SARA DUTERTE CALLS DIOKNO SUBPOENA A "FISHING EXPEDITION" — SAYS IT PROVES THE CASE AGAINST HER IS EMPTY

If the evidence against Vice President Sara Duterte is already strong enough to justify an impeachment trial, why does the House still need to go looking for more?

That is the question Duterte put squarely on the table Friday, March 13, 2026, after Akbayan Rep. Chel Diokno's letter requesting additional subpoenas in her impeachment case was made public.

WHAT DIOKNO IS ASKING FOR

Diokno, the House Deputy Minority Leader, sent a letter to the House Committee on Justice on March 5 — released publicly on March 12 — requesting a subpoena duces tecum covering three sets of documents.

First: certified true copies of Duterte's Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth from 2007 to 2013 and 2016 to 2025, covering all her years in public office.

Second: an Anti-Money Laundering Council certification under oath on suspicious transactions linked to Duterte, born Sara Zimmerman Duterte, her husband Manases “Mans” Reyes Carpio, her close associate, and her father, former President Rodrigo Duterte.

Third: NBI records from the investigation into death threats Duterte allegedly made against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta Marcos, and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez.

Diokno also asked the committee to take custody of Ramil Madriaga — a self-described bagman for Duterte — as a material witness, citing concerns for his safety. Opposition lawmakers Leila de Lima, Percival Cendaña of Akbayan, and Kaka Bag-ao of Dinagat Islands backed the request.

DUTERTE FIRES BACK

Sara Duterte did not wait long to respond.

In her March 13 statement, she said flat out: "There is no sufficient evidence to warrant an impeachment case against me."

She argued that the very act of asking for subpoenas now — after the complaints have already been filed — reveals how thin the case actually is. "The Committee cannot conduct an investigation to search for evidence to support accusations already made in the impeachment complaints. Doing so would amount to a third 'fishing expedition' by the House of Representatives," she said.

She framed the current subpoena request as the third attempt to dig up dirt on her. The first, she said, was the 2024 budget hearings targeting the OVP and DepEd. The second was the House Committee on Good Government hearings — the ones where the "Mary Grace Piattos" alias surfaced. Now this.

On Madriaga, she was direct. She called him "an alleged kidnapper who fabricated an entire story," and said giving him special protective custody in the House was "a grave insult to the minor victim who was traumatized by his criminal acts." Her legal counsel Salvador Paolo Panelo Jr. added that no line of questioning from a "biased" House Justice Committee could overcome what he described as Madriaga's fabrications.

THE BACKGROUND: P612.5M AND FICTITIOUS NAMES

The impeachment complaints against Duterte center heavily on how P612.5 million in confidential funds were spent during 2022 and 2023 — P500 million from the Office of the Vice President and P112.5 million from the Department of Education, which she also headed at the time.

The core allegations: cash advances were given to unauthorized AFP officers, and liquidation documents were filled with fictitious names. Among the aliases that surfaced in testimony: "Mary Grace Piattos," "Nova," and "Oishi" — names that became shorthand for the scandal.

Duterte's defense, laid out in July 2025, was that the aliases were used to protect intelligence operatives. The impeachment charges, however, go beyond fund misuse. They include culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of public trust, and the alleged death threats against Marcos and his family.

HOW WE GOT HERE

The timeline is worth keeping straight.

The fourth impeachment complaint was endorsed by 215 House members on February 5, 2025. The Supreme Court struck it down in July 2025 for violating the one-year bar rule and due process — but the House, through the Office of the Solicitor General, appealed.

Civil society groups filed separate plunder and graft complaints at the Ombudsman in December 2025.

On February 18, 2026, the fourth complaint was formally filed again. Two weeks later, on March 4, the House Committee on Justice found two of the four complaints "sufficient in substance" — passing 54 to 1, with the lone dissent from Rep. Bong Suntay of Quezon City.

Duterte was given a Notice to Respond on March 6, with ten calendar days to reply. Diokno's subpoena letter followed the next day.

THE UNNAMED OFFICIALS

Duterte also took a swipe at what she called the real forces driving the impeachment — without naming anyone directly. She referenced an official reportedly struggling with substance abuse, a congressman widely regarded as the architect of flood control fund irregularities, and a legislator positioning herself for a presidential run.

She called the House's fixation on her impeachment "an insult" to OFWs, the poor, and families caught up in the ongoing Middle East crisis.

The subpoena hearing has not yet been scheduled.