WHEN Manila Rep. Bienvenido “Benny” Abante urged both the House of Representatives and the Ombudsman to investigate the sworn allegations of Ramil Lagunoy Madriaga against Vice President Sara Duterte, he did more than raise a political challenge; he underscored the fragility of public trust in our democratic institutions.
After all, allegations that campaign funds may have come from the now-banned Philippine Offshore Gaming Operators or POGOs and drug dealers are not just attention-grabbing headlines; they strike at the heart of governance, national security, and the integrity of elections.
Madriaga’s affidavit, replete with detailed accounts of cash deliveries allegedly amounting to tens of millions of pesos, paints a disturbing picture.
Whether these claims are true or fabricated, their specific nature demands scrutiny.
Allegations of handoffs in public spaces, drop-offs at residences, and links to individuals connected with the Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group cannot simply be ignored.
In a country where corruption scandals have too often been buried under partisan noise, Abante’s insistence on a thorough and transparent inquiry is a welcome reminder that accountability must not be selective.
The stakes are high.
If campaign contributions were indeed sourced from POGOs, whose operations are closely tied to China or from drug lords, the implications go beyond campaign finance violations.
They touch on national sovereignty, law enforcement credibility, and the resilience of our institutions against foreign and criminal influence.
Conversely, if these allegations prove baseless, then a credible investigation will serve to clear the names of those accused and reinforce the principle that truth can withstand close scrutiny.
Abante is correct to highlight the dual role of Congress and the Ombudsman.
Legislative hearings can expose systemic weaknesses in campaign finance laws, anti-money laundering safeguards, and security protocols.
The Ombudsman, on the other hand, has the mandate to pursue fact-finding and potential accountability for misuse of public office.
Together, these processes can either confirm wrongdoing or dispel suspicion, but only if conducted openly, with documents, timelines, and testimonies laid bare for public examination.
Ultimately, this is not just about one affidavit or one politician.
It is about whether Filipinos can trust that elections are funded by lawful means and that leaders are insulated from criminal or foreign influence.
Abante’s call should not be dismissed as mere political theater.
It is a test of our institutions’ capacity to investigate without fear or favor.
And in a democracy, that test must always be passed in the light of day, and truth must be established in the open.
Allegations of this magnitude demand nothing less.
