such as the Commission on Elections (Comelec). This would then constitute an impeachable offense.
Meanwhile, Section 96 of the law prohibits candidates and political parties from soliciting or accepting such contributions, whether directly or indirectly.
“Ang nakikita ko rito ay posibleng election offense, dahil may distribution na naganap. Kailangan nating alamin kung ang mga sangkot ay Chinese citizens. Kung sila ay foreign nationals at hindi Pilipino, malinaw na may paglabag sa election code,” Chua, also a lawyer, said.
(What I see here is a possible election offense, because a distribution took place. We need to determine whether those involved are Chinese citizens. If they are foreign nationals and not Filipinos, then it is clear that there has been a violation of the election code)
Madriaga, Duterte’s alleged bagman, claimed in his 24-page supplementary affidavit to receive millions of pesos from Pharmally financial officer Lin Weixiong and businessman Maestrado Lim–also known as Tony Yang–and his brother Michael Yang.
He said the money was supposedly for Duterte’s campaign activities.
Chua noted that Lim and Yang were also known associates of former president Rodrigo Duterte, with Yang having served as his economic adviser. They are also individuals linked to the illegal operations of Philippine Offshore Gaming Operators (POGO).
Madriaga said the funds were funneled to the Initiative for Social Justice, Innovation, and Progress Pilipinas (ISIP), a non-profit organization he formed. He said that the acronym actually means “Inday Sara is my President”.
The group was allegedly created to support the younger Duterte’s planned presidential bid in 2022.
Once ISIP was up and running, Madriaga said the former president directed him to collect financial donations from close allies and supporters. These allegedly included P175 million from Wei Xiong and another P100 million from Lim.
Madriaga claimed the money was used “to fund the campaign activities of ISIP across the country”, and covered the establishment of chapters, campaign merchandise, travel, accommodations, office rentals, and allowances for volunteers and organizers.
Were the donations declared?
Chua also pointed out that while receiving donations from foreign nationals is one issue, the declaration of such contributions in her statement of contributions and expenditures (SOCE) is an entirely separate concern.
“Ang tanong diyan—nasa SOCE ba iyan? Kung tumanggap ka ng ganoong kalaking halaga, dapat malinaw at tumpak ang deklarasyon. Duda ako kung may P175 million mula sa Pharmally na naka-entry sa kanyang SOCE. Iyan ang kailangang linawin,” he said.
(The question here is—was that declared in the SOCE? If you received such a large amount, the declaration should be clear and accurate. I doubt whether the P175 million from Pharmally was entered in his SOCE. That is what needs to be clarified.)
The Vice President has so far shunned the justice committee’s hearings, with her legal team instead choosing to challenge before the Supreme Court (SC) the panel’s jurisdiction to carry out such proceedings.
Committee Chairperson Batangas 2nd district Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” Luistro has repeatedly said that current hearings are for the determination of probable cause on the respondent’s impeachment complaints.
