Manila 6th District Rep. Benny Abante Jr. defended the decision to allow Ramil Madriaga—a witness, self-proclaimed aide and bagman of Vice President Sara Duterte—in the ongoing House impeachment proceedings against the latter, to testify despite calls for his disqualification due to pending cases.

Speaking before the House Justice Committee hearing, Abante insisted that Madriaga remains legally qualified as a witness under Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, which states that a witness is competent if he can perceive and communicate his perception to others.

“May mga humihiling na i-disqualify siya dahil sa mga kinakaharap na kaso. But under Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, a witness is qualified, if they can perceive and make known their perception to others,” Abante said.

Madriaga, identified by Abante as a former officer of the PSG (Presidential Security Group) and Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group (VPSPG) and a graduate of San Sebastian College of Law, has been presented as a resource person in the impeachment proceedings.

Abante described him as a “close ally” who allegedly played a role in forming the Inday Sara Is My President (ISIP) movement under the Vice President’s direction.

“He is not a stranger. He was a close ally and leader who formed the ISIP movement at the VP's direct instruction,” Abante said, adding that critics were inconsistent for invoking presumption of innocence for Vice President Duterte while attempting to disqualify Madriaga based on unproven accusations.

“It is ironic that critics demand the presumption of innocence for the Vice President. while simultaneously trying to disqualify a witness based on unproven charges. You cannot have it both ways. Kung presumed innocent si Vice President Sara, edi presumed innocent din si Ramil Madriaga,” he said.

“Hindi ba naniniwala tayo kung hindi pa po yan kinonvict ng korte? Yan po'y suspect. A suspect is presumed innocent until proven guilty,” Abante emphasized.

Abante further stressed that the objective of the hearings is fact-finding, not judgment. He argued that excluding witnesses over unresolved allegations would undermine the search for truth.

“Hindi santo si Madriaga. Hindi naman santo ang hinahanap natin kundi testigo. Dito, sa hearing na ito, we are looking for the truth. We are not looking for a saint,” he said, adding that whistleblowers and resource persons often have complicated backgrounds.

He also rejected claims that the House Justice Committee proceedings amount to a “fishing expedition,” clarifying that the hearings are part of Congress’ constitutional duty to determine whether there is sufficient basis to proceed with impeachment.

“A mini trial is a convenient destruction what we are doing is determining whether is there a sufficient basis to proceed nothing more, nothing less. Kung may usok tungkulin natin alaman, at kung walang tinatago, wala dapat ikatakot,” Abante said.

Abante also reiterated that accountability and transparency is not acts of persecution, saying that questioning public officials and witnesses is essential in a functioning democracy.

“Questions are not conviction, and accountability is not harassment,” he added.

Meanwhile, Abante said he holds no personal animosity toward Vice President Duterte, noting that the proceedings are not meant to judge her personally but to examine allegations brought before Congress.

“Wala akong galit sa ating Vice President," he said.

“Hindi tayo nandito para hatulan ang Bise Presidente.Nandito tayo para tingnan kung may sapat na usok para patunayang may sunog...This is a constitutional accountability mechanism in action," he added.

"Ito pong hearing na ito is a constitutional accountability mechanism in action. Accountability is not a fishing expedition," he further said.

The House Committee on Justice under the House Committee on Justice continued its impeachment hearings on Tuesday, April 14, 2026. The Vice President did not appear at the hearing and has instead filed a petition before the Supreme Court (SC) seeking to halt the proceedings.

Abante said the continued absence of the Vice President from the hearings only raises more public questions rather than resolving the allegations against her.